Bump, my patootie. Yiwah portayed those on the left who support the human rights of Palestinians as extremists who believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to control the planet, coyly framed as a question regarding "the form, not the content"of the discussion.
Fork that noise.
Thank you for that concise summary.
Just adding my appreciation.
This discussion of the possible implications of the form of the meta discussion surrounding Israeli Apartheid is totally pointless. I think that more profitable discussion would be had by concentrating on the actual reality of Israeli opression. For example, we might question its operation of the largest open air prison in the world in the Gaza Strip. Inmates at the prison have been summarily condemned, without rights, charge or any process whatsoever.
Among those prisoners are 800,000 minors. Anyone have any ideas about what can be done about that?
Here are some by Kenneth O'keefe.
Like I said, I'd actually prefer not to be talking about what I thought was a dead issue. I only stepped in because I felt a person who was no longer here (and I see now she has popped back in again) was being misunderstood and misrepresented.
Misrepresented, eh?
I ask this here, because the 'anti-Zionism' of leftists is relentless. Hysterical, almost. Then you have the rabid pro-Israel crowd who also won't budge. I can count on one hand the number of individuals I've ran into over the years who can discuss the issue from both sides.
Deeper into this issue is the perplexing way in which normally rational human beings have a tendency to believe in a world wide Zionist conspiracy, assigning to these Zionists nearly god-like powers of manipulation and influence. I've lost as many friends to belief in the ZOG as I have to evangelist Christian sects.
Which babblers and which threads have promoted or even raised the issue of "ZOG"? It seems the burden of proof is on you.
Personally, I find official racism and idelogies founded on ethnic exclusion to be extremist and lacking moderation. I find it difficult to relate to the perspective of the violent racist occupier in the same way I find it difficult to relate to a carjacker. So maybe the onus is on you to explain why I should "moderate" my attitude and open my mind to the violent racist occupier or the carjacker. In either case I would be interested in your logic.
I explained a number of times why I'm posting these questions on a leftist board. I ask people's opinions on whether or not the Israel/Palestine situation can be discussed from a moderate stance. I immediately define moderate as not either/or. You have (from what I understand of your posts, forgive me if my interpretation is incorrect) apparently stated your opinion that no, that isn't possible. Israel is always wrong and Palestine is always right. Is that a correct formulation of your position?
Because that is the attitude I'm referring to, one which I have encountered over and over again on the left. I am questioning it. Perhaps it isn't what it seems. Perhaps that's just how it looks. Perhaps that's exactly what it is.
You are not just asking questions. You are creating premises and making inferences also. You raised ZOG, But you won't admit wrongly. So you say, people are unreasonable, and then you are unreasonable. I guess you prove yourself correct. I did not say Israel is always wrong. I infered the occupation is always wrong. If you are suggesting you only view Israel in terms of the occupation, I can't help you with that, but that is not what I said. I also do not believe that supporting human rights is taking a sectarian side. Apparently, for you, I must take a side. Who is unreasonable?
So, you tell me, when is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands not wrong?
So my characterisation of your position is not correct. I'm glad you've clarified. There is a difference between saying everything Israel does is wrong, versus the occupations is always wrong. I support the latter position as well.
Is acknowledging that Israel is responsible for the occupation, something you do acknowledge and admit is wrong, the same as only seeing Israel in terms of the occupation? Again, who is rigid and unreasonable in this discussion?
If you acknowledge the occupation is wrong, then you must also acknowledge Israel is wrong in being the occupier. In your mind, that may make Israel an illegitimate state, but it doesn't in my mind. To me, it makes Israel a state engaged in human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. But it does not negate anything else about Israel (except perhaps its claims to being a democractic state that respects the rule of law and human rights). Why should it?
I don't think Yiwah was misrepresented at all. In fact, I would argue Yiwah is guilty of that which she accuses, in broad strokes, the entire left.I think she had her meta discussion and wasn't quite up to it.
For the record, I have been left all my adult life. I have been a trade unionist, and an activist, and in all that time I have never heard from the organized left claims of a ZOG or Jewish conspiracy. That pile of shit anti-semtisim has always been a staple of the right, the very people with whom Zionists find common cause.
