Yeah, being a decent person is great. Complaining that people who disagree with you aren’t being decent is a tactic to avoid the real issue (though don’t give them too much credit, it’s not like they are tactical geniuses, they are just fragile and genuinely can’t handle disagreement).
5 Likes
The ground work was laid way back in 2012 and it wasn’t Trump who signed the bill. The forces may be extrajudicial but not unlawful.
Do you really think you can stop your government from taking you or your family with a few handguns? I don’t think you stand a chance if you want to live a normal life without you stopping to sleep, poop, work, shop etc.
1 Like
So, it’s another one of those words that’s been ruined by misuse, like “synergy” (shudder).
srsly wtf. you are going to stand up True! American! Nazi! Richard Spencer just so you can make a point about CNN being what, presumptious? Who is the subject of the “soulless golems” statement? The sheeple? Any particular kind of sheeple? Fuck Spencer and fuck you for sticking up for him in some kind of misguided attempt at being “fair.” I can’t even believe you’re saying this out loud. And seriously, some of my best friends are Jews? wtf wtf
Nah, just one of those words that is subjective by design. Like “deviant”.
Those same people who believe Jews Run The Media probably believe that they would allow NeoNazis access to make money off of them, or to “caricature” and to slur those other proud white nationalists.
Thank you for this clarification. That makes things a lot friendlier.
I will also assume that some of your other statements are to be interpreted similarly, such as the statement “your style of reasoning is systematically racist” and the allegation that people here care about “the reputation of a known racist anti-semite”.
I still disagree though. I see that those points can have the effect of defending racism and bigotry when brought forth at the wrong time or in the wrong context.
But this forum here has a comfortably large non-racist majority, and there has to be some place where it is legitimate to remind people who I perceive to be on “my side” to stick to the facts. Otherwise, we’re embracing post-truth politics.
1 Like
Yes, I say that style of reasoning is systematically racist because I think people care about avoiding systemic racism. I say that people are prioritizing the reputation of a known racist anti-semite because I think they don’t want to be doing that.
I don’t want to live in a post-fact world, but I do want to live in a world where we consider whether which facts we are interested in is systemically racist. You want to ask if we are technically misrepresenting his words (I don’t think we are, but that’s not really what I want to argue about). I want to ask if we are genuinely misrepresenting his views. I’m not going post-facts, I just have a different view of what facts should be of interest to us.
But my far more important point was that the actual BoingBoing article does not misquote Spencer. It doesn’t mention the “soulless golem” quote, but rather discusses the way CNN treated the question of whether Jews were people as if it were a legitimate question. The issue of misquoting him was injected into the discussion by someone who was defending Spencer, not by someone attacking him (one person did make a self-deprecating reference to themselves as a soulless golem before that, but that’s a personal reaction to the words, not a fact-based argument). The defense of Spencer was proactive. This was never about correcting our friends to avoid a post-fact world, it was about reflexive deference to white men rationalized as an obligation to the truth.
And again, I’m not saying anyone’s soul is full of hate here, I’m saying that if you don’t want to support racism you might have to give up something important to you, and your epistemology might be on the list.
I think this forum has a sizeable trying-our-best-to-be-better-about-racism plurality, and I hope that critiques like mine are some value in sustaining that.
4 Likes
“Non-racist” also assumes a binary versus a spectrum more in line with the reality we live in.
1 Like
If you understand the context it isn’t really that far off the mark, seriously.
anyone claiming that it isn’t antisemitic is being either disingenuous or ignorant or both.
This guy thinks and regularly states that the media is controlled by the jews and is jewish, both.
The golem reference is directly antisemitic and only makes sense in an antisemetic reference of the jews controlling the media. He is quite literally claiming that the jews have created and are controlling the soulless media who just does their bidding mindlessly. He also thinks that the media is jewish. So both are implied quite literally.
You can pick at threads, or look up and see it is merely the edge of a large nazi flag.
12 Likes
Well, being soulless you probably don’t care… But if you were possessing of a soul or any reason, you’d find recent political events in the USA very dreadful indeed.
2 Likes
Some of my wife’s relatives were at one of the “Borat” performances in Texas. They were familiar with him, having watched Ali G, and enjoyed themselves immensely.
2 Likes
D’ya think?
2 Likes
Ah, a smartass golem! The first step to having a soul!
4 Likes
Anyway, soul or not, I’m going to err on the side of terror and despair.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s sad, but my kid’s old preschool has an armed guard (it’s a jewish preschool based in a temple), and we often use the local JCC for kid-care during school vacations as my wife and I have work schedules that overlap two days of the week.
With the current emboldening of the racist a-holes of amerikkka, I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing a few golems manning the entrances of the JCC…
3 Likes
Ah,’ [Commander Vimes] said. ‘It seems some people want to talk to us . . .’
A crowd was approaching over the bridge, in a mass of grey, black and saffron robes. It was made up of priests. They looked angry. As they pushed and shoved their way through the other citizens, several haloes became interlocked. At their head was Hughnon Ridcully, Chief Priest of Blind lo and the closest thing Ankh-Morpork had to a spokesman on religious issues. He spotted Vimes and hurried towards him, admonitory finger upraised.
