|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 10 2025 22:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 15:16 PremoBeats wrote:
Nebuchad mischaracterizing other users? Now that's a new one.
Your standard reminder that at one time when Premo here was accusing me of mischaracterizing his posts, I wrote only words that he had written himself in response without using quote marks, and he said that those words that he had written himself were a misrepresentation. The man is simply not honest, he doesn't care about reality he just cares about defending genocide.
Just repost it. Easy win for you.
On September 10 2025 23:22 Counc1l1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 20:16 PremoBeats wrote:
I agree, hence I did not and will not exclude myself from doing so. I simply wanted to point out that I am extra careful in everything I post on this subject as it is extremely delicate.
Cheers.
That's part of the problem- there's no reason that criticizing Israel's military conduct should be a delicate issue. The only reason it is is because Israel sympathizers have found a way to conflate such criticism with antisemitism, using tenuous logic like if you criticize Israel, then you think in some way that Jewish people specifically (because you hate them so much) shouldn't have a nation representing them. This tricks a lot of people like you into thinking they're being decent people by trying to refute criticisms of Israel. One day, you're going to feel ashamed that you did this.
No, criticizing the military is no delicate issue, hence so many people are doing it all the time. Pressing people on the genocide accussation is.
I have not once made this Antisemitism-conflation, as I think it is absolutely stupid and a logical fallacy.
I have denounced Israel's military from day one when evidence of war crimes surfaced. I am not even sure what exactly you criticize about my takes.
|
|
|
Which I addressed here.
https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=324#6478
Notice how you even added your own misinterpretations in the post you linked as completely loaded, suggestive headlines. So yeah.. misrepresenting is what you have been doing from the get go.
Do you realize that I can check if you truly quoted my words back to me or you used utterly different terms? This is borderline cognitive dissonance.
|
You didn't address it at all in this post, you explained why those opinions were okay and correct. If those are correct and okay opinions that you hold, then it's not a misrepresentation to claim that you hold them.
|
On September 11 2025 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:You didn't address it at all in this post, you explained why those opinions were okay and correct. If those are correct and okay opinions that you hold, then it's not a misrepresentation to claim that you hold them.
I explained why the things I WROTE are correct and okay.
And that the things YOU WROTE are misinterpretations and loaded add-ons that are not representative of my thoughts.
Look at 6268
https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=314#6268
And 6453, which you posted.
You wrote that I say that Palestinians are scary people with evil values. While I never said such a thing.
What I actually did what to point out security concerns that countries have with Palestinians as refugees as they literally destabilized domestic politics of the host countries.
I further said that Palestinian culture is incompatible with Western values (sexism in inheritance, freedom of expression, expectations of modesty, honor killings, danger for LGBTQs). Incompatible. Not evil.
Your twists and add-ons are what I reject, not the actual things I wrote.
And you have the gull to say that you "wrote only words that he had written himself in response without using quote marks, and he said that those words that he had written himself were a misrepresentation"?
Everyone can see the headlines you gave my quotes, you know? To go on and write that "The man is simply not honest, he doesn't care about reality"... is just a serious level of delusion if you truly believe it.
|
Nobody has time for this, we all know that you understand that if there are "security concerns" about a people, then those people are "scary", that's what the word "scary" means, you're being thick on purpose (even though you are also quite thick when you don't mean to be).
The conversation goes:
"- You think x, y and z.
- No I don't think that you misrepresent me.
- Actually here are quotes where you directly said x, y and z.
- Well x, y and z are true."
Nobody honest posts like this, so it's not really my job to discover if you do that because you hate muslims or because Israel pays you to post hasbara, no one cares.
|
Again.
Out of...
"everyday life in Palestine is incompatible with Western values"
and
"I am using a value judgment, of course. I am neither foolish, nor cowardly enough to not say that I think that some cultures or societies and their laws are more moral or humane."
You make...
According to Premo/Marcel Palestinians are evil people with evil values.
That doesn't fly. I'll spare the forum space from going into detail about the other examples, as I already did in the linked post.