@ Frustrated Mess
Do you really want to get into this again? I don't, because at this point I'm just being compelled to repeat stuff that I have said already.
Aside from the fact the she clarified her intent down the thread, I think you are picking apart her hyperbolae (you will note that she called Israel supporters "rabid") and ignoring her actual intent. Did she really spend the entire thread reiterating that statement about people's belief in a Zionist conspiracy?
I don't think there is a person here who hasn't made such statements to make a point. Most of the time I ignore them because I think it is a bit more productive to get at what the person's real concerns are.
Obviously I’ve taken some time away from this topic. I’ve refrained from posting at all on this forum until today. I’ve been reading, and combing through topics here, and I’ve decided that yes, there are some posters who tend to make quick accusations about people, and that this is an issue Babble has [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/dealing-poor-behaviour-babb... with[/url] for a while, but that I’m not going to let that stop me.
One thing I WOULD ask though, as I see has been asked before, is that people who have been here for a while try a little bit harder not to jump down the throat of new posters so quickly.
So I’ve considered how I began this topic. I can see how my use of hyperbole, as a relative unknown here, raised hackles. Also, my intention was to begin a conversation that could be created through input, because I genuinely want to know what other people’s experiences have been. Unfortunately this created a rather vague premise. I think I would have to get to know people here better before that could be successful, because I prefer online conversations that flow more naturally than they quite often do, and I think that is not as possible here as it is elsewhere. (The upside to that is there is a lot less spam in babble threads) I apologise if this offended anyone, that was not my intention.
My intention, again, was to talk about the way we talk about Israel and Palestine. Yes. This specific topic. Why? Because it is the most divisive topic I can think of, not just across the political spectrum, but within the left. How we approach this, arguably the most difficult of discussions, is of interest to me, because it says something about how we deal with conflict within and how we treat people who are ideologically aligned with us, yet with whom we may disagree.
So perhaps I needed to be more clear about what I personally think might be some of the problem when it comes to having this discussion. I didn’t state that outright, because I didn’t want to present a huge thesis as though I’ve got it all figured out. I don’t. I’m not entirely sure why this topic causes so many people to shut down. Again, on the left…I’m not talking about in general, because I’m not all that interested in it in the general broad political-spectrum sense. Some ideas about the why of it have come out, though have been mostly lost in the speculation about my intent.
However. I am not okay with the personal attacks. Some of you obviously feel that I ‘started it’ by engaging in hyperbole. Alright. Let me make it clear that I am not accusing the left of being anti-Semitic. If you wish to continue to believe otherwise, that is your choice, but I fully repudiate it as being an opinion I hold.
Some of you have had a problem with the terminology I’ve used, such as ‘extreme’. I have fleshed out my use of that term. If you continue to be unclear on how I am using it, please have the courtesy to ask for another clarification before you put words in my mouth again, especially when and if I tell you, "No, that is not what I mean".
I do believe it is possible to talk about how we approach this specific dialogue, without getting lost in the details of the issue itself. I would appreciate it if people who disagree with that premise, not use their disagreement as some sort of 'proof' with which to assume I am ‘x’ ‘y’ or ‘z’.
In short, this is not a debate about me. Perhaps this conversation cannot be had at all because it simply pisses too many people off. If so, I’m fine with that. It shouldn’t be that difficult to step back and say, ‘I don’t feel like having this discussion’ and leaving it at that, without continuing to make accusations against a poster you simply do not have enough experience with to accurately characterise. I await response, and am still willing to engage in this conversation, but am also quite willing to let it be.
Right. So how about that open air jail?
I do believe it is possible to talk about how we approach this specific dialogue, without getting lost in the details of the issue itself. I would appreciate it if people who disagree with that premise, not use their disagreement as some sort of 'proof' with which to assume I am ‘x’ ‘y’ or ‘z’.
No. In fact discussion about how we "approach this dialogue" are a total distraction from the details of what is going on. This is precisely the problem, because this "device" of abstracting the discussion into vague theoreticals about hidden agendas and intent is meant to impugn those who resist Israeli Apartheid, without ever examining the details.