‘Now, see here, Vimes . . .’ he began, and stopped. He glared at Dorfl. ‘Is this it?’ he said.
‘If you mean the golem, this is him,’ said Vimes. ‘Constable Dorfl, your reverence.’
Dorfl touched his helmet respectfully. ‘How May We Be Of Service?’ he said.
‘You’ve done it this time, Vimes!’ said Ridcully, ignoring him. ‘You’ve gone altogether too far by . half. You made this thing speak and it isn’t even alive!’ ’
‘We want it smashed!’
‘Blasphemy!’
‘People won’t stand for it!’
Ridcully looked around at the other priests. ‘I’m talking,’ he said. He turned back to Vimes. ‘This comes under the heading of gross profanity and the worship of idols—’
‘I don’t worship him. I’m just employing him,’ said Vimes, beginning to enjoy himself. ‘And he’s far from idle.’ He took a deep breath. ‘And if it’s gross profanity you’re looking for—’
‘Excuse Me,’ said Dorfl.
‘We’re not listening to you! You’re not even really alive!’ said a priest.
Dorfl nodded. ‘This Is Fundamentally True,’ he said.
‘See? He admits it!’
‘I Suggest You Take Me And Smash Me And Grind The Bits Into Fragments And Pound The Fragments Into Powder And Mill Them Again To The Finest Dust There Can Be, And I Believe You Will Not Find A Single Atom of Life—’
‘True! Let’s do it!’
‘However, In Order To Test This Fully, One Of You Must Volunteer To Undergo The Same Process.’
There was silence.
‘That’s not fair,’ said a priest, after a while. ‘All anyone has to do is bake up your dust again and you’ll be alive . . .’
There was more silence.
Ridcully said, ‘Is it only me, or are we on tricky theological ground here?’
There was more silence.
Another priest said, ‘Is it true you’ve said you’ll believe in any god whose existence can be proved by logical debate?’
‘Yes.’
Vimes had a feeling about the immediate future and took a few steps away from Dorfl.
‘But the gods plainly do exist,’ said a priest.
‘It Is Not Evident.’
A bolt of lightning lanced through the clouds and hit Dorfl’s helmet. There was a sheet of flame and then a trickling noise. Dorfl’s molten armour formed puddles around his white-hot feet.
‘I Don’t Call That Much Of An Argument,’ said Dorfl calmly, from somewhere in the clouds of smoke.
‘It’s tended to carry the audience,’ said Vimes. ‘Up until now.’
The Chief Priest of Blind lo turned to the other priests. ‘All right, you fellows, there’s no need for any of that—’
‘But Offler is a vengeful god,’ said a priest at the back of the crowd.
‘Trigger-happy is what he is,’ said Ridcully. Another lightning bolt zigzagged down but bent at right-angles a few feet above the Chief Priest’s hat and earthed itself on a wooden hippo, which split. The Chief Priest smiled smugly and turned back to Dorfl, who was making little clinking noises as he cooled. ‘What you’re saying is, you’ll accept the existence of any god only if it can be proved by discussion?’
'Yes,'said Dorfl.
Ridcully rubbed his hands together. ‘Not a problem, me old china,’ he said.
‘Firstly, let us take the—’
‘Excuse Me,’ said Dorfl. He bent down and picked up his badge. The lightning had given it an interesting melted shape.
‘What are you doing?’ said Ridcully.
‘Somewhere, A Crime Is Happening,’ said Dorfl. ‘But When I Am Off Duty I Will Gladly Dispute With The Priest of The Most Worthy God.’
He turned and strode on across the bridge. Vimes nodded hurriedly at the shocked priests and ran after him. We took him and baked him in the fire and he’s turned out to be free, he thought. No words in the head except the ones he’s chosen to put there himself. And he’s not just an atheist, he’s a ceramic atheist.
Fireproof!
It looked like being a good day.
Behind them, on the bridge, a fight was breaking out.
22 Likes
Perhaps I did misunderstand what you meant by what you wrote.
That’s what I disagreed with. Even here you are relying upon too many glosses to explain why you think so. Your “because” does not follow for me. Again, you are flatly saying that your position cannot be disagreed with. Asserting that their statement “cannot credibly be differentiated” from your conclusions rather than explaining how or why you make this association seems dishonest to me. Saying that anyone who sees it differently automatically lacks credibility tells that you are not truly open to discussing this.
You mentioned it not by name, but by definition. When you said that @anon62122146 should not discuss this because unreasoned fear (aka terror) would be the obvious consequence.
I am ambivalent, because I think guns are a quaint, primitive technology anyway. So I try to avoid both a knee-jerk reactions for and against guns.
1 Like
Be careful what you wish for…
(I saw a live version of the play once, by a theatre/klezmer troupe at the Woodford Folk Festival; brilliantly done)
3 Likes
Based on my travels around the world over the years thats not so uncommon. Some years back when I went to Sydney for example, just to get into the Great Synagogue in Sydney I had to deal with several guards. For a while now in Paris Jewish schools, synagogues and other places require 3 person squads of military at entrances and exits with full body armor, sidearms and automatic weapons.
1 Like
