|
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. |
I don't think it's as simple as that. Hamas is a pretty big organization and loosely organized. One thing October 7 did is force the rest of the leadership (in Qatar and elsewhere) to fall in line with Sinwar, who is the de facto leader of Hamas right now, having definitively wrested power "on the ground" from Haniyeh and the other leaders far from Gaza.
So part of what they've achieved is resolving an internal power struggle. However, they also obviously have outward goals. One of those is to murder as many Israelis as they can. That is a fairly obvious "mission accomplished". They also want a "free Palestine". There's an argument to be made that the same way orthodox zionists assassinated Rabin to blow up the Oslo peace accords, October 7 blew up any slow progress that was being made to normalize the relationship between Israel and Arab states, thereby putting them back in the "we hate Israel" camp, which is where Hamas wants them. Finally there's the whole "freedom fighter" thing, and with how hopeless Palestinians feel in the face of Israel, any show of "sticking it to the man, even if all you're doing is slaughtering civilians, will be a call to arms/recruitment tool.
|
On February 02 2024 01:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 00:34 TentativePanda wrote:On February 01 2024 23:50 Cricketer12 wrote:Lex had a Shapiro Destiny debate last week followed by an Omar Suleiman podcast this week. I think it's really interesting to see how Ben and Destiny discuss Israel/Palestine vs how Omar does. Lex - OmarLex - Shapiro/DestinyThose with a Pro-Israeli bent have a geopolitical frame of reference on the matter, whereas the Palestinian bent is more focused on the plight of the people themselves. I think as 3rd-Party observers it's easier for us to have an "objective utilitarian" view on these conflicts and in doing so, I find we do a disservice to the people on the ground. I'm quite embarrassed that Destiny spawned from the Starcraft scene. The guy is a true psychopath, and I'm not just saying that to throw an insult at him. But what's even more terrifying than his obvious and nefarious grift, is his following horde of degenerate gamers who seem so intellectually bankrupt that they can't even distinguish between a logical, sound argument, and crude fallacy. I dunno if I’d go as far as psychopathic unless he’s very different from what I remember. But he is very symptomatic of the worst of debate bro culture and how many consume their politics these days. It’s a battle of appearing to make good arguments so your fan base can say their guy ‘won’ rather than actually making good arguments, or alternatively explore understanding of a topic on some kind of mutual basis. I guess it’s inevitable based on how the platforms that host such content incentivise, but entertainers rise to the top above things more considered. Also not bashing you for posting Cricketer! Plenty of folks will get something out of it, just I personally got burned out from overdosing in my youth I think
I'm not a large consumer of Destiny content by any means but from what I have seen I've been fairly satisfied with the way he engages people. From my understanding he is a gamer/twitch streamer turned political commentator and I think he does quite well as a layperson without any particular education/expertise. I also find a lot of his arguments well-reasoned even if I personally disagree with them. But most importantly I think he will often engage his opponent's best arguments interpreted in the most charitable way, which is the exact opposite of a lot of discourse that exists these days (this thread being an obvious example). As far as "debate bros" go I think he is pretty good but perhaps that's too low of a bar.
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On February 02 2024 08:53 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Hamas is a pretty big organization and loosely organized. One thing October 7 did is force the rest of the leadership (in Qatar and elsewhere) to fall in line with Sinwar, who is the de facto leader of Hamas right now, having definitively wrested power "on the ground" from Haniyeh and the other leaders far from Gaza.
So part of what they've achieved is resolving an internal power struggle. However, they also obviously have outward goals. One of those is to murder as many Israelis as they can. That is a fairly obvious "mission accomplished". They also want a "free Palestine". There's an argument to be made that the same way orthodox zionists assassinated Rabin to blow up the Oslo peace accords, October 7 blew up any slow progress that was being made to normalize the relationship between Israel and Arab states, thereby putting them back in the "we hate Israel" camp, which is where Hamas wants them. Finally there's the whole "freedom fighter" thing, and with how hopeless Palestinians feel in the face of Israel, any show of "sticking it to the man, even if all you're doing is slaughtering civilians, will be a call to arms/recruitment tool.
Yeah, rather well said sir!
