The old is new again: "Ze Jews" thread followup

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GeoffP, Sep 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Impotence

    Devolution is the result of your own presumption.

    So remind me.

    Geoff, it's not a matter of convincing me of your honesty. Consider our discussion of Communism and revolutions. You didn't come out with your wild-eyed ranting. You put certain points in front of me, and while I think they're common misconceptions, there's no point in stressing over a civil inquiry.

    One might, then, say, that it's not a matter of convincing but showing. But you don't have to put on a big show of being honest. Just conduct yourself honestly.

    You know, Geoff, that's something I hear a lot from people like you. You complain, you whine, you blither and bawl, but the one thing you can't do is actually make the case.

    You want to disagree with me? Fine. You want to be priggish about it? That's your choice. Don't complain when people accommodate you.

    Of course you are. That's all you want to see.

    So you still don't understand the idea of anti-identification?

    I'll be sure to add that to the church, cult, and whatever other factions people have ascribed to me.

    Think of it this way: You perceive two people behaving badly. Why are you any more upset at one than the other?

    This is an issue that goes beyond you and me specifically, Geoff. It's a long problem at Sciforums.

    While you're busy rolling your eyes and puffing your chest about how reasonable you are, you might wish to consider that S.A.M. isn't the only person people accuse of dodging issues. You've been accused of it before. I've been accused of it before. It's a fairly common accusation around here, actually.

    Now, imagine for a moment that S.A.M. makes a point. You interpret that point in a certain way, for whatever reasons. And you make a response based on that interpretation. Now, imagine that the problem is that you have interpreted the point wrongly. Take, for instance, Meursalt, in "My turn for genocide". He's really hung up on the title. After all, it's absolutely impossible that it is a comment on the nature of peoples and genocide—e.g., "Genocide is horrible ... so don't watch because it's our turn". Think about it. And let's go ahead and start with Germany, using WWII and the UN as a chapter mark in history (UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, adopted 1951). I'm having a hard time counting the number of attempted genocides or ethnic cleansings we've seen since. So, yeah. While the world denounces genocide, plenty of nations have planned and attempted it, as if they're lining up for a chance: "My turn for genocide!" Of course, to Meursalt, this is simply impossible. The thread title must necessarily mean S.A.M. wants to exterminate an entire people somewhere in the world. Do you see? The response is based on an incorrect interpretation.

    So just think about it for a minute, sir. So S.A.M. "does avoid and dodge the issue in ways that can be frustrating". Whose issue is she dodging? The one she is talking about, or the one you are talking about?

    Now, I won't go so far as to say this is what happens every time. But do you think it's possible, sir, that it happens at all? Or is S.A.M. the focus of a bizarre phenomenon in the Universe in which such a common human process is impossible?

    Furthermore, the issues with S.A.M. have been personal for so long that some people actually go out of their way to find a reason to pick a fight. Is it impossible, then, that you may have registered these occasions in your mind as S.A.M.'s dodging and avoiding and squirming?

    She's not perfect, but she is held to a different standard of accountability.

    Right there is a difference in currency: You're dealing with specifics, she's working with themes. Now, maybe it's that I've spent my life fascinated with art, psychology, and human interaction more than, say, building cars, programming computers, or spraying myself down with synthetic piss to go crawl around in the woods looking for something to shoot, but I think the fact that she is working with themes is screamingly clear.

    Compared to the whore you envision, it's a lot closer to reality.

    Yeah, I would call you an expert as such. Lots of hands-on experience.

    I would dispute your assertion of her central thesis.

    Consider, as a surrogate issue, gays. They're out to steal your children. They're out to wreck your marriage. They're out to ... I don't know, go down the list. It's not that gays are perfect by any means. They're human. But the homophobe propaganda isn't anywhere near reality. Problems in the gay community? Racism. Domestic abuse. A community division that demeans closeted gays; passing is an extremely controversial issue among American homosexuals, even today. There are plenty of problems in the gay community. Does that mean gays are child molesters? No. Does that mean gays are evil? No. What is striking is how many of the problems in the gay community are, in fact, human problems.

    You see her resistance to attacks against Islam as "her religion can do no wrong". I see them as rebuffing bullshit. I'm critical of Islam, but like my criticisms of S.A.M., a lot of people don't notice because they're not brutal and angry enough. They're not spectacular enough. They don't fuel the self-righteous and hypocritical condemnation that so many people sling about. So people really don't notice. I'm known to resist attacks against obvious problems with Islam because sometimes the difference between the propriety of one criticism and the hatred of another is the difference between stating the problem in terms of, respectively, challenges and solutions, or supremacism.

    S.A.M. and I disagree sometimes, but we don't fight loudly about it, so people don't really notice. The thing is that when we disagree, neither of us are playing to the scoreboard. Often, it is a matter of terminology, and sometimes it's a simple lack of information. I don't expect she and I will see eye to eye on everything, but for someone as evil and dishonest and alien as S.A.M. is supposed to be, I find her considerably more reasonable, genuine, and communicative than many.

