As long as we’re strolling down memory lane, does anyone remember when FinnAgain coined that phrase “mediocretin”?
Ah, yes. It was this thread. I wonder why he hasn’t used that insult since then? It’s a funny one.
To be fair to Finn, though, he later apologized for his crazy ways in that thread. And there was actually a good debate going on towards the end.
All I can say is when he think he’s right, he never lets up. Not even a little. So that’s why I tend to ignore him when he makes his entrance into a thread. Rarely does he ever give respect to an opposing view. I think that’s his biggest flaw, even moreso than the name-calling and Great Wall of Text.
Just out of curiosity, what’s up with calling elucidator “Clowny?” Does it refer to some secretly hilarious board incident I missed, or is it just like calling MrDibble “Dribble” but far more arbitrary and without any of the mild cleverness of actually referring to something specific about the poster?
If the latter, may I suggest that Finn begin referring to Giraffe as “Stretch” immediately in order to avoid another completely arbitrary nickname assignment?
True, but a robust program of mental hygiene may not be adequately exercised without contact with such pathogens. A vigorous immune system will not maintain itself without some challenge.
I like his posts when I see them, I think I am Jewish enough to be included in that group. I don’t think we have a universal cause, can you tell me what it is?
To you subscribe to the “suasion by mob consensus” method? You recommend it for all?
heh - for a post that complains about people repeating themselves, this is kinda finny!
You know that such definitive statements are shown wrong by a single counter-example, right? consider me a counter-example, and you can see by your magic searching skills, I don’t have any horse in whatever race you are talking about. But whenever I see FinnAgain’s posts, I find them incisive and on the mark, far more so than average on here.
Just read the entire thread - all fun and noodling aside, I do notice that no one seems to have taken FinnAgain’s request to explain why the long list of perceived and actual Jewish names in the government of dual loyalty (and in effect, treason to the US) came from.
I have never seen RedFury’s posts before, so I have zero prior opinion about him.
Forget FinnAgain, now I am curious: Was it a bad attempt at a joke or something? What exactly did he mean by that? It looks like it may have been a bad attempt at satire, but satire at or of what exactly?
Well, Finn often has interesting and informative things to say, but when he’s disagreeing with somebody that he considers is being unduly critical of Israel or Jews, you frequently have to sift out a lot of pretty aggressive hyperbole in what he says.
Now here’s FinnAgain on that post in the current thread:
(Emphasis added.) Notice where that discussion started off, and where it ended up. It began with RedFury implying that a bunch of highly-placed US government officials, most of them Jewish, are sufficiently devoted to the interests of Israel to qualify them as “dual loyalists”. Personally, I think such a statement is exaggerated and way too sweeping, in an unpleasantly prejudiced-sounding “guilt by association” sort of way, and I think I’d feel that way even if I weren’t Jewish.
But even read in the worst possible light, it’s clear to me that RedFury’s remark was not based solely on some bigoted knee-jerk association of Jewish-sounding names with assumptions about excessive devotion to Israel. Several of the officials mentioned by RedFury (e.g., Wolfowitz and Perle) are indeed known for the extreme partisanship of their pro-Israel stance, and more weighty political pundits than RedFury have publicly raised the question of whether this level of partisanship is in the best interests of the US (and of Israel itself, for that matter).
So while I don’t like the way Red made his statement, I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that there’s a potentially valid topic of debate somewhere in there, about whether there are too many US politicians who (on account of their own Jewish identity or for whatever other reasons) are so pro-Israel that it makes them unwise counselors on Middle East policy.
But unfortunately, FinnAgain sometimes seems totally unwilling to acknowledge that there’s a potentially valid topic of debate anywhere in an opponent’s argument, if he can concentrate instead on attacking something else about the argument. His debating style in such circumstances is purely adversarial and hostile, never calmly analytical or collaborative-negotiating.
He isn’t satisfied with just raising an objection to the objectionable part of an argument and then going on to debate the substantive part of it; he just keeps pounding away on the part he finds objectionable. This reaction, repeated over and over, eventually comes across as mere hysterical screaming, compounded with unwillingness to confront the opponent’s actual point.
And during the pounding-away process, Finn not seldom ends up somewhat exaggerating what his opponent actually said, further strengthening the impression of intemperate irrational rage. Look how in the constant repetitions of his condemnation of Red’s remark in the above quotes, Finn morphs the original suggestion about some politicians’ “dual loyalty” (which is all that RedFury actually did say) into “accusations” of their being “potential traitors”—and eventually into flat-out “accusations of treachery” and of “being traitors to the nation”. Moreover, these “accusations” allegedly were intended to apply to every person in the US government who is Jewish or presumed by RedFury to be Jewish.
