Alessan, what is your problem?

The BBQ Pit
1

To continue the argument from this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=67250&pagenumber=2

Alessan, I find your whole argument to be rather problematic. Let’s review:

  1. I accused you of having a double standard.

  2. You explained your earlier comments by saying that your post had been “a post I made two weeks before I left my country (and believe me, there was - and is - quite a lot of guilt involved that I was trying to suppress), a post in a thread involving Oldscratch and Danialinthewolvesden? Do you know that prior to joining the SDMB, I had never in my life had a serious converstion with someone who wasn’t Jewish? Do you know how much I’ve tried to adjust over the past 9 months?” You also accused me of having “bad form” for bringing up a post which you had made so long go.

  3. I retracted my original accusation and admitted that I hadn’t known the entire story of the difficulties you were experiencing at the time. I also explained why, not knowing your situation, it had seemed appropriate to quote your old post.

  4. For some reason, you refused to let the matter drop, and moreover tried to put the onus for continuing the argument on me by saying, “Well, Ben it seems as if you want to continue this debate, instead of simply apologizing and letting things be.” You also tried to smear me by spinning a rather paranoid scenario in which I’m only interested in “winning” arguments, and to that end I apparently am supposed to be keeping little dossiers of “careful notes” on people I don’t like. You also changed your argument. It’s no longer that you had spoken in haste at a time when you were experiencing emotional upset and personal difficulties. Instead, you changed to saying, “I don’t expect you to believe it, but at the time, I did not truly believe my remarks to be offensive.” At this point I felt that in order to defend myself, I had to bring up the much stronger comments for which you had earlier apologized. While one could believe that such comments were the result of emotional upset, no one could possibly believe that you didn’t think your remarks would be found offensive. If I might quote:

Let’s juxtapose this with your recent explanation of what you really meant by this: 'Instead of talking about murder, or rape (a subject you seem oddly obsessed with), the full meaning of this sentence - easily understandable within its context - is “I don’t trust you to protect me”. ’

Alessan, are we to believe that “we have… our own nukes. You could try killing us, but for every one you take, we’ll take ten. Jew Season is over,” is just a way of saying “I don’t trust you to protect me”? Are we to believe that you weren’t talking about us Gentiles "murder"ing Jews?

In all honesty, I must admit to one error. I had earlier said that Alessan was saying that it was “tough shit” that we wouldn’t be able to rape and kill Jews anymore. Upon re-reading his post, it’s clear that he meant that it’s tough shit if you don’t think that the Jews have a right to Palestine.
Alessan, I don’t see why you had to fan the flames out of control here. Yes, I agree to disagree with you when you value Jewish lives over Gentile ones. But I also admitted that I had been wrong in accusing you of having a double standard. And, believe it or not, I fully recognize that you regret your earlier comments. The problem is that you’re making personal attacks on me, and to that end you’re misrepresenting your comments and you keep squirming in your attempts to justify them.

Perhaps this has all been the result of a misunderstanding- it wouldn’t be the first time you said something you regretted. Do you recognize that I don’t keep a file of “careful notes” on you or anyone else? Do you recognize that my interpretation of your remarks about us “Gentile bastards” was very reasonable, and that your post wasn’t “easily understandable in its context” to mean “I don’t trust you to protect me”?

-Ben

2

Sorry to bump, but I’m interested in this.

3

Ben, what is offensive about this? Sure, it’s roughly written, and sure, it’s over-generalized (Jews in India and (at least recently) Northern Ireland have generally avoided being victimized), but it is:

a) a defensible, if somewhat paranoid, POV; and
b) from what I’ve learned, a pretty damn accurate reflection of the philosophy of many Zionists.

“We can’t trust you Gentile bastards.” Hey howdy, anti-Semetism, even state-sanctioned anti-Semetism, didn’t end with the Holocaust. And