You perfectly displayed some kind of Islamophobia-/inferiority-complex in one of our first interactions... I should have realized back then that talking to you is a complete waste of time.
|
On September 11 2025 01:19 PremoBeats wrote:
"everyday life in Palestine is incompatible with Western values"
and
"I am using a value judgment, of course. I am neither foolish, nor cowardly enough to not say that I think that some cultures or societies and their laws are more moral or humane."
You make...
According to Premo/Marcel Palestinians are evil people with evil values.
That doesn't fly.
Literally exactly the same thing lol
|
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation.
|
On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation.
Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it
|
I'll be honest, I don't think "Western values" stand in opposition to religiously conservative values. Looking at our Christian Catholics, some of those are further removed from me than from a radically Islamic nation. Meanwhile I have Muslim neighbors who I share more values with than with some of the Christian Catholics around here. There's nothing inherent about Islam that makes it more conservative than Christianity. It's a choice of the people/nation/settlement.
It's more apt to say progressive values are opposed to (e.g. religiously) conservative values, and you can find more progressive people (and atheists, further adding to the opposition to Islamic conservatism) in Western countries than in Islamic countries. That'd be a fair point.
Is Palestinian culture more religiously conservative? Personally I don't doubt that. Does that make their values incompatible with Western values? Eh. More like the pushback against Palestinians would create instability. They would also further face opposition from the fact that they have the "wrong religion", i.e. not Christianity, which is our dominant religion. So Palestinians would face pushback from three different directions: progressives, atheists and Christians. But at the same time they would be welcomed by those same three groups; because to be progressive is - in part - to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices as long as it's not imposed by the state or otherwise; to be atheist is to be opposed to all religions equally, so this wouldn't be a specific opposition to Islam; and to be Christian is once again to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices in the same way progressives should tolerate them.
So in my opinion Palestinian values aren't strictly "incompatible" with Western values. They create a distinct challenge - but a challenge that already exists within Western nations, too. There's nothing new about having several incompatible values within the same Western nation. Thus two "incompatible cultures" within one nation isn't anything new to us either.
I recently posted a video of a Palestinian gentleman, in which he expresses values that I agree with practically 100%. Ignoring his religious beliefs, he seems to be just my kind of guy and I'd probably be happy having him as a neighbor.
So I conclude that compatibility is not the real issue. It's about management. As long as incompatibility is manageable and being properly managed, it doesn't have to become a serious problem.
Hypothetically inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into one single Western nation would be a mistake insofar as it would cause serious management issues. It's an impossible task for any single nation, be it Western or not.
|
On September 10 2025 23:34 Sent. wrote:
Why are you making new accounts on a video game forum just to discuss politics there? Please explain your thought process.
I had an old account that I can't access anymore by a similar name where I talked mainly about brood war. I went back on TL and felt frustrated by some of the arguments people were making and wanted to respond. I don't think it's any weirder that I participate in this forum than anyone else. Why talk about politics in a gaming forum at all?
Incidentally, the vast majority of your comments are about politics on this forum too. It's not clear to me why making a TL account and posting in the politics forum (after I couldn't find my old account) is so different from using an already existing TL account to do the same thing.
|
On September 11 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation. Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it
If you don't think that societies which are more homophobic and misogynistic can be called less humane/moral than ones where these principles are less prevalent (or take cultural issues with genital mutilation like Jewish' bris or female genital mutilation in SSA) we won't find agreement. Although a scaling of humanity in cultures does not directly imply that one culture or their people is/are evil, there most certainly are evil and wicked practices that need to be called out, like the examples I gave with the bris or FGM.
Again: If you aren't able to make such a differentiation, we will not find common ground.
On September 11 2025 03:22 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't think "Western values" stand in opposition to religiously conservative values. Looking at our Christian Catholics, some of those are further removed from me than from a radically Islamic nation. Meanwhile I have Muslim neighbors who I share more values with than with some of the Christian Catholics around here. There's nothing inherent about Islam that makes it more conservative than Christianity. It's a choice of the people/nation/settlement.
It's more apt to say progressive values are opposed to (e.g. religiously) conservative values, and you can find more progressive people (and atheists, further adding to the opposition to Islamic conservatism) in Western countries than in Islamic countries. That'd be a fair point.