That’s not rational critique of fallacies and unwarrantable insinuations in an opposing argument; that’s gratuitous over-dramatization of an opposing argument for rhetorical effect. While I agree with you that the effect is generally “incisive”, that’s not the same thing as being convincing.
I just spent quite some time backreading the GD threads that led to this, and frankly, RedFury did not answer then plain and simple requests to explain further why his reamrk did not meet the standards of anti-Semitism. And on a similar tghread, he, Desid, and Jackmanii made simlar points as well wrt to Stones, who almost flipped and apologized, but then backtracked on.
That was quite an education.
I am sure FinnAgain will be back soon enough to say what I am about to say far better (he has more practice :), but I gotta say this:
What the fuck are you going on about? Jews have to prove their loyalty to be considered fro high level government positions? This is a fair topic of debate for you? How do you come to this conclusion? What other positions might you subject Jews to special consideration for? What about for other participation in society? Ownership of land? Marriage?
Forget RedFury, he probably doesn’t want you as a spokesperson, you are not really helping. Or maybe you are. Where is the line you would draw on what is a fair discussion to have on placing overt or covert limits on what Jews can do in society?
Seriously, what the fuck? Why would you consider that at all and expect to not be called, fairly, anti-Semitic?
You advocate negotiation and collaboration on what limits society should place on you? Fucking a, the hour is late, but, what the fuck!
Which part of such idiocy should he be pounding away on?
Seriously, what principles of American society are there that would let you say with a straight face, a man or woman’s religion is not only determinative of what role they can play in society, but that people of that religion should gladly sit by and collaborate on what those roles should be?
Did I say WHAT THE FUCK yet?
I hope you will deign answer these questions before FinnAgain comes along, because I really wonder what the fuck part of America you represent, and probab ly if he get here, you will just clam up.
That is what “dual loyalty” MEANS. It is an accusation of TREASON and not to be taken lightly. it is barely even a code-word, it is a flat out accusation of treason, that is certainly how I read it.
And I gotta say, Finn’s case that the list is suspiciously tilted towards Jews is telling, and I don’t recall if it was this thread or the other, but Red’s retraction of Tenet from the list when he found out he was of Greek descent rather than Jewish is also telling as to what he was trying to accomplish with his accusation.
I am sure the point was intended, but even if not, given the benefit of the doubt, you don’t see a problem with a list of a dozen or so “seems like Jews” and accusing them of being worthy of being investigated for TREASON as problematical?
Oh the issue with Finagain is not that his posts are not rational - they are pciture perfect examples of rational reasoning. His posts are jeered by peope who are too coy to say “tldr;” or “I don’t understand the reasoning he is making”.
He is convincing if you are open to reading it and being convinced, possibly by asking questions where you need clarification, instead of responding by suggesting Jews should collaborate in setting their own limits in society. What the fuck? Is it for our own good?
But I do see where if you think it is a fair topic for debate about how many Jews should be whether
, you might object to close scrutiny. You would put a quota on a man because of his religion and his views, and you don’t see the anti-Semitism in that?
Wow, not_alice. It looks like Finn’s posting style may be contagious.
Let’s clear up your primary misconception first:
This outburst has little or nothing to do with what I actually said. My point was that it’s legitimate to raise the issue of whether various INDIVIDUAL, EXPLICITLY radical pro-Israel-hawk politicians (whether Jewish themselves or not) are in fact currently exerting too much pro-Israel influence in the US government.
Trying to twist that into an alleged suggestion that Jews in general “have to prove their loyalty to be considered fro high level government positions” is absurd to the level of paranoia.
Once again: I’m not casting any aspersions whatever about the fitness of Jews in general for any level of government service or any other role in American society, and your suggesting that I am is simply ridiculous. (To take an individual example, I’m very proud of my own late father’s service as an employee of the US government, and I certainly don’t think that the fact of his being Jewish was a detriment to his service in any way.)
Political “views”, however, are not the same thing as “religion”, even though you sloppily tried to slide them together in your argument. In a political discussion of the political views held by politicians, there’s nothing anti-Semitic about criticizing a particular view or complaining that a particular view may be too influential in government policy.
And that brings me back to my point: namely, it’s legitimate to address the issue of whether specific individual Jewish politicians (or non-Jewish Israeli-hawk politicians, for that matter) are biasing US government policy towards Israel’s interests beyond what is in the US’s own best interests.