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On February 02 2024 09:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 01:37 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 00:34 TentativePanda wrote:On February 01 2024 23:50 Cricketer12 wrote:Lex had a Shapiro Destiny debate last week followed by an Omar Suleiman podcast this week. I think it's really interesting to see how Ben and Destiny discuss Israel/Palestine vs how Omar does. Lex - OmarLex - Shapiro/DestinyThose with a Pro-Israeli bent have a geopolitical frame of reference on the matter, whereas the Palestinian bent is more focused on the plight of the people themselves. I think as 3rd-Party observers it's easier for us to have an "objective utilitarian" view on these conflicts and in doing so, I find we do a disservice to the people on the ground. I'm quite embarrassed that Destiny spawned from the Starcraft scene. The guy is a true psychopath, and I'm not just saying that to throw an insult at him. But what's even more terrifying than his obvious and nefarious grift, is his following horde of degenerate gamers who seem so intellectually bankrupt that they can't even distinguish between a logical, sound argument, and crude fallacy. I dunno if I’d go as far as psychopathic unless he’s very different from what I remember. But he is very symptomatic of the worst of debate bro culture and how many consume their politics these days. It’s a battle of appearing to make good arguments so your fan base can say their guy ‘won’ rather than actually making good arguments, or alternatively explore understanding of a topic on some kind of mutual basis. I guess it’s inevitable based on how the platforms that host such content incentivise, but entertainers rise to the top above things more considered. Also not bashing you for posting Cricketer! Plenty of folks will get something out of it, just I personally got burned out from overdosing in my youth I think I'm not a large consumer of Destiny content by any means but from what I have seen I've been fairly satisfied with the way he engages people. From my understanding he is a gamer/twitch streamer turned political commentator and I think he does quite well as a layperson without any particular education/expertise. I also find a lot of his arguments well-reasoned even if I personally disagree with them. But most importantly I think he will often engage his opponent's best arguments interpreted in the most charitable way, which is the exact opposite of a lot of discourse that exists these days (this thread being an obvious example). As far as "debate bros" go I think he is pretty good but perhaps that's too low of a bar.
I think this is pretty fair aye. I had a wider critique of debate bros there but actually, least from my limited exposure to Destiny since he became a general streamer I don’t think he’s too bad and would largely agree with what you’re saying. So I’m maybe unfairly lumping him in with a wider problem of political discourse, which is absolutely a problem IMO
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 01:56 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
How many times do you want the same question answered? Nobody has said October 7th was a good idea, be it morally or pragmatically since well, October 7th.
If people were actually saying such things then sure, have at it. As they are not I’m unsure what reiterating that Hamas is bad for the umpteenth time brings to the discussion. That you infantizing them again, why do you do that? It worked out exactly as they expected. It was a successful mission that they all cheered about. With your false assumptions it apparently makes it impossible for you to understand it but it is still true. ‘The reason you all dodge the simple question of how Oct 7th furthers Hamas goals is…’ Which was the wording of your question. I don’t think it does, hence my response. Where am I infantilising anyone? :S It was a successful operation, and they achieved what they wanted to with it. Whether it will be successful in pushing the needle on long-term goals is another question, I don’t think it will, as I said. I might successfully go to the pub and have a few Guinness, very successful. But not a success in a wider sense if I was attempting dry January Nice back track. What did they achieve and what did they want? What are their long term goals in your opinion. It is not a hard question. Where is the backtrack Jimmy? This is baffling me Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting.
I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class.
National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows.
Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects.
Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
‘The reason you all dodge the simple question of how Oct 7th furthers Hamas goals is…’
Which was the wording of your question. I don’t think it does, hence my response. Where am I infantilising anyone? :S
It was a successful operation, and they achieved what they wanted to with it. Whether it will be successful in pushing the needle on long-term goals is another question, I don’t think it will, as I said.
I might successfully go to the pub and have a few Guinness, very successful. But not a success in a wider sense if I was attempting dry January Nice back track. What did they achieve and what did they want? What are their long term goals in your opinion. It is not a hard question. Where is the backtrack Jimmy? This is baffling me Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters?
I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist
Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true.
Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On February 02 2024 09:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Where is the backtrack Jimmy? This is baffling me Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? If you don’t think I think it you do not need to say it. You also do not need to say the grass is green or the sky is blue. I would have to go through a lot of posts, which I don’t care about you enough to do. I’m sure I could go back to where you explain how they wouldn’t do things, for political reasons or whatever you said and a few others and it wouldn’t be too hard. Or when you jump in to argue when I say they are not. Are you just arguing to be difficult or because you disagree? If it is difficult, stop. They can be fighting Israel to become the sole oppressor, which is what they are doing.