    You have religion? I don't say that sarcastically. I'm just trying to think of the last time it came up and I was around.

    At any rate, one of the things that has been long apparent at Sciforums—all the way back to Exosci—is that most of us are not as well-prepared to criticize Islam as we are Christianity. Most of us are immersed in Judeo-Christian or post-Christian cultural influences. It is easy enough to become familiar with the themes and even some of the details of the Bible without ever reading it if we are born into and grow up within such a culture. Islam, however? Think of it this way: I'm an American; we have anywhere between two and five Christian holidays that come to mind, depending on how you count them. Christmas and Easter are the big ones. Pentecost is a bit sketchier a claim, as the general culture doesn't go out of its way to make a point of it, but there are Pentecost cards and Pentecost dresses that you don't need to go to Christian stores to get. And then there are Hallowe'en and Thanksgiving. I'm hard pressed to think of a national Muslim holiday in the United States, and, actually, for good reason.

    Whatever you say, Geoff.

    I find it interesting how many people go to the effort of disclaiming themselves specifically while avoiding general issues.

    Well, you know, I'm kind of used to that idea, too. A bunch of racists say a bunch of racist shit, the objects of their scorn respond, and the racists get all angry, spew a bunch more vile shit, and call it tit for tat with regard to indictments of their racism.

    Oh, heavens. If you can remember it, drag that one up. Good times, good times, good times.

    Let's imagine you walk into the local pub. And you see your friend in a fistfight. Now, you know your friend, right? There's no way he could have started it. And, for some people, even if he did, they'd still back him for friendship. So you help him pummel his assailant, after which you are arrested, and sit, amazed, in court, as you watch your friend on the security tape inexplicably get up, walk over, and pop the guy in the jaw.

    In film and literature, it's called in media res, which translates to "into the midst of things" (Merriam-Webster says it's a literal translation, but I don't think that's quite it). We're very familiar with it. It's a staple of drama: Start at an exciting point in the middle, define how the conflict arose, and then resolve the conflict. A very basic plot structure.

    I've encountered this many times at Sciforums, where people walk into a dispute in media res, pick a side based on something like political affiliation, and go from there. And very often, they make the mistake of backing the incorrect position. And here I don't mean incorrect in an absolute sense, but, if you walk in, see the fight, presume what's happening, and go from there, you might actually be making a big mistake. You might hit the wrong guy.

    I would ask you to consider that in terms of some of her critics. Is it impossible that some might show up here, see a fight over some accusation against Islam or America or Israel, or whatever, and side against S.A.M. simply on that basis, disregarding what might have come before their arrival?

    They might end up backing a racist. Or a religious supremacist. Or a half-wit jingo. But it's S.A.M.'s fault because she's on the other side of the issue.

    Again, just so we don't have to circle 'round on that point, I wouldn't say this is a uniform occurrence by any means. But is it absolutely impossible that this contributes to the noise and bluster from her critics?

    No, not shocked, Geoff. You really need to stop patting yourself on the back so much.

    I figure I must be reading it wrongly because the point doesn't make sense:

    Tiassa: Geoff, it's not about the gotcha. Now, perhaps that's how you view the world, but the more important point her is that when you let your emotions guide you in such controversies, you sometimes miss subtle but important details.

    GeoffP: Actually, it would be harder to be dispassionate about it. If any emotion is generated, it's pity or humour. Occasionally, respect, if I can call such a sensation an emotion. Do be shocked.

    I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be shocked about. It's that first sentence—"Actually, it would be harder to be dispassionate about it"—that makes no sense. The rest seems to flow from there. Pity? Respect? Are you so busy with your judgment, then, that you're missing the subtle details?

    I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is, "Of course it's harder to be dispassionate, damn it! What the hell are you talking about?"

    So, yeah. I chose to forego a response because it really didn't make sense.

    I had figured you were actually trying to make a point. Turns out you were just trying to strut like a barnyard cock.

    Okay, my bad. I see clearly how the question brought that answer. Let me rephrase, then.

    You accused me of dropping a discussion quietly by the wayside. I have reviewed that thread for you. First question: Do you dispute that review, which was provided over the course of two points?

    If yes, then how?

    If no, then whence comes this notion of dropping it quietly by the wayside?

    Genuine address would be nice, Geoff, instead of telling me what my argument is. For instance:

    Yes, just like that Nazi slip in the topic post of this thread.

    Fair treatment, indeed, Geoff.

    You want to argue? Fine, argue. But don't lie to me like that.

    Right now you're banging the needle.

    See? This is another occasion supporting the notion that your dishonesty is not a presumption, but rather a conclusion.

    If your criticism was justified, you wouldn't have to tell people what their arguments are.