Your and Finn’s hysteria at the very mention of this issue, and your insistence on distorting it into imaginary recommendations of Jewish “quotas” and other anti-Semitic measures, merely suggests that you’re afraid to confront that question on its own merits.
Let me ask you, not_alice: Is there any possible way that anybody could bring up the question of whether some American Jewish politicians are too biased towards Israel on foreign-policy matters that you would be willing to address as a serious debate? Or would you always be trying to change the subject with loud screaming about anti-Semitism?
There are some topics which, like it or not, appear as shibboleths of certain forms of bigotry. This makes any “rational discussion” of those topics difficult, and something to be undertaken with sensitivity if at all, because they are seen as a signal of an unwelcome agenda.
This is by no means unique to Jews. There are innumerable threads where someone is “Just Asking Questions” about whether:
Science demostrates Blacks are genetically inferior, in terms of intelligence, to Whites;
Obama is not constitutionally fitted to be President, as he is was not born an American citizen;
The 9/11 attack was facilitated by the US gov’t;
Jews, as a group, tend to have “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted in positions of importance. They are potential traitors.
Often, for obvious reasons, those “Just Asking Questions” will not come right out and state the subject as clearly as that - because they know that it will get a hostile reception. So they approach the matter more subtily, but with the same basic intent.
Of course, there are others with genuine interest in the subject at hand, without an obnoxious agenda - but the well has been so thoroughly poisioned that it is hard for them to get a reasonable hearing. They are apt to be mistaken for the other kind.
Take for example the question of Obama’s birth. There may be an interesting historical issue about it, but the question has been thrashed over so often and with such fervour that it would be nearly impossible to discuss it without any reference to the “birther” context.
The same goes for accusations of disloyalty aimed at Jews. Those sensitive to the issue may note, for example, that this sort of 'innocent, rational question" - about the loyalty of “individuals of Jewish descent, not Jews as a group” hardly ever gets posed these days about non-Jews. For example, it would be considered totally outrageous to insinuate that certain named individuals of Catholic descent are not to be trusted in diplomacy involving nations primarily of Catholic population, for fear of partiality.
It would certainly be outrageous to question the trustworthiness of any Catholic individuals in such a situation solely on the grounds that they are Catholic.
However, if the Catholic individuals in question explicitly professed political views that were radically biased in favor of the Vatican’s political agenda, whatever that is, you can bet your booties that I would question whether it might not be in the US’s best interests for such individuals to exert strong influence on policy decisions involving the Vatican. I don’t see anything outrageous about that at all.
Similarly, I can’t accept that it’s automatically unspeakably outrageous to question whether certain extreme hard-line pro-Israeli-right hawks in US administrations may be over-influencing US policy decisions in favor of Israel. (And I don’t assume that such hard-liners are necessarily Jewish, either: I would be way more concerned about the influence of a super-hawk like, say, Mike Huckabee on US Middle East policy if he were running things than about that of most Jewish hawks.)
I understand what you’re saying about the well having been poisoned by previous bigotry and the consequent sensitivity about raising any such issues for debate. But if somebody is so focused on the possible connotations of bigotry in any such discussion that they refuse to pay any attention at all to any substantive issue that might be addressed in such a discussion, then I can’t take them seriously in their criticism of opposing views.
While I can’t speak for RedFury (and in fact, my earlier post explicitly criticized the bigoted implications of RedFury’s original remark), I can speak for myself. Personally, I don’t like anti-Semitism at all and don’t want to be guilty of it in any way. I consider myself to be “half Jewish” by cultural and ethnic heritage and am very proud to associate myself with that heritage. But I personally don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the question of whether certain strongly pro-Israel hard-liners, most of them Jewish, may have the effect of over-influencing US foreign policy in Israel’s favor.
I do not think that such a question should be automatically closed to discussion in all forms to everybody under all circumstances. Nor do I think that categorically refusing to treat such a question under any circumstances as anything but ipso facto an instance of anti-Semitic bigotry is at all helpful either to the struggle against anti-Semitism or the fight against ignorance.
You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, ‘Did you eat yet or what?’ And Tom Christie said, ‘No, JEW?’ Not ‘Did you?’…JEW eat? JEW? You get it? JEW eat?
(Having just watched Annie Hall again over the weekend…)
Well well, if we didn’t find yet another “anti-Semite (or 50% self-hating Jew as her posts would have it), lying, bigoted, troll” in Kimstu.