Alternatively you could just retract your claim, which is baseless. You’re pretty good at sourcing quotes the rest of the time.
Yes, I did say those things. As a person from the outside, trying to rationalise things on a strategic level, and with multiple caveats that it was my personal opinion, I said that certain lines are probably not advisable to cross, starving the local populace in which you are embedded in and rely to some degree to shield you is probably not advisable.
I don’t know, I’m not in Hamas, or on the ground over there. I gave the additional caveat that I could be wrong! Who’d have thunk it?
|
|
|
|
|
On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 03:38 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Nice back track.
What did they achieve and what did they want? What are their long term goals in your opinion. It is not a hard question. Where is the backtrack Jimmy? This is baffling me Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw?
You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons.
Either,
1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter".
Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom.
2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be.
The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it.
Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south.
Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds.
|
On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Where is the backtrack Jimmy? This is baffling me Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds.
But this is retroactively applying the term 'freedom fighters', which you agree is loaded with deeper meaning, as something WombaT actually ever said, which he did not. He at best said... what, 'resistance movement'?
From my perspective, the reverse of what you insinuate regarding dogwhistling is happening, where people are asking WombaT why he called them freedom fighters when he never actually did.
Like, I can read WombaT's words and understand that he does not intend to call them "Noble Freedom Fighters", such as him sardonically asking for anyone to source when he called them that.
Literally, it seems like you're saying "You're calling them fighters for freedom, which is basically the definition for Freedom Fighters. But also, I consider Freedom Fighters good, and Hamas are not good. You shouldn't call them Freedom Fighters." If I were WombaT, I wouldn't know how to respond to this other than with a confused meme. You can't simultaneously have it basically be the definition for Freedom Fighters AND have Freedom Fighters also be implicitly good. Either Freedom Fighters is implicitly good in its definition and we acknowledge that it wasn't actually said, or Freedom Fighters is as simple as "fighters for freedom" in which case WombaT almost saying it is irrelevant because there's no implicit good or bad.
|
On February 02 2024 13:43 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 04:01 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Where isn't it? How about trying to move forward and answer. Put your flag down. Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that. Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack. The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. But this is retroactively applying the term 'freedom fighters', which you agree is loaded with deeper meaning, as something WombaT actually ever said, which he did not. He at best said... what, 'resistance movement'? From my perspective, the reverse of what you insinuate regarding dogwhistling is happening, where people are asking WombaT why he called them freedom fighters when he never actually did. Like, I can read WombaT's words and understand that he does not intend to call them "Noble Freedom Fighters", such as him sardonically asking for anyone to source when he called them that. Literally, it seems like you're saying "You're calling them fighters for freedom, which is basically the definition for Freedom Fighters. But also, I consider Freedom Fighters good, and Hamas are not good. You shouldn't call them Freedom Fighters." If I were WombaT, I wouldn't know how to respond to this other than with a confused meme. You can't simultaneously have it basically be the definition for Freedom Fighters AND have Freedom Fighters also be implicitly good. Either Freedom Fighters is implicitly good in its definition and we acknowledge that it wasn't actually said, or Freedom Fighters is as simple as "fighters for freedom" in which case WombaT almost saying it is irrelevant because there's no implicit good or bad.
I would simply never say that Hamas is "fighting for freedom". In short, saying it is a Dog Whistle. It seems to be an accidental Dog Whistle on his part. He resents that he is being called out for calling Hamas "freedom fighters", so it seems that he does not actually believe they are. Still, he Dog Whistled for them to the point that Jimmi thought he actually called them freedom fighters and I'm pointing that out to WombaT.
I hope that clarifies.
|
On February 02 2024 09:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 08:53 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Hamas is a pretty big organization and loosely organized. One thing October 7 did is force the rest of the leadership (in Qatar and elsewhere) to fall in line with Sinwar, who is the de facto leader of Hamas right now, having definitively wrested power "on the ground" from Haniyeh and the other leaders far from Gaza.