Is Palestinian culture more religiously conservative? Personally I don't doubt that. Does that make their values incompatible with Western values? Eh. More like the pushback against Palestinians would create instability. They would also further face opposition from the fact that they have the "wrong religion", i.e. not Christianity, which is our dominant religion. So Palestinians would face pushback from three different directions: progressives, atheists and Christians. But at the same time they would be welcomed by those same three groups; because to be progressive is - in part - to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices as long as it's not imposed by the state or otherwise; to be atheist is to be opposed to all religions equally, so this wouldn't be a specific opposition to Islam; and to be Christian is once again to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices in the same way progressives should tolerate them.
So in my opinion Palestinian values aren't strictly "incompatible" with Western values. They create a distinct challenge - but a challenge that already exists within Western nations, too. There's nothing new about having several incompatible values within the same Western nation. Thus two "incompatible cultures" within one nation isn't anything new to us either.
I recently posted a video of a Palestinian gentleman, in which he expresses values that I agree with practically 100%. Ignoring his religious beliefs, he seems to be just my kind of guy and I'd probably be happy having him as a neighbor.
So I conclude that compatibility is not the real issue. It's about management. As long as incompatibility is manageable and being properly managed, it doesn't have to become a serious problem.
Hypothetically inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into one single Western nation would be a mistake insofar as it would cause serious management issues. It's an impossible task for any single nation, be it Western or not.
Iirc, back then, the issue was that I made fun of self-righteous - mostly progressive - protestors who chant "from the river to the sea" without much of a clue about really anything related to Palestine. I made a comment that these people don't know shit about the place they are protesting for and that many of them were in shock after they learned about the actual cultural life there in regards to homophobia, sexism, gender equality and other factors.
So is it 100% incompatible? Probably not, but in regards to the 5 last words you highlighted, we already saw in the past how well it worked out to incorporate large scales of people into a new country not even from too differing backgrounds (Palestinians in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon causing massive domestic disruptions). Hence I am even more reluctant to see a good outcome in an entirely different cultural background, as can already be observed with the tensions that surface all over Europe lately in terms of welfare, crime and other minority groups. Stressing host societies is not unique to Palestinians, when large demographic shifts occur, but given their history I think it was correct to point out the reluctance neighboring states have in taking them in. It is a simple fact, nothing more.
|
On September 11 2025 15:00 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation. Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it If you don't think that societies which are more homophobic and misogynistic can be called less humane/moral than ones where these principles are less prevalent (or take cultural issues with genital mutilation like Jewish' bris or female genital mutilation in SSA) we won't find agreement. Although a scaling of humanity in cultures does not directly imply that one culture or their people is/are evil, there most certainly are evil and wicked practices that need to be called out, like the examples I gave with the bris or FGM. Again: If you aren't able to make such a differentiation, we will not find common ground. Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 03:22 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't think "Western values" stand in opposition to religiously conservative values. Looking at our Christian Catholics, some of those are further removed from me than from a radically Islamic nation. Meanwhile I have Muslim neighbors who I share more values with than with some of the Christian Catholics around here. There's nothing inherent about Islam that makes it more conservative than Christianity. It's a choice of the people/nation/settlement.
It's more apt to say progressive values are opposed to (e.g. religiously) conservative values, and you can find more progressive people (and atheists, further adding to the opposition to Islamic conservatism) in Western countries than in Islamic countries. That'd be a fair point.
Is Palestinian culture more religiously conservative? Personally I don't doubt that. Does that make their values incompatible with Western values? Eh. More like the pushback against Palestinians would create instability. They would also further face opposition from the fact that they have the "wrong religion", i.e. not Christianity, which is our dominant religion. So Palestinians would face pushback from three different directions: progressives, atheists and Christians. But at the same time they would be welcomed by those same three groups; because to be progressive is - in part - to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices as long as it's not imposed by the state or otherwise; to be atheist is to be opposed to all religions equally, so this wouldn't be a specific opposition to Islam; and to be Christian is once again to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices in the same way progressives should tolerate them.
So in my opinion Palestinian values aren't strictly "incompatible" with Western values. They create a distinct challenge - but a challenge that already exists within Western nations, too. There's nothing new about having several incompatible values within the same Western nation. Thus two "incompatible cultures" within one nation isn't anything new to us either.