Seriously though, would that I had half the patience demonstrated in her two posts to this thread vis-a-vis the Irael/US political alliance. But I don’t thus I don’t pretend to. Simply a topic that’s become a massive cliche on this Board; which in turn appears to be a reflection of mainstream thought in the US. One-sided as hell, but there it is.
FTR, my “post to infamy” was done in haste and indeed it’s poorly constructed. That said, the frustration conveyed in the bitter sarcasm still remains…as do the reasons for same. Meaning that, for the most part, there is a very sharp divide in the US between those that will support Israel unconditionally and those that would ‘dare’ to criticize its policies. Little doubt as to who leads the way: 30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes. In fact, at this very moment Obama is threading a fine line on this very issue: UN resolution condemning Israel puts Obama on the spot.
Taking the SDMB as a microcosm of America’s mainstream – mind you, a site branded by many as skewed left by US standards – I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Sometimes the rational can become the enemy of the reasonable, just like the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
Is it rational to believe that some Americans have a loyalty to Israel that exceeds their loyalty to the USA? Of course, it wouldn’t be rational to believe otherwise. Some Americans loyalty to our future Insect Overlords exceeds their loyalty to the USA, there is no position so extreme that it is not held by someone.
As well, you have an offshoot of Christian fundamentalism that holds the existence of Israel to be a matter of faith, as it verifies and promotes a view of Apocalyptic prophecy of the “return of the Jews” as being an essential element of prophecy. Like the popularity of Snooki, a sign of the End Times. Is this rational? Well, yes, so far as any religiouis belief is rational.
But its not reasonable. And note well, these are not Jews, they aren’t even particularly sympathetic to Jews, the Jews are merely instruments of prophecy, and such Israeilis who are not actually Jewish don’t enter into the equation.
I am a friend to and admirer of Israel, but I also believe that our foreign policy tilt towards Israel is excessive. As a result, it emboldens and empowers those elements of Israeli politics that resist a peaceful solution, they feel they can resist compromise with America on their side. I am convinced that this is detrimental to a peace process, and that such a detriment to peace is destructive of Israel, and a threat to the peace of the region.
A rational argument can be made against this position, but not, I aver, a reasonable one.
By the same token, one can seize upon a statement made by a rhetorical opponent and exaggerate it out of all proportion, inflating a Japanese condom into a dirigible. Is this rational? Yes, but its not reasonable.
I don’t think we are really disagreeing. I don’t think any questions ought to be “automatically closed to discussion” or “automatically unspeakably outrageous”.
However, by the same token, it can hardly come as a surprise that certain topics, having been the timeworn subject of threadbare bigotry, should attract more automatically negative commentary than others.
For example, whether certain human populations are inherently, genetically more intelligent than others would, on its face, appear a perfectly reasonable scientific question to study. It is only in context of a long history of pseudoscientific racism - which relegated Blacks as an intermediate evolutionary step between apes and Whites, thus justifying lesser rights - that the issue becomes negatively charged. It is now effectively impossible to ignore that history and context in any discussion of variation in human intelligence. Wishing it were not so cannot make it so; it is just the nature of the thing.
That doesn’t mean the subject can’t be discussed, it just makes discussion of it more difficult.
I think the problem here might be that the majority of those ‘just asking questions’ about the “over-influence” of “pro-Israeli-Right” types are, obviously, generally from the left of the political spectrum; they may not be as aware of the long, long history of questioning the patriotism and motives of Jews - or if they are, they simply associate that with right wing types, nothing to do with them. They dismiss the importance of history and context, at least when it comes to themselves.
What I think they sometimes fail to realize, it the insidious power of such sterotypes, the ability of the human mind to internalize them without any concious ill intent, the ‘no smoke without fire’ effect of constant repetition.
Take again the example of pro-Israeli-right-hawks. The implication of their “over-influence” is that folks in the US are not acting on their own convictions on the topic of Israel, by democratically electing politicians sensitive to the public’s wishes on matters Israeli though policies and appointments (certainly, no-one would object to that); or that in the marketplace of ideas the pro-right-Israeli side has the advantage with the US public. It is that there is something inherently unfair, unethical, and subversive going on.
The problem here is that if it is merely a question of confronting individuals about their stance, there is nothing particularly ‘improper’ going on; it is of course perfectly acceptable in America for someone to announce “I’m a proud Zionist supporter, please vote for me” - then taking their political lumps or plaudits. The implications of “over-influence” are that there is something else at work. It is that ‘something else’, not the criticism of specific individuals (as I said, no-one can fault one for handing out lumps to politicians and appointees whose stance one dislikes), which raises hackles. It raises the spectre of Jewish conspiracies.