So part of what they've achieved is resolving an internal power struggle. However, they also obviously have outward goals. One of those is to murder as many Israelis as they can. That is a fairly obvious "mission accomplished". They also want a "free Palestine". There's an argument to be made that the same way orthodox zionists assassinated Rabin to blow up the Oslo peace accords, October 7 blew up any slow progress that was being made to normalize the relationship between Israel and Arab states, thereby putting them back in the "we hate Israel" camp, which is where Hamas wants them. Finally there's the whole "freedom fighter" thing, and with how hopeless Palestinians feel in the face of Israel, any show of "sticking it to the man, even if all you're doing is slaughtering civilians, will be a call to arms/recruitment tool. I disagree with the “free Palestine”. They want to be sole rulers of Palestine. They do not believe in freedom or that it is a virtue. What actions have they taken that makes you believe they are interested in Palestinians freedom?
I guess I overdid the quotation marks in my post. They were meant there to make it clear that I don't think Hamas wants a free Palestine, but they *do* want a Palestine free of Israelis. From the river to the sea, and all that friendliness. Having other Arab nations starting to recognise Israel as a state and normalise relations goes against what they want. So while they couldn't guarantee an overreaction by Israel, they could predict it as a very likely outcome, especially if they made their attack as heinous as possible: Israel would overreact in response, commit plenty of atrocities of their own in their push to "eradicate Hamas" and the Arab world (and even others) would be back to condemning Israel as a genocidal nation of rabid crazy Zionists who can't be reasoned with. I am inclined to say "mission accomplished" for this one too, because Israel definitely showed their worst side in the response to October 7, squandering international goodwill for the awful assault that they suffered in record time with their indiscriminate bombing and blocking of humanitarian aid.
The one reason I'm hesitant to put that "mission accomplished" stamp on this one is because there is an outside chance that Israel actually succeeds in eradicating Hamas and an organisation with a different ideology takes over popular support in Gaza. In which case they would've shot themselves in their own foot. But yeah, they think they are losing the battle to win the war... and know full well that losing the battle means the slaughter of tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
|
On February 02 2024 14:37 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 13:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 06:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
Can this stop? You can have sane conversations with people without being a piece of shit. Most people would prefer you do that.
Every second post you're whining about someone strawmanning you or piling on, when people are just annoyed because the way you're choosing to communicate is fucking garbage. One of those people, best I can tell, is someone who hasn't even interacted with you before and communicated their position calmly. You recently got banned for picking mindless fights with everyone, and I understand the taint in here of you basically learning a lesson from BlackJack and crying victim every other post, I just don't understand how any of those interactions inspired you to become another BlackJack.
The irony of you some posts ago asking anyone else to be better is deeply amusing. Be better. People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well. The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker. The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on. If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect). Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. But this is retroactively applying the term 'freedom fighters', which you agree is loaded with deeper meaning, as something WombaT actually ever said, which he did not. He at best said... what, 'resistance movement'? From my perspective, the reverse of what you insinuate regarding dogwhistling is happening, where people are asking WombaT why he called them freedom fighters when he never actually did. Like, I can read WombaT's words and understand that he does not intend to call them "Noble Freedom Fighters", such as him sardonically asking for anyone to source when he called them that. Literally, it seems like you're saying "You're calling them fighters for freedom, which is basically the definition for Freedom Fighters. But also, I consider Freedom Fighters good, and Hamas are not good. You shouldn't call them Freedom Fighters." If I were WombaT, I wouldn't know how to respond to this other than with a confused meme. You can't simultaneously have it basically be the definition for Freedom Fighters AND have Freedom Fighters also be implicitly good. Either Freedom Fighters is implicitly good in its definition and we acknowledge that it wasn't actually said, or Freedom Fighters is as simple as "fighters for freedom" in which case WombaT almost saying it is irrelevant because there's no implicit good or bad. I would simply never say that Hamas is "fighting for freedom". In short, saying it is a Dog Whistle. It seems to be an accidental Dog Whistle on his part. He resents that he is being called out for calling Hamas "freedom fighters", so it seems that he does not actually believe they are. Still, he Dog Whistled for them to the point that Jimmi thought he actually called them freedom fighters and I'm pointing that out to WombaT. I hope that clarifies.
I get it.
I still take issue with the bolded on account of WombaT not having called Hamas freedom fighters. It is more likely true that he resents being called out for calling Hamas "freedom fighters" because he did not call them freedom fighters. I do get where you're coming from, though!
|
On February 02 2024 15:23 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 14:37 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 13:43 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
People as me questions, I answer them. People me ask to to source, I source them. But the reverse is never true. Look if you want to contribute to the discussion by all means go for it. But the constant pile on of me is getting boring. If Wombat does want to discuss with me than I'm going to hold him to the standard I get held to (and is the forum rules). I was nice to him for literally years, to point of personal well wishes in PM's then every couple days I have to deal with his tantrums and insults in here so he can look cool or whatever. Fuck that. He can be a grown up or fuck off and that goes for cry baby MP as well.