I recently posted a video of a Palestinian gentleman, in which he expresses values that I agree with practically 100%. Ignoring his religious beliefs, he seems to be just my kind of guy and I'd probably be happy having him as a neighbor.
So I conclude that compatibility is not the real issue. It's about management. As long as incompatibility is manageable and being properly managed, it doesn't have to become a serious problem.
Hypothetically inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into one single Western nation would be a mistake insofar as it would cause serious management issues. It's an impossible task for any single nation, be it Western or not. Iirc, back then, the issue was that I made fun of self-righteous - mostly progressive - protestors who chant "from the river to the sea" without much of a clue about really anything related to Palestine. I made a comment that these people don't know shit about the place they are protesting for and that many of them were in shock after they learned about the actual cultural life there in regards to homophobia, sexism, gender equality and other factors. So is it 100% incompatible? Probably not, but in regards to the 5 last words you highlighted, we already saw in the past how well it worked out to incorporate large scales of people into a new country not even from too differing backgrounds (Palestinians in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon causing massive domestic disruptions). Hence I am even more reluctant to see a good outcome in an entirely different cultural background, as can already be observed with the tensions that surface all over Europe lately in terms of welfare, crime and other minority groups. Stressing host societies is not unique to Palestinians, when large demographic shifts occur, but given their history I think it was correct to point out the reluctance neighboring states have in taking them in. It is a simple fact, nothing more.
I'd actually agree. Just wanted to explain my thought process regarding "incompatibility of culture". I think on a larger scale it's always been a matter of management. Resources, manpower, public support, etc.
On a smaller scale it's a matter of creativity, understanding and effort on a human level. Psychological/emotional support is also very important.
My dad used to teach music in a Muslim school to kids from highly conservative families. You might be able to imagine how poorly that went at times. But, where another teacher resigned after a mental breakdown, my dad found a way through. He's a Catholic Christian who's very open-minded to other/non-religious views, and he kept trying different ways to reason with the kids who were arguing that music is haram and he's going to hell for teaching it. They were frequently disrupting class for the other Muslim kids who wanted to learn music.
It's hard for me to explain how he got through to them, it's quite absurd actually and I still don't get it, but it worked somehow. He basically reasoned with them in a way that they concluded it's ok for him to teach music because it's his role to teach the evil music. As soon as they saw him as a messenger of evil, and him simply playing his part in the existence of evil, they accepted him. I know, it does sound absurd. They only couldn't accept him as long as they thought he was choosing to teach evil, but they accepted him when they could view him as it being his place to teach evil. A role rather than a choice. He teaches evil because that's just who he was meant to be. Evil exists because it has to exist. And the kids know evil has to exist, as that is just how things are. Therefore fighting it constantly was a waste of time. You can influence a person's choices, but you can't change someone's predetermined role. Suddenly the more disruptive kids stopped fighting against him, and the other kids could finally start learning music with significantly less disruption. It wasn't a perfect solution and disruption still happened, but less so than before.
The Oslo accords were also a great attempt at a solution on a personal level. They brought leaders together in an apolitical space and made them comfortable. They got to know each other as people. This method worked incredibly well.
Unfortunately all of their progress was erased when Netanyahu came into power.
|
On September 11 2025 15:00 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation. Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it If you don't think that societies which are more homophobic and misogynistic can be called less humane/moral than ones where these principles are less prevalent (or take cultural issues with genital mutilation like Jewish' bris or female genital mutilation in SSA) we won't find agreement. Although a scaling of humanity in cultures does not directly imply that one culture or their people is/are evil, there most certainly are evil and wicked practices that need to be called out, like the examples I gave with the bris or FGM. Again: If you aren't able to make such a differentiation, we will not find common ground.