The details indeed show the truth of what is going on, the rest is chaff thrown out to to prevent an honest appraisal of the truth.
Right. So how about that open air jail?
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is a monumental crime. I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.
I do believe it is possible to talk about how we approach this specific dialogue, without getting lost in the details of the issue itself. I would appreciate it if people who disagree with that premise, not use their disagreement as some sort of 'proof' with which to assume I am ‘x’ ‘y’ or ‘z’.
No. In fact discussion about how we "approach this dialogue" are a total distraction from the details of what is going on. This is precisely the problem, because this "device" of abstracting the discussion into vague theoreticals about hidden agendas and intent is meant to impugn those who resist Israeli Apartheid, without ever examining the details.
The details indeed show the truth of what is going on, the rest is chaff thrown out to to prevent an honest appraisal of the truth.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that having a disussion about how we approach this specific dialogue is simply a way to trick or smear "those who resist Israeli Apartheid"?
Is it also correct that you are assuming someone who wants to engage in that discussion therefore does not resist "Israeli Apartheid"? (I'm putting that in quotations because I want to be clear I'm using your terms)
I await your response.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that having a disussion about how we approach this specific dialogue is simply a way to trick or smear "those who resist Israeli Apartheid"?
Generally yes.
Do you mind also answering my second question? Thanks.
I do believe it is possible to talk about how we approach this specific dialogue, without getting lost in the details of the issue itself. I would appreciate it if people who disagree with that premise, not use their disagreement as some sort of 'proof' with which to assume I am ‘x’ ‘y’ or ‘z’.
No. In fact discussion about how we "approach this dialogue" are a total distraction from the details of what is going on. This is precisely the problem, because this "device" of abstracting the discussion into vague theoreticals about hidden agendas and intent is meant to impugn those who resist Israeli Apartheid, without ever examining the details.
The details indeed show the truth of what is going on, the rest is chaff thrown out to to prevent an honest appraisal of the truth.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that having a disussion about how we approach this specific dialogue is simply a way to trick or smear "those who resist Israeli Apartheid"?
Generally yes.
Sure. If you have a problem with calling Israel an Aparthied state you are buying into the first fiction of Israeli Apartheid. And indeed opposing the oppossition to Israeli Apartheid by contributing to that fiction.
The "detail" of the construction of Zionist ideology which you don't want to discuss, apparently, is a fundamental part of how Israel justifies its Apartheid policies.
Sure. If you have a problem with calling Israel an Aparthied state you are buying into the first fiction of Israeli Apartheid. And indeed opposing the oppossition to Israeli Apartheid by contributing to that fiction.
I'm going to assume that your response is your answer to this question:
Is it also correct that you are assuming someone who wants to engage in that discussion therefore does not resist "Israeli Apartheid"?
If that's not the case, please correct me.
I would also like to point out that you have made an assumption about me, and I would like to reiterate that this thread is not about me. I am not here to defend myself to you, I am here asking if you are willing to engage in a discussion. I think the clear answer is no, because you believe any such discussion is pretense, correct? Obviously I disagree, but I certainly can't force you to engage if that is indeed how you feel.
Let me ask you this. If we were to not use a specific example (Israel/Palestine), would you engage in a discussion about how topics in general are discussed on the left? I ask, because I want to see if such a meta-discussion is viable, or if not tying it to a specific example would make it impossible to actually get into.
Not going to answer the latest question, until you confront the issues expressed in my answers to the first and second question. Obviously I am engaging you, otherwise. You still seem unable or unwilling to confront the primary principle of the Israeli propaganda motif used vilifiy those who oppose Israeli Apartheid by calling Israel an Apartheid state.
The first fiction of Israeli Apartheid is that Israel represents Jews as an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel represents Zionists, Jewish and otherwise. Therefore there is nothing anstisemitic about attacking the racist principles of governance of the state of Israel.
You have expressed the opinion that we cannot have this discussion because it is a 'trap'. Why then would I attempt to engage someone who has stated that as his or her underlying assumption? You believe the conversation is not possible.