    You know, fallacies?

    Most people say straw man. I prefer the term tilting windmills.

    When you misrepresent an argument in order to foster a half-witted zinger, you're simply not being honest. Again, Geoff, see that little Judenraus bit of yours in the topic post.

    Depends on how you divide events, Geoff. Are you in a back-alley fistfight, or caught up in the middle of a riot?

    In the terms of our discussion, the point you're avoiding is that, while Israel has genuine concerns, they do seem to go out of their way to complicate things.

    I'm an American, Geoff. I realize that our Manifest Destiny is a complex and often subtle issue, but it doesn't change the fact that it was theft that included biological warfare and attempted genocide.

    Likewise, sir, I recognize that the Palestinian dislocation is complex, indeed. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a forced relocation—e.g., theft. It is one of the great ironies of the UN, although you don't hear about it much from those who criticize the organization. Really, they touched of a war with mythical potential, that has carried on for sixty years, and, given people's fears about terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons, very well could bring us to apocalypse. I must admit, that's pretty impressive for a peacekeeping assembly.

    A lot changed in the twentieth century, Geoff. The period from Muhammad to the fall of the Ottoman Empire include many chapter divisions, but none of those chapters resemble what we've seen in the most recent periods.

    Again, sir, I'm an American, and one thing I can be sure of is that we ain't giving this land back to the tribes anytime soon. So where do we draw the line on that?

    What an interesting transformation of that line of the discussion.

    You denigrated everyone who has ever struggled with gender identity, and all in pursuit of a cheap zinger. You got called out on your gutter bigotry, and then threw a monstrous hissy-cow because you weren't allowed to argue in bad faith.

    I don't doubt it, Geoff. You're only reinforcing that there's no honesty to doubt.

    Maybe someday you can rouse yourself enough to give a fair answer.

    Yes, your priorities are fairly clear.

    I can't say I'm specifically disappointed. There's a general letdown because we had such a nice conversation about Communism and such, but there's nothing in this freaking rant thread of yours that history wouldn't suggest we should expect.

    Try explaining your context instead of beating your chest.

    And sorry to hear about yours.
    ______________________

    Notes:

    "in medias res." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. September 6, 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in medias res
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    Since when, Gustav, did the stupid presume to be in control of opinion?

    And how could you claim such an intimate knowledge of the word Jew, Size 7, bold and all that, without being personally acquainted?
    Do you feel an affinity?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Isn't Juew a name? Is there any pejorative meaning of the word?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I guess Tiassa this is an example of 'performance art' right? She is taking the advice from her friend who told her that the word 'jew' was wrong (pejorative) and so she is going to scramble it not to insult mind you because she would never do that. She's a 'good person'. Nice:bravo:

    What was the point of all of this again? Do you know Tiassa? To prove that people are being negative towards muslims? Is that what this proves?

    I'm disgusted. She has become disgusting. The tolerance towards this is shameful, yes just as shameful as tolerance towards those who shower the forums with anti-muslim sentiments.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2009
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The rush to judgment

    #2360392/14 (Gustav responds to Lucysnow)
     
  9. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    Ah. And here is another who appears to have gazed upon the word with exactly the same... clarity.

    SAM. Gustav, and Tiassa.

    All appear to make the same fundamental mistake... that upon being ordered to analyse their own perceptions of the word, do not like what they see reflected in themselves. And after having done so, assume everyone else carries the same affliction.

    All I see is a jumble of letters.
    Size 7. Bold.

    Perhaps Gustav is trying to ensure that we all see what he does.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Smiling politely

    Some of us pay attention to history, Meursalt.
     
  11. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    History is only what those who write it say it is.

    Gustav was trying to make us "all" see when we look at the word JEW.

    Performance art.
    Ever seen those pictures they publish on the net, "if you gaze long enough....."

    This was someone trying to influence what I saw in those pictures before I saw it.
    Capische?
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The important questions?

    Indeed, history is a lie agreed upon. So says Napoleon.

    Allegedly.

    So we can conclude, then, that the Jews have never suffered bigotry? That there was no Holocaust? That the word "Jew" was never used in a derogatory context synonymous with "cheat"? I mean, if history is only what those who write it say it is ....

    Do you even know what you're talking about at this point?
     
  13. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    Here is another one:

    Afghan

    And Another:


    Muslim

    Perhaps I should use capitals?
     
  14. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    395
    And who are you to pick the alleged from the actual?
    Not that I'm being personal. Who is anyone else?
    I read too.

    Of course I do. I'm probably more aware while completely pissed than most of you ever will be sober. *chuckle*

    Now here is the measure:
    To what extent has the condemnation, or the defense, of the JEW contributed to his condition?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2009
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer

    I'll take that as a, "No".
     
  16. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Mod Note: It's been lively. But it's getting too heated to be productive. Closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page