As usual, you are trying to change the debate from whether I was misrepresenting your view to whether your view is correct. You do that because you understand that your accusation of misrepresentation is a lie, but you do not care about lying.
|
|
|
On September 11 2025 18:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 15:00 PremoBeats wrote:On September 11 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation. Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it If you don't think that societies which are more homophobic and misogynistic can be called less humane/moral than ones where these principles are less prevalent (or take cultural issues with genital mutilation like Jewish' bris or female genital mutilation in SSA) we won't find agreement. Although a scaling of humanity in cultures does not directly imply that one culture or their people is/are evil, there most certainly are evil and wicked practices that need to be called out, like the examples I gave with the bris or FGM. Again: If you aren't able to make such a differentiation, we will not find common ground. On September 11 2025 03:22 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't think "Western values" stand in opposition to religiously conservative values. Looking at our Christian Catholics, some of those are further removed from me than from a radically Islamic nation. Meanwhile I have Muslim neighbors who I share more values with than with some of the Christian Catholics around here. There's nothing inherent about Islam that makes it more conservative than Christianity. It's a choice of the people/nation/settlement.
It's more apt to say progressive values are opposed to (e.g. religiously) conservative values, and you can find more progressive people (and atheists, further adding to the opposition to Islamic conservatism) in Western countries than in Islamic countries. That'd be a fair point.
Is Palestinian culture more religiously conservative? Personally I don't doubt that. Does that make their values incompatible with Western values? Eh. More like the pushback against Palestinians would create instability. They would also further face opposition from the fact that they have the "wrong religion", i.e. not Christianity, which is our dominant religion. So Palestinians would face pushback from three different directions: progressives, atheists and Christians. But at the same time they would be welcomed by those same three groups; because to be progressive is - in part - to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices as long as it's not imposed by the state or otherwise; to be atheist is to be opposed to all religions equally, so this wouldn't be a specific opposition to Islam; and to be Christian is once again to be tolerant of religious beliefs and practices in the same way progressives should tolerate them.
So in my opinion Palestinian values aren't strictly "incompatible" with Western values. They create a distinct challenge - but a challenge that already exists within Western nations, too. There's nothing new about having several incompatible values within the same Western nation. Thus two "incompatible cultures" within one nation isn't anything new to us either.
I recently posted a video of a Palestinian gentleman, in which he expresses values that I agree with practically 100%. Ignoring his religious beliefs, he seems to be just my kind of guy and I'd probably be happy having him as a neighbor.
So I conclude that compatibility is not the real issue. It's about management. As long as incompatibility is manageable and being properly managed, it doesn't have to become a serious problem.
Hypothetically inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into one single Western nation would be a mistake insofar as it would cause serious management issues. It's an impossible task for any single nation, be it Western or not. Iirc, back then, the issue was that I made fun of self-righteous - mostly progressive - protestors who chant "from the river to the sea" without much of a clue about really anything related to Palestine. I made a comment that these people don't know shit about the place they are protesting for and that many of them were in shock after they learned about the actual cultural life there in regards to homophobia, sexism, gender equality and other factors. So is it 100% incompatible? Probably not, but in regards to the 5 last words you highlighted, we already saw in the past how well it worked out to incorporate large scales of people into a new country not even from too differing backgrounds (Palestinians in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon causing massive domestic disruptions). Hence I am even more reluctant to see a good outcome in an entirely different cultural background, as can already be observed with the tensions that surface all over Europe lately in terms of welfare, crime and other minority groups. Stressing host societies is not unique to Palestinians, when large demographic shifts occur, but given their history I think it was correct to point out the reluctance neighboring states have in taking them in. It is a simple fact, nothing more. I'd actually agree. Just wanted to explain my thought process regarding "incompatibility of culture". I think on a larger scale it's always been a matter of management. Resources, manpower, public support, etc. On a smaller scale it's a matter of creativity, understanding and effort on a human level. Psychological/emotional support is also very important. My dad used to teach music in a Muslim school to kids from highly conservative families. You might be able to imagine how poorly that went at times. But, where another teacher resigned after a mental breakdown, my dad found a way through. He's a Catholic Christian who's very open-minded to other/non-religious views, and he kept trying different ways to reason with the kids who were arguing that music is haram and he's going to hell for teaching it. They were frequently disrupting class for the other Muslim kids who wanted to learn music. It's hard for me to explain how he got through to them, it's quite absurd actually and I still don't get it, but it worked somehow. He basically reasoned with them in a way that they concluded it's ok for him to teach music because it's his role to teach the evil music. As soon as they saw him as a messenger of evil, and him simply playing his part in the existence of evil, they accepted him. I know, it does sound absurd. They only couldn't accept him as long as they thought he was choosing to teach evil, but they accepted him when they could view him as it being his place to teach evil. A role rather than a choice. He teaches evil because that's just who he was meant to be. Evil exists because it has to exist. And the kids know evil has to exist, as that is just how things are. Therefore fighting it constantly was a waste of time. You can influence a person's choices, but you can't change someone's predetermined role. Suddenly the more disruptive kids stopped fighting against him, and the other kids could finally start learning music with significantly less disruption. It wasn't a perfect solution and disruption still happened, but less so than before. The Oslo accords were also a great attempt at a solution on a personal level. They brought leaders together in an apolitical space and made them comfortable. They got to know each other as people. This method worked incredibly well. Unfortunately all of their progress was erased when Netanyahu came into power.