So what you appear to be proposing instead is a different conversation, one I might be willing to have in another thread, but not in this one.
So, in other words, you deem it impossible to discuss the details of the construction of Zionist ideology as part of a discussion about how to "approach this dialogue". You say you want "enagement" but refuse to examine the underlying assumptions that lead you to want to have this discussion in the first place.
The first fiction of Israeli Apartheid is that Israel represents Jews as an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel represents Zionists, Jewish and otherwise. Therefore there is nothing anstisemitic about attacking the racist principles of governance of the state of Israel.
Indeed being clear on this point is precisely the opposite of "getting lost in the details of the issue itself", but examining the root issue by being clear on the details.
So, in other words, you deem it impossible to discuss the details of the construction of Zionist ideology as part of a discussion about how to "approach this dialogue". You say you want "enagement" but refuse to examine the underlying assumptions that lead you to want to have this discussion in the first place.
The first fiction of Israeli Apartheid is that Israel represents Jews as an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel represents Zionists, Jewish and otherwise. Therefore there is nothing anstisemitic about attacking the racist principles of governance of the state of Israel.
Actually, I am unwilling to examine your underlying assumptions about why I wish to have this discussion in the first place. You see, if I engage you in this, I will be giving your assumptions about me consideration. I feel that is an unjust position to begin from. You have no basis on which to make the assumptions you have. I am not particularily interested in explaining to you why you are wrong, because your beliefs about me are not what this discussion was ever intended to be about.
I see no way around your assumptions. They are what prevent you from having this discussion, because they colour what you believe the discussion is about. The only way I could change your mind, would be to 'defend' myself which would in fact alter the nature of the discussion entirely.
@ Frustrated Mess
Do you really want to get into this again? I don't, because at this point I'm just being compelled to repeat stuff that I have said already.
Aside from the fact the she clarified her intent down the thread, I think you are picking apart her hyperbolae (you will note that she called Israel supporters "rabid") and ignoring her actual intent. Did she really spend the entire thread reiterating that statement about people's belief in a Zionist conspiracy?
I don't think there is a person here who hasn't made such statements to make a point. Most of the time I ignore them because I think it is a bit more productive to get at what the person's real concerns are.
Into it again? It never stopped. It is the same false narrative. I'm not sure the intent was ever clarified except in vague statements broad enough to be interpreted to mean almost anything.
Now you describe her opening comments as hyperbole. As does she. Fair enough.
The problem is this, we choose to frame discussions by establishing premises that may or may not have a factual basis. So if I ask, "in the absence of a love a nature, can conservatives be good stewards of the land?", I establish two premises: 1) Conservatives do not have a love of nature, and; 2) It is questionable that they can be good stewards of the land.
Neither of those premises are tested but they frame the debate. So Yiwah, in her OP, established some premises she could not support and are, in fact, unsupportable. But in doing so she attempted to frame a debate around a debate casting leftists as anti-semitic and hysterical. I could argue that the only sane approach to the occupation is opposition. With that in mind, I could argue it is perfectly reasonable for a sane person not to be able to appreciate and argue the side of insanity.
How do you like that? I just established a premise that the occupation is insane. Therefore those who support and defend the occupation are likely insane also. Let's argue that frame of reference. Are supporters of the occupation insane?
ETA: I even have an unstated premise in there. Can you see it?
@ Frustrated Mess
Do you really want to get into this again? I don't, because at this point I'm just being compelled to repeat stuff that I have said already.
Aside from the fact the she clarified her intent down the thread, I think you are picking apart her hyperbolae (you will note that she called Israel supporters "rabid") and ignoring her actual intent. Did she really spend the entire thread reiterating that statement about people's belief in a Zionist conspiracy?
I don't think there is a person here who hasn't made such statements to make a point. Most of the time I ignore them because I think it is a bit more productive to get at what the person's real concerns are.
Into it again? It never stopped. It is the same false narrative. I'm not sure the intent was ever clarified except in vague statements broad enough to be interpreted to mean almost anything.
Now you describe her opening comments as hyperbole. As does she. Fair enough.
