babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Happy Nakba Day
But don't say that anywhere in Israel or a police officer of IDF personnel will clean your clock. Nothing dirty about that.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-05/15/c_131589919.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/thank-you-russian-i...
So what does anyone think of the fact that Canada has allowed a diplomat who is a suspected war criminal to enter the country?
Personally I don't give a flying fuck about his personal hygiene I think he should be banned for being a murderer of innocent people.
This Is Why Zionism Has Become A Dirty Word
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/photo-essay-new-york-jews-te...
It's been established in this thread and elsewhere that many babblers don't consider it offensive. What's offensive is the implication that Col. Attias doesn't belong on the IDF Cast Lead Dirty 200 list — that he is in fact a clean Zionist.
Babble has always been at best ambivalent towards anti-Zionism. Now it seems it just takes two or three self-appointed language police to get the moderators to censor condemnations of Zionism. And who benefits, objectively, from such censorship? We all know.
As far as I am concerned condemn Zionism all you wish. All I'm opposing is the coupling of the words dirty and zionist.
You're fetishizing and decontextualizing words as an excuse to blunt anti-Zionist discourse.
I think that the people that come on this board only to complain about things like using dirty in front of zionist have an agenda that has little to do with any progressive vision of the ongoing tragedy that is the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Caissa you post here a lot so I can accept your voice even if I think your wrong on this one. The adjective dirty gets applied to everyone we don't like.
"Hey, baby, if you're feelin' down
I know what's good for you all day
Are you worried what your friends see
Will it ruin your reputation lovin' me "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUDMy-GplkQ
Dirty White Trash (with Gulls), 1998
Noble and Webster
Sorry Allah I see you actually joined in 2011. Tell me since this is all about respecting others, why do you use the Arabic word for god as your posting handle? Seems a bit strange for someone who makes your kind of leaps to antisemitism.
nobody on this thread or the other thread on which the "Dirty Zionist" usage was questioned was making THAT implication at all. Attias clearly belongs on that list. You don't have to accept the use of the term "Dirty Zionist" to accept the guilt of those on that list OR Attias' place on it. Nor do you even have to be an apologist for Zionism.
You are reading something into peoples' responses that isn't there at all.
You can assume that nobody here is defending either Zionism OR Canada's admission of Col. Attias. Objecting to the phrase "dirty Zionist" doesn't make you a Likudnik.
I notice that those who rush to protect dirty war criminals from their adjectives only do so when they are of the Zionist persuasion;
http://rabble.ca/comment/1346041
Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,a liberal,a fanatical,criminal
Those protesters are brave people...they are risking ostracism from, possibly, everybody else they know.
In their honor, I'd like to put this picture from the event directly into this thread:
and I honour them with you Ken.
I would never presume to know the minds of other posters which is why I am open to the idea that some on this board are defending the state of Israel from justified criticism. Your post screams don't talk about the issue because we all agree. That is also a silencing technique especially when it is far from clear that we all agree.
It is similar to trying to destroy arguments by putting words in your opponent's mouths. For instance you have raised the term Likudnik and no one you are talking to has hurled that insult. So the talk goes from the issue at hand i.e. letting suspected war criminals into Canada especially as diplomats to a stupid side track of we aren't all right wing assholes. Allah (nice respectful name for an Israeli supporter) like you not only disagreed with the adjective chosen but also tried to put antisemitic words in NDPP's mouth. One of the preferred tactics of some people is too obfuscate the real issue. This thread has had little discussion of Canada allowing this outrageous appointment because the title has become the topic of discussion not Israeli war crimes.
You can presume all you want I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject of peoples intents.
Believe it or not I agree with you more than you think. I believe the creation of the state of Israel was wrong and a tragedy for the Palestinian people. Just because I dislike NDPP and Martin's smug attitudes and their trolling in this thread and felt like commenting on it doesn't mean you know anything about me or my political views.
Zionism is not exclusively related with Judaism...Far from it.
I think those who believe the adding of the word 'Dirty' to the word 'Zionist' is somehow 'anti-semtitic' are just trying to put words in other people's mouths and babble has a nasty habit of smearing those with libelous labels when they disagree with a comment.
The PC train has left the rails.
why not just end this thread drift by admitting that adding the adjective dirty doesn't add anything useful to the conversation except to remind people of the history of using that adjective to describe people. It's not necessary and a total distraction from the real issues - land theft, unlawful imprisonment, murder.
I never said I knew anything about you or your political views. i guess you can't help trying to put words in other peoples mouths. I know it seems like an easy way to win a debate but it doesn't work.
Thank you for proving my point.
You made a point ? What was it exactly ?
You tried to finish my statement..You're confrontational...Conversation is over.
OK it's over. Sorry if you felt I was rude, I really didn't understand your point. My point was not to say the phrase was offensive to me personally but that it added nothing except to antagonize Babble allies.
Obviously there was some miscommunication..We seem to be on the same page,afterall...Peace and love.
I find your posts in this thread add nothing to the conversation and antagonize me and perhaps others.
So using the same criterion, should I be able to demand that a moderator delete your posts?
I didn't think so.
I'm sorry, but I can't get past the hypocrisy of saying Attias belongs on the IDF Cast Lead Dirty 200 list, and at the same time being offended by the use of the adjective "dirty".
I'm sure you wouldn't object, for example, to calling a Zionist a "scumbag". Would you?
Well, if you want to be effective on this issue, you NEED to get past it, because fighting for the right to use the term "Dirty Zionist" isn't worth your time OR the time of any other anti-Zionist.
The problem with that phrase is that it, even if that isn't the intent of the person using it, "Dirty Zionist" sounds way too much like "Dirty Jew". I really didn't want to say that directly in the thread, but that's what this is about.
And believing the two phrases sound alike that does NOT equate to believing that the terms "Zionist" and "Jewish" are interchangeable. It simply means calling on anti-Zionists not to sabotage themselves by using phraseology that their opponents can turn into a weapon against them.
Insisting on using the phrase "Dirty Zionist" gives Israel apologists an easy, way to discredit anti-Zionists.
It gives Jewish people who are moving towards an anti-Zionist position good cause to wonder if they should go there...if they shuold trust gentile anti-Zionists at all(and this is a crucial point,since getting Jewish people to embrace anti-Zionism means convincing them that they can, for once, trust gentiles, even progressive gentiles, to protect them in the crunch(as we didn't in the 1930's).
And it's not even as if the phrase itself carries any special rhetorical power. Fighting for the right to say "dirty Zionist" is not revolutionary...it's really, at the root, a defense of revolutionary indiscipline and indulgence.
And as to your question, I wouldn't object to calling an scumbag a scumbag. It's just that the use of "dirty" in this context that I and the other progressives have objected to. Nothing we've said is any threat to the growth of anti-Zionism.
I find this conversation increasingly unproductive (and I find gratuitous nested quotations oppressive). As far as I can tell, we've come to a consensus regarding practice, if not rationale. For those who wish to further beat this dead horse, or persist in their stubbornness to listen and respect the opinions and lived experiences of others, there is another thread open for that express purpose. I urge those interested to continue there and leave this thread to discuss Eden Attias.
You can't have it both ways. We get complaints about phrases that rankle. We consider and respond. Would you rather we ignore context? Treat babble as some kind of tabula rasa that provides the freedom to crap upon each other?
You don't need to be Jewish, or Hebrew, to understand that "dirty Zionist" is equated with "dirty Jew".
How much does sensitivity cost? A pound of humility? An admission of bias?
There is no political loss if you choose to be sensitive to cultural and racial history. It appalls me that such a phrase should be used with no acknowledgement to context.