The me telling people to post better is supposed to be irony BTW, bunch of people complaining about my posts while posting WAY worse. The entitlement of "you have to do it this way but I'll shit all over the place" is awfully frustrating. But the lack of self awareness is the real kicker.
The talking about the straw manning is because that is exactly what happens on a daily basis. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many times I ask people to find where I said what they say I've said. Then some other guy who has not participated or read the conversation jumps in to also argue on behalf of the strawman, and that is when I mention the piling on.
If people want it not to be a bunch of shit posts, stop making shit posts. And this clearly goes for you as well. Congrats maybe you will win a prize for like the 100th no content, off topic shit post about me! (Not a real number, exaggerated for effect).
Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it. If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them. I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with. It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges. I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back. Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject. Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. But this is retroactively applying the term 'freedom fighters', which you agree is loaded with deeper meaning, as something WombaT actually ever said, which he did not. He at best said... what, 'resistance movement'? From my perspective, the reverse of what you insinuate regarding dogwhistling is happening, where people are asking WombaT why he called them freedom fighters when he never actually did. Like, I can read WombaT's words and understand that he does not intend to call them "Noble Freedom Fighters", such as him sardonically asking for anyone to source when he called them that. Literally, it seems like you're saying "You're calling them fighters for freedom, which is basically the definition for Freedom Fighters. But also, I consider Freedom Fighters good, and Hamas are not good. You shouldn't call them Freedom Fighters." If I were WombaT, I wouldn't know how to respond to this other than with a confused meme. You can't simultaneously have it basically be the definition for Freedom Fighters AND have Freedom Fighters also be implicitly good. Either Freedom Fighters is implicitly good in its definition and we acknowledge that it wasn't actually said, or Freedom Fighters is as simple as "fighters for freedom" in which case WombaT almost saying it is irrelevant because there's no implicit good or bad. I would simply never say that Hamas is "fighting for freedom". In short, saying it is a Dog Whistle. It seems to be an accidental Dog Whistle on his part. He resents that he is being called out for calling Hamas "freedom fighters", so it seems that he does not actually believe they are. Still, he Dog Whistled for them to the point that Jimmi thought he actually called them freedom fighters and I'm pointing that out to WombaT. I hope that clarifies. I get it. I still take issue with the bolded on account of WombaT not having called Hamas freedom fighters. It is more likely true that he resents being called out for calling Hamas "freedom fighters" because he did not call them freedom fighters. I do get where you're coming from, though!
Oops, poor phrasing on my part. I agree with your correction.
|
On February 02 2024 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 03:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Al Jazeera deleted their original tweet. But have now put another confirming the previous one, still no deal. Israel has apparently agreed Hamas is the holdout still. Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman: Hamas received the ceasefire proposal in a positive atmosphere and we are awaiting their response. AJ has anonymous officials saying Israel's government signed off on the framework (a specific deal would come after) Show nested quote +Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Jamjoom, reporting from Tel Aviv, said anonymous Israeli officials confirmed that the government signed off to a deal that was presented to Hamas. This includes a pause in fighting and the release of Israeli captives in Gaza in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners. And the very public quote of Israel's PM indicating the opposite. Show nested quote +Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday said Israel would continue its war in Gaza until “absolute victory” over Hamas.
He ruled out releasing “thousands” of Palestinian prisoners as part of any deal to halt the fighting and said the army would not withdraw from Gaza.
“I would like to make it clear… We will not withdraw the IDF [army] from the Gaza Strip and we will not release thousands of terrorists. None of this will happen,” www.aljazeera.com
Those points aren't contradictory. In fact they just highlight the explanation I made a few pages back, just after your last post on that topic.
Israel doesn't want a permanent ceasefire because that means not eliminating Hamas as the governing power over Gaza. That is what Bibi is saying in your quote. "Israel would continue its war in Gaza until “absolute victory” over Hamas."
Israel is quite happy however, with a temporary ceasefire in exchange for hostages (cus then they can finish Hamas after the break anyways). That is exactly what your Al Jazeera source says they proposed. "This includes a pause in fighting and the release of Israeli captives in Gaza"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