The problem is this, we choose to frame discussions by establishing premises that may or may not have a factual basis. So if I ask, "in the absence of a love a nature, can conservatives be good stewards of the land?", I establish two premises: 1) Conservatives do not have a love of nature, and; 2) It is questionable that they can be good stewards of the land.
Neither of those premises are tested but they frame the debate. So Yiwah, in her OP, established some premises she could not support and are, in fact, unsupportable. But in doing so she attempted to frame a debate around a debate casting leftists as anti-semitic and hysterical. I could argue that the only sane approach to the occupation is opposition. With that in mind, I could argue it is perfectly reasonable for a sane person not to be able to appreciate and argue the side of insanity.
How do you like that? I just established a premise that the occupation is insane. Therefore those who support and defend the occupation are likely insane also. Let's argue that frame of reference. Are supporters of the occupation insane?
I think your comments are fair, in reference to how the debate was framed. Again, I apologise for the hyperbole. However, I do think I have clarified the intent of the thread a number of times. If, at this point, you believe that the opening statement has irreparably coloured any discussion that could possibly occur, rendering any such conversation pointless, then I accept that.
Again, I am perfectly willing to let the topic drop if there is no interest in it. Though I'll wait a bit before abandoning it.
So, in other words, you deem it impossible to discuss the details of the construction of Zionist ideology as part of a discussion about how to "approach this dialogue". You say you want "enagement" but refuse to examine the underlying assumptions that lead you to want to have this discussion in the first place.
The first fiction of Israeli Apartheid is that Israel represents Jews as an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel represents Zionists, Jewish and otherwise. Therefore there is nothing anstisemitic about attacking the racist principles of governance of the state of Israel.
Actually, I am unwilling to examine your underlying assumptions about why I wish to have this discussion in the first place. You see, if I engage you in this, I will be giving your assumptions about me consideration. I feel that is an unjust position to begin from. You have no basis on which to make the assumptions you have. I am not particularily interested in explaining to you why you are wrong, because your beliefs about me are not what this discussion was ever intended to be about.
I see no way around your assumptions. They are what prevent you from having this discussion, because they colour what you believe the discussion is about. The only way I could change your mind, would be to 'defend' myself which would in fact alter the nature of the discussion entirely.
So, you agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I mean, for example, we are clear that most Jews don't even live in Israel?
This thread has to be one of the the worst wastes of bandwidth I've seen in lo my many years on babble.
So, you agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I mean, for example, we are clear that most Jews don't even live in Israel?
You are continuing to attempt to engage me in a conversation I have stated quite clearly is not the subject of this thread. If you could phrase your question in a way that addresses the manner in which a conversation about terminology is approached in this context, we would be on track. I understand this is difficult to do. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion]Meta discussions[/url] are easily derailed because we generally want to talk about the topic itself, rather than engage in a discussion about the topic.
Wiki lays it out fairly well though:
The term meta-discussion means a discussion whose subject is a discussion. Meta-discussion explores such issues as the styel of a discussion, its participants, the setting in which the discussion occurs, and the relationship of the discussion to other discussions on the same or different topics.
This is why I asked if it would be more helpful for you to frame this topic in a way that does not refer to Israel/Palestine, but rather how we on the left deal with one another when we disagree.
However, Wiki also has this to say:
Meta-discussion may seem artificial and even a waste of time. Especially in debates and other adversarial discussions, some participants may believe that their opponents are trying to evade consideration of the issues at hand by recourse to meta-discussion. This often leads to comments like "stick to the subject" or "answer the question" which are themselves meta-discussion, though of a simple variety.
I think the meta-discussion is valuable, but it might bore others to tears. I chose what I thought was a very divisive, but also personally interesting topic, to give some direction to the meta-discussion. I think my choice instead completely muddied the waters.
Nonetheless, I hope this has provided you with some clarification.
This thread has to be one of the the worst wastes of bandwidth I've seen in lo my many years on babble.
I'm fairly certain it won't be a bandwidth drain if you don't click on it.
This thread has to be one of the the worst wastes of bandwidth I've seen in lo my many years on babble.
