EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 203
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42252 Posts
That’s the central premise of Mein Kampf, as I’m sure most will have guessed. The counter argument is the obvious “the difference made by one more genocide is an entire genocide of difference you fucking lunatic”. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 27 2018 13:19 Danglars wrote: If you're going to cry uncle on genocide with respect to discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the middle east, you're basically admitting incapability of discussing the middle east (and should really stay far away from palestinian protests of Israel, which allege past and present genocide and all sorts of nastiness.) It's like the natural extension of "Your argument is racist" shutdown of debate. I mean, since this is the moderation thread I'll try not to get too in the weeds on arguing the Israel-Palestine conflict with you. Suffice to say I disagree that it is impossible to discuss the subject without advocating genocide. But on topic: where exactly do you think the line should be on advocating genocide on TL? Do you think it is okay for someone to say "I think all Palestinians should be massacred"? (Or, alternatively, "...all Israelis..."?) If not, what do you think is diffeent about xDaunt's position that makes it more acceptable? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide. I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 27 2018 13:25 ChristianS wrote: I mean, since this is the moderation thread I'll try not to get too in the weeds on arguing the Israel-Palestine conflict with you. Suffice to say I disagree that it is impossible to discuss the subject without advocating genocide. But on topic: where exactly do you think the line should be on advocating genocide on TL? Do you think it is okay for someone to say "I think all Palestinians should be massacred"? (Or, alternatively, "...all Israelis..."?) If not, what do you think is diffeent about xDaunt's position that makes it more acceptable? I know accusations of genocide on behalf of Palestinians against the Israelis all too well. My undergraduate university education involved many protests that asserted Israel's guilt in the matter week after week. They seriously thought the matter was settled. Now, what could a hypothetical defender of Israel do? Of course, the easy first one is to say they're dead wrong about the whole matter, and looney and bonkers. But move beyond that, and somebody somewhere will say Israel's actions were appropriate for a nation. And what to say to someone that says it's tantamount to condoning, endorsing, and advocating genocide? I'd simply say that the matter is under debate at how much may reasonably be ascribed to each side ... since the wiping out of the Jews from the Israeli state, as declared by the charter of the ruling party in Gaza, is also the advocacy of genocide, and someone might make the pointed critique that the defenders of Gazan state simply are preferring their personal choice of genocide target. His contention is something about it is inevitable, and you want to put a "should" in front or draw an "acceptability" timetable. I don't think that's fair. I think many other persons taking many other positions can be criticized as basically advocating genocide against one or another party. It's the nature of the beast and no discussion of America's foreign policy with respect to Israel/Palestine can be assumed to be immune from that criticism, as commonplace as it is. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote: Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it. If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide. I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
Saying we are predisposed to something isn't the same thing as advocating for it. For instance, I've heard evolutionary biologists say that we are predisposed to racism. They then go on to explain how we need to know the problem in order to combat it. That is, knowing that there is something bad inside you is useful in actually dealing with the problem. But it's still bad. I think the key part to understanding that this is not advocacy is "The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived." If I take a firmly held and well-known position of xDaunt's to contextualize this, I also know that xDaunt strongly holds that what Western culture has created is, by and large, good. Western culture is a bulwark against a baser instinct for violence. Or life without society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Emphasis on the brutish. That the current halt on genocide is unlikely to last isn't being said to be a good thing, but rather that xDaunt takes a rather dim view of humans' morality. Little faith in the human spirit here. But not having faith in humans' capacity to do good isn't the same thing as saying the bad is good. But the bad is there and is unlikely to go away. That's my take anyway, based on what was quoted. edit To further my case: On November 27 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote: The world can be a pretty shitty and unforgiving place. Hobbes laid it out pretty well. Once this is understood, it becomes much easier to figure out who and what should be supported and why dismembering the liberal western world order is a catastrophically stupid idea. It would seem I was right to reference Hobbes. And I think this pretty much sums up xDaunt's supposed advocacy for genocide. Tearing down the thing (in his view) that his holding back mass violence "is a catastrophically stupid idea." In other words, it's Bad. Catastrophically Bad. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote: Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. First of all, he never uses the word “civilization”. He uses “western culture” as if all the nations of Europe and the US are of one culture. Western culture isn’t an academic term and isn’t real. And even if he used civilization, the Western Civilizations were not the first to decide the mass slaughter of people was unacceptable. Finally the word didn’t exist before 1944, for the love of god. He is retroactively applying a term used to discribe the institutional slaughter of a people at an industrial scale to all of human history, and then claiming the people who invented the term were the first to be against it. The entire thing is so ignorant of the origins of the word genocide it is insulting. