Flounce thread II
Cont'd from here
No, Fidel was suspended because he attacked and insulted the person who, quite rightly, pointed out that Fidel's go-to boilerplate language was rooted in colonialist and racist thinking.
This allegation is so absurd that no one has ever admitted authoring such a ridiculous complaint against me. It reminds me of that Two Faces of Norm episode of Cheers when Norm pretends to be the voice of Anton Kreitzer, the fictitious dictatorial boss whom no one questions and everyone fears. Trust and obey, it's the only way.
False accusations were common, and those denounced usually had no idea who had pointed the finger at them.
babble is not the Spanish inquisition, but it sometimes feels like it is.
What exactly is it about my criticism of the USA's corporate colonization of Canada since 1985 and the free trade deals that is rooted in "colonialist and racist thinking"? The inquisitors never say. Inquisitors are not compelled to justify anything. We have no idea which colonialist racists are responsible for making synonymous with racist thinking the tripartite axis of evil terms, 'Northern Puerto Rico', which by itself is merely a region of Puerto Rico and not typically associated with being "rooted in colonialist or racist thinking."
What am I thinking at this very moment? My accusers can't say for sure. But they can ad lib by imagining a context and wait for me to say something they imagine to be rooted in racist and colonialist thinking and fit the offense to an imagined context that is "rooted in colonialist and racist thinking."
And so what about equating criticism of another country exploited by American power, and namely Israel, with that of "racist thinking"? What do Catchfire and Rebecca have to say about another controversial reference to a country wrt 'Israeli apartheid'?:
The attempt to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is a pathetic attempt to reinforce the injustice of Israeli policy by attacking it foes.
While everything else you said was spot on, united, sadly, I don't think this attempt is "pathetic" at all. It's very, very dangerous--more dangerous for Jewish people and Israelis everywhere the more people believe it is true.
and in another thread, Rebecca rightly tells a poster that his "screed" is not welcome on babble:
I read the screed you referred to. It's your basic "Criticism of Israel equates antiSemitism.". Doesn't wash here, so ...
It is perfectly alright to criticize Israel in this case as it is not rooted in colonialist and racist thinking. Not according to both Catchfire and Rebecca as well as most babblers. This makes sense.
But it is, however, blatant hypocrisy to suggest that I am dabbling in "colonialist and racist thinking" when referring to US policies in Puerto Rico and Canada. South Africa's anti-apartheid heroes have said there are direct comparisons with Israel. Similarly Mel Hurtig says there are some comparisons to be made with corporate America's 14, 418 predatory takeovers of valuable Canadian corporations and crown assets since 1985. Hurtig says this amounts to U.S. corporate colonization of Canada, and that our economic sovereignty has been eroded. There is no recipe or formula for imperialism. We might not be targeting specific ethnic groups as per U.S.-backed Israeli apartheid. But our governments can surely be pursuaded to handover the goods to corporate colonizers. This is the actual context of my reference to an unincorporated, non-voting territory of the U.S. and certainly not rooted in racist thinking stated by either moderators or some unknown babbler who accuses me through their moderator proxy.
Just like none of our criticisms of the US-Israel dynamic are rooted in "colonialist and racist thinking", so are my criticisms of the US-Puerto Rico and even the US-Canada dynamic since CUSFTA-NAFTA not rooted in "colonialist and racist thinking." This is absurd, and babblers should rightly expect more of moderators.