So, you agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I mean, for example, we are clear that most Jews don't even live in Israel?
You are continuing to attempt to engage me in a conversation I have stated quite clearly is not the subject of this thread. If you could phrase your question in a way that addresses the manner in which a conversation about terminology is approached in this context, we would be on track. I understand this is difficult to do. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion]Meta discussions[/url] are easily derailed because we generally want to talk about the topic itself, rather than engage in a discussion about the topic.
Well, as far as I know you didn't start this thread, so its not really up to you to determine what this thread is about. My main aim is add some content.
Now, I have kindly answered your questions, and now I have asked you one, and you seem to be avoiding answering it, for some reason or another. So, again:
You agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I'm fairly certain it won't be a bandwidth drain if you don't click on it.
So you agree it's a waste of time?
So, you agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I mean, for example, we are clear that most Jews don't even live in Israel?
You are continuing to attempt to engage me in a conversation I have stated quite clearly is not the subject of this thread. If you could phrase your question in a way that addresses the manner in which a conversation about terminology is approached in this context, we would be on track. I understand this is difficult to do. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion]Meta discussions[/url] are easily derailed because we generally want to talk about the topic itself, rather than engage in a discussion about the topic.
Well, as far as I know you didn't start this thread, so its not really up to you to determine what this thread is about. My main aim is add some content.
Now, I have kindly answered your questions, and now I have asked you one, and you seem to be avoiding answering it, for some reason or another. So, again:
You agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
This thread was started as a continuation from a previous thread that was closed for length, which I did indeed start. I was under the impression that closing threads for length was a policy here on Babble, but I did not take that to mean the person who begins the continuation thread becomes the 'author'.
If that IS the case, I apologise as clearly I'm in the wrong thread.
Lawyers think they're so smart. Only too cute most of the time. I have no idea what meta-this or meta-that you want as your story keeps changing. Just the facts please, as a proper judge would tell you.
I'm fairly certain it won't be a bandwidth drain if you don't click on it.So you agree it's a waste of time?
I've seen this used a number of times on babble:
"So you agree..."
Which is then followed by a statement which I suspect the author does not actually believe to be true. I wonder if you can give me some insight into what the purpose of this is?
You see, your answer to this would be a contribution to a meta-discussion.
So, you agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
I mean, for example, we are clear that most Jews don't even live in Israel?
You are continuing to attempt to engage me in a conversation I have stated quite clearly is not the subject of this thread. If you could phrase your question in a way that addresses the manner in which a conversation about terminology is approached in this context, we would be on track. I understand this is difficult to do. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion]Meta discussions[/url] are easily derailed because we generally want to talk about the topic itself, rather than engage in a discussion about the topic.
Well, as far as I know you didn't start this thread, so its not really up to you to determine what this thread is about. My main aim is add some content.
Now, I have kindly answered your questions, and now I have asked you one, and you seem to be avoiding answering it, for some reason or another. So, again:
You agree that calling the Israeli state Apartheid is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic, and that it is not in anyway a smear against Jewish people as a whole, since Israel is a state founded on an ideology called Zionism, and is an ideology that is not, in fact, representative of all Jews?
This thread was started as a continuation from a previous thread that was closed for length, which I did indeed start. I was under the impression that closing threads for length was a policy here on Babble, but I did not take that to mean the person who begins the continuation thread becomes the 'author'.
If that IS the case, I apologise as clearly I'm in the wrong thread.
So, I take it that you continued refusal to answer the simple question I posed is a confirmation of the underlying assumptions that I have about your stance on this issue. You could simply do me the courtesy of answering the question if only to dissabuse me of any false notions that I have about what you think and believe.
Lawyers think they're so smart. Only too cute most of the time. I have no idea what meta-this or meta-that you want as your story keeps changing. Just the facts please, as a proper judge would tell you.
Oh! Please, let me assure you, I have not passed the bar in any province, and am not a lawyer. I am simply someone who has studied the law and who works in the legal field.
I provided a definition of what a meta-discussion is, upthread. I also provided a quote about the perceived usefulness of such a discussion which you may in fact agree with.