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On November 27 2018 14:35 Falling wrote: Leaving aside the Israeli-Palestinian argument- I haven't read the thread, only the comments quoted here. Saying we are predisposed to something isn't the same thing as advocating for it. For instance, I've heard evolutionary biologists say that we are predisposed to racism. They then go on to explain how we need to know the problem in order to combat it. That is, knowing that there is something bad inside you is useful in actually dealing with the problem. But it's still bad. I think the key part to understanding that this is not advocacy is "The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived." If I take a firmly held and well-known position of xDaunt's to contextualize this, I also know that xDaunt strongly holds that what Western culture has created is, by and large, good. Western culture is a bulwark against a baser instinct for violence. Or life without society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Emphasis on the brutish. That the current halt on genocide is unlikely to last isn't being said to be a good thing, but rather that xDaunt takes a rather dim view of humans' morality. Little faith in the human spirit here. But not having faith in humans' capacity to do good isn't the same thing as saying the bad is good. But the bad is there and is unlikely to go away. That's my take anyway, based on what was quoted. edit To further my case: It would seem I was right to reference Hobbes. And I think this pretty much sums up xDaunt's supposed advocacy for genocide. Tearing down the thing (in his view) that his holding back mass violence "is a catastrophically stupid idea." In other words, it's Bad. Catastrophically Bad. I'd rather just discuss this in the blog but I think people view it as advocacy because arguing for inevitability is usually exactly that in different dressings. It's people fighting the inevitability of the "natural order" that is the reason we have a US in the first place. It's through a lens like that it seems as though we're not arguing about a regrettable acceptance of the inevitable, but a superficially indifferent self-fulfilling prophecy that it would seem takes a rather affirmative position on the necessity (not just the inevitablity, better demonstrated in danglars related posts) and humanity of genocide. It's a nuanced line xDaunt is much more adept at tip toeing than danglars. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
But I disagree that believing in the inevitability of something is the same thing as advocacy in different dressing. For one, let's say it's true for the moment. Saying something is true, isn't the same thing saying what one ought to do. Is-Ought and all that. And for another, to give parallel example, the Christian doctrine of total depravity states that no part of any human is untouched by evil. All parts of a person is fallen: it is inevitable that people want to desire evil, to think evil, to do evil, etc. Yet, this belief in a human default towards evil does not turn into an advocacy for practicing that evil. Once, you diagnose the right problem, then you can find right solution. Christ in Christian doctrine and the various principles of Western culture in xDaunt's way of thinking. edit. But he's clearly not going for natural order and natural law from this inevitability. His follow up post suggests that we need a defence against this propensity for evil. In other words, what Is, Ought Not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 27 2018 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd rather just discuss this in the blog but I think people view it as advocacy because arguing for inevitability is usually exactly that in different dressings. Exactly. He argues that in the near future western Cultures(White cultures) will have to rethink their benevolent stance on genocide to address other cultures that refuse to co-exists. As if cultures have agency. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
On November 27 2018 15:04 Plansix wrote: Exactly. He argues that in the near future western Cultures(White cultures) will have to rethink their benevolent stance on genocide to address other cultures that refuse to co-exists. As if cultures have agency. Where? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
On November 27 2018 14:52 Plansix wrote: First of all, he never uses the word “civilization”. He uses “western culture” as if all the nations of Europe and the US are of one culture. Western culture isn’t an academic term and isn’t real. And even if he used civilization, the Western Civilizations were not the first to decide the mass slaughter of people was unacceptable. Finally the word didn’t exist before 1944, for the love of god. He is retroactively applying a term used to discribe the institutional slaughter of a people at an industrial scale to all of human history, and then claiming the people who invented the term were the first to be against it. The entire is so ignorant of the origins of the word genocide it is insulting. It was created because people viewed it as a legitimate thing to do before then or at least not a great sin to force people away from their lands,ignoring what happened afterwards. He's retroactively describing things with a new word. That's just the basic development of language. That the people who invented the word are the same who are first be against it is just logical. How can people be against something before it became a thing? You're grasping at straws to find anything you can possibly find wrong with it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On November 27 2018 15:03 Falling wrote: It was brought up as a case for website feedback, so I weighed in. But I disagree that believing in the inevitability of something is the same thing as advocacy in different dressing. For one, let's say it's true for the moment. Saying something is true, isn't the same thing saying what one ought to do. Is-Ought and all that. And for another, to give parallel example, the Christian doctrine of total depravity states that no part of any human is untouched by evil. All parts of a person is fallen: it is inevitable that people want to desire evil, to think evil, to do evil, etc. Yet, this belief in a human default towards evil does not turn into an advocacy for practicing that evil. Once, you diagnose the right problem, then you can find right solution. Christ in Christian doctrine and the various principles of Western culture in xDaunt's way of thinking. edit. But he's clearly not going for natural order and natural law from this inevitability. His follow up post suggests that we need a defence against this propensity for evil. In other words, what Is, Ought Not. Like I said, xDaunt is much better at the