Interesting story conceptual-wise. My mum was a pre-school teacher for teaching immigrant children their new language (and one native with a learning disorder who was put in the course too) and it was insane to see how well they learned when language was taught immersively like singing songs, playing with stuffed animals, etc.
I was thinking if the late Marshall Rosenberg could have done something at Oslo or Camp David. Stories of his non-violent communication setting aside decade long tribal disputes are truly unbelievable.
Netanyahu's election after the assassination sure made everything harder, especially for the Palestinians. I still find it interesting though, how Barak laid out a proposal that was far more extensive than that of Rabin's Oslo I.
But all things considered, the issue - like I tried to point out several times already - as a hurdle to a possible solution, still is religious fundamentalism.
No matter how many concessions would have been made from either side, Jerusalem and especially the Temple Mount/Haram would have been the red line where neither side moved. Arafat told Clinton "The Palestinian leader who will give up Jerusalem has not yet been born."
I don't think any Jewish or Palestinian leader could have politically survived giving up that site. For the Muslims it would have been viewed as a betrayal of the entire ummah. For the Jews it would mean giving up their most holy site.
As long as sovereignty over the Temple Mount is not addressed, peace will always be fragmentational.
On September 11 2025 23:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 15:00 PremoBeats wrote:On September 11 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2025 01:24 PremoBeats wrote:
I'm sorry for your limited capacity for differentiation. Are you sorry about it or do you have contentedness concerns about it If you don't think that societies which are more homophobic and misogynistic can be called less humane/moral than ones where these principles are less prevalent (or take cultural issues with genital mutilation like Jewish' bris or female genital mutilation in SSA) we won't find agreement. Although a scaling of humanity in cultures does not directly imply that one culture or their people is/are evil, there most certainly are evil and wicked practices that need to be called out, like the examples I gave with the bris or FGM. Again: If you aren't able to make such a differentiation, we will not find common ground. As usual, you are trying to change the debate from whether I was misrepresenting your view to whether your view is correct. You do that because you understand that your accusation of misrepresentation is a lie, but you do not care about lying.
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it.
If you don't think my view that is displayed in the quote is correct, I once again say: agree to disagree.
But I can spell it out again:
- I think cultures/societies that are more homophobic and/or misogynistic than others can be called less humane/moral
- It does not follow that in such a grading the less humane/moral society is evil per se
- Some individual practices like the bris or FGM (stonings, honor killings, witch burnings, clerical abuse, slavery, foot bindings, castes, human sacrifices) are evil and should be abandoned
- Palestinians as people and their values are not evil
- Palestinian culture has elements that are incompatible with Western values, just as Hindu nationalism/conservative Christianity is at odds with Western liberalism... again: incompatible at different gradings
|
On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it.
Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil.
|
I think that Hamas has been saying from the get go (a few hours after the news broke) that 6 people died in the bombing but the core of the negotiating team survived. I believe Qatari confirmed this as well.
About the lack of moves, hopefully they got cold feet after the reactions and protests, with the final straw being that they got some very harsh ones after the Doha bombing run. Maybe some more rational and sane members of the ruling coalition decided to stop blindly following the maniacs in to the fray.
It really does seem like they didn't notify Trump until it was too late to stop it and he didn't take to it kindly, same with Qatari, who do have allies in the gulf.
Who knows, like all these authoritarian regimes the transparency is intentionally set to very low so it's very hard for us to speculate, but it is encouraging news.
|
United States43483 Posts
On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil.
Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