I apologise that I did not provide this definition earlier. I was working from the assumption that the concept of a meta-discussion would be well known on a progressive forum like babble.
So, I take it that you continued refusal to answer the simple question I posed is a confirmation of the underlying assumptions that I have about your stance on this issue. You could simply do me the courtesy of answering the question if only to dissabuse me of any false notions that I have about what you think and believe.
I'm afraid you're engaging in the [url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html]Burden of Proof fallacy[/url], in which one makes the claim that whatever has not been proven false, is true (or vice versa). In this case, you have assumed I take a certain position on the Israel/Palestine issue, and if I do not prove you wrong, then your assumption is true. It is not actually my job to disabuse you of false notions of what I think or believe, any more than it would be your job to do the same if I were to make assumptions about you.
I have already pointed out why even engaging your assumptions actually changes the discussion.
I've provided the definition of a meta-discussion. Is it something you'd like to engage in? For the third time, I will ask if it would be easier if we made the topic of the meta-discussion more general?
Well, when you imply that we're conspiricasts and whatever it really won't lead to a proper discussion. I don't even know what you're saying anymore. Is there anything specifically about babble that you think doesn't lead to discussion(within babble's AUP) regarding Israel/Palestine? If you want to get meta, you need to be specific and not slag us as conspiracists about some big Zionist plot and then recant without then redefining your particular complaints about the community here. Don't talk about the "left" let's get meta and try to see what you find wrong at babble?
Which is then followed by a statement which I suspect the author does not actually believe to be true. I wonder if you can give me some insight into what the purpose of this is?
You see, your answer to this would be a contribution to a meta-discussion.
All bullshit aside, is it possible for you to summarise - in one concise coherent sentence- what you think this thread is about?
[Into it again? It never stopped.
If we're talking about this discussion, in fact it did stop. Yiwah got shut down, then you started it back up again, then it was dormant for five days and on its way to the history books. So again, I am not sure why it is back on the table, but I didn't bring it up.
If you are talking about the larger issue (depending of course what part of that issue you are refering to), you may be right. I'm not sure I am well-informed or experienced enough to comment on that one.
Well, when you imply that we're conspiricasts and whatever it really won't lead to a proper discussion. I don't even know what you're saying anymore. Is there anything specifically about babble that you think doesn't lead to discussion(within babble's AUP) regarding Israel/Palestine? If you want to get meta, you need to be specific and not slag us as conspiracists about some big Zionist plot and then recant without then redefining your particular complaints about the community here. Don't talk about the "left" let's get meta and try to see what you find wrong at babble?
My specific problem with discussions on hot button topics in progressive circles is:
it doesn't seem to be possible to discuss HOW we discuss the topic, without people confusing that discussion (eg, how we talk about Israel/Palestine) with the topic itself (eg. Isreal/Palestine) and getting emotionally involved because they care about the topic (eg. Israel/Palestine) and have difficulty engaging in the second-order discussion from a removed position.
I brought up this discussion in the context of Israel/Palestine to give some focus to the meta-discussion. As I admitted, I think this only muddied the waters. I do not think the problem is confined to babble.
I hope that provides more context.
All bullshit aside, is it possible for you to summarise - in one concise coherent sentence- what you think this thread is about?
See above. It's a bit of a run-on sentence, but I think it's fairly concise.
I'm signing off for the night, not sure how much I can get on tomorrow, but I will return when I can.
That's what I thought. You have nothing about babble but somehow try to couch it as "progressive circles".
NEWSFLASH: Babble is a progressive circle you have chosen to participate in. By constructing your meta as you have you impugn babblers no matter how hard you try to deny this.
Even these "progressive circles" you speak of? Care to provide some examples? Then you'll see how babblers deal with it. And perhaps then there could be discussion rather than another mulberry bush dance.
Oh cr@p! I didn't even notice you said "I don't think it's confined to babble" !@#!@#!@#
Care to apologize for your slander.
P.S.: If you can't defend your position anymore and are trying to distance yourself from the slander and libel you made against babble about Israel/Palestine threads, perhaps you should start something different because you're knee deep in it here.