dance than danglars. xDaunt's version laments the atrocity while funding and supplying it and to some observers genuinely appears to oppose the very fate he supports funding. The parallel is that they have both taken the position that it will either be the Israeli's committing genocide against the Palestinians, or vice versa and there is no viable alternative. One potential solution they've completely removed from the table is going back to before WWII and the west decided to threaten them with annihilation if they didn't give away their land until Jews completely exterminated them. Presumably after they've exterminated the Palestinian people it will be some other country Israel invades that can't coexist peacefully and the only unfortunate solution is genocide of the "savages" (or complete submission) again until they've worked themselves across the entire middle east. Thus is Western Imperialism in a nutshell. Then there's the whole rhetoric around western culture and so on P6 points out below which is a very careful way to word some much darker shit I don't really want to parse at this point. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point. A: genocide is a modern term, coined in 1944 to discribe the systematic slaughter of ethnic group on an industrial scale. Genocide is not as old as humanity. B: in the context of the current discussion, he posits that genocide will be something western cultures return to until there is somehow a “convergence of global values”. As he considers western culture to be inherently meritorious, that convergence is the world adopting western culture. One must question how we get to western culture dominating. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
The importation of 'industrial scale' into the definition of genocide limits it to modernity. But that's not really the intrinsic definition. We could simply go with the "deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race." It literally originates as genos and cide meaning nation/ tribe killing. That's a semantic word game you are playing to limit its application. We could limit it to modern killings, but it's not a necessary restriction. And then we would need a very similar word minus the 'industrial scale' to describe more or less the same thing... Rwanda for instance. All that happened in the modern era is we got better at it. It's not a category error but a matter of scope. It's a fairly common occurrence throughout history to slaughter all men of a conquered population. Applying the word 'genocide' is not so out of keeping with its root definition "nation/ tribe killing". As for B. You are reading way too much into this. He admits lower down he is Hobbesian in his outlook. That should give sufficient explanation for his dark view of inevitabilities. And then you import Western culture into the global values sentence and then add in domination which appears nowhere. The convergence of global values is a more widespread understanding that genocide is undesirable, which is currently localized (in xDaunt's view). Nothing at all about Western culture "will have to rethink their benevolent stance on genocide to address other cultures that refuse to co-exists." | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 27 2018 10:39 xDaunt wrote: Do you agree that peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible? If so, which side do you want to win out and why? This appears to be starting from the premise that it's impossible for the two sides to both exist without trying to kill each other, so the only peaceful resolution is for one of them to win. He's trying to get GH to say he would prefer one or the other "win," but GH refuses: On November 27 2018 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Yes. Humanity. Because I care about people. xDaunt does not think that's a possible answer here: On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote: Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction. Now everything's been a little hazy to this point, because xDaunt is insisting one side must "win" but it's not really spelled out what "winning" means. I mean, we can infer that if peaceful coexistence is assumed to be impossible at the outset then "winning" must mean the non-existence of the other side, but it's not explicitly stated. But IgnE points out that it smells like a justification for genocide, and xDaunt responds with his inevitability of genocide quoted anove. Rereading it again, I have trouble seeing how my summary of "genocide is inevitable, so we might as well decide who gets genocided" is incorrect. I'd be very interested in your alternate reading. Do I need to point out that arguing something is inevitable is, in fact, a justification for that thing (i.e. IgnE was right)? Applying this philosophy to Israel-Palestine specifically, isn't the implication clearly that there's no point trying to stop them genociding each other, so we might as well pick a side and help them finish the job? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
Like GoTunk's question for instance. But things are muddled after that. It's certainly not a pro-Israel argument I've ever heard, if your interpretation is correct. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42252 Posts
On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote: Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
That being said I think this question was loaded: On November 27 2018 10:39 xDaunt wrote: Do you agree that peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible? If so, which side do you want to win out and why? I don't believe that entirely peaceful coexistence between Palestinians et al. and Israelis is possible as those two groups currently exist. xDaunt's question, however, glosses over the third possible outcome to that issue, besides one side or the other "winning": to wit, one (or more likely both) sides might change such that peaceful coexistence becomes possible. + Show Spoiler + I don't expect it to happen quickly or without a great deal of death and suffering. I also don't know that sufficient stability will be maintained for it to happen before - one side "wins" over the other - some superpower starts World War 3 - insert out-of-context problem here but I don't think it's impossible. I'll also point out that the "et al" is important. I doubt anything would stop with Palestine. As far as I can see a fair bit of the noise that has followed derives (directly or indirecly) from that concealed assertion of fact. Edgelording it up with word games and traps like this isn't exactly unusual in these parts (and not only from xDaunt). | ||
| ||