As far as I can see Yiwah has been clear about the topic she wishes to pursue (how the conversation works) and persistent in trying to keep the topic on track.
It would seem that the people objecting to this topic (other than the ones claiming it is simply a waste of time) have experienced this topic as a distraction from their attempts to come to grips with the underlying topic. Given that the predecessor of this thread was specifically set up as a meta discussion it does not seem reasonable to impute distraction motivations to Yiwah. A separate thread is easily ignored.
What I see here is either an inability to understand what she says or an unwillingness to believe that she is sincere. Either of those things impugn Babble far more than anything Yiwah has said.
All bullshit aside, is it possible for you to summarise - in one concise coherent sentence- what you think this thread is about?
Well, sorry to respond to that with a little manure, but...
If things aren't so serious that I can get away with a cheeky observation, I think this current thread started off as a public chastisement for perceived bad behaviour, after some of us expected the matter was closed.
I notice there will probably be another opportunity to stop talking about this in 10 posts or so. Let's see what happens.
(edit)
and @ jrootham
Thanks - seriously.
As long as Yiwah pretends it's other than the construct she set up, you won't see me shutting up.
Perhaps someone could clarify what it is we are trying to discuss? The first thread was disingenuous and this one is a dance around the mulberry bush.
And like I said earlier, if it's not about Israel/Palestine, start a new thread.
And jrootham, noone can define how conversation works. It just happens. Yiwah can claim ZOG conspiracies or whatever and then claim to be having a meta-discussion???
It doesn't compute.
My specific problem with discussions on hot button topics in progressive circles is:
it doesn't seem to be possible to discuss HOW we discuss the topic, without people confusing that discussion (eg, how we talk about Israel/Palestine) with the topic itself (eg. Isreal/Palestine) and getting emotionally involved because they care about the topic (eg. Israel/Palestine) and have difficulty engaging in the second-order discussion from a removed position.
I brought up this discussion in the context of Israel/Palestine to give some focus to the meta-discussion. As I admitted, I think this only muddied the waters. I do not think the problem is confined to babble.
I hope that provides more context.
Since you've shot your credibility in the foot in discussing Palestine, why not try your experiment in the feminist forum under ''abortion"and see how your meta-discussion goes?
What the hell is meta discussion? I feel like going to wiki and editing it to a circle masturbation orgy of words without ejaculation.
So, I take it that you continued refusal to answer the simple question I posed is a confirmation of the underlying assumptions that I have about your stance on this issue. You could simply do me the courtesy of answering the question if only to dissabuse me of any false notions that I have about what you think and believe.
I'm afraid you're engaging in the [url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html]Burden of Proof fallacy[/url], in which one makes the claim that whatever has not been proven false, is true (or vice versa). In this case, you have assumed I take a certain position on the Israel/Palestine issue, and if I do not prove you wrong, then your assumption is true. It is not actually my job to disabuse you of false notions of what I think or believe, any more than it would be your job to do the same if I were to make assumptions about you.
No it's the "I asked you a question, which you are refusing to answer truth". The falacy is that you are engaging in an open discussion. I duly answered your questions as best as I could, and I asked for a response on some thoughts I had, and you proceeded to evade them.
I asked for feedback about whether Yiwah had honestly engaged with anyone here. (As I observed it, she had not.) I received one response:
I definitely feel it was addressed.
He goes on to say:
... I'm just mystified. And didn't get answers that convinced me there was a point to this.
Which lead me to describe his reaction as a "qualified who-the-fuck-knows", particularly given this in his next paragraph:
For what its worth I dont get the feel that it could have been any other polarized question equally for this meta.
...and I went on to ask for feedback from others. KenS took offense at my interpretation, as was his right - and went on to claim to speak for all:
Its not "who the fuck knows"?You asked whether some of the posters in question felt they were addressed or ignored. And I said, definitely they were addressed, definitely not ignored.
KenS is also responsible for the "bump" that revived this abomination.
So I'd like to ask how it is that he feels free to speak for others? Isn't assuming that sort of privilege precisely the kind of issue that triggers the 'meta' nature of meta-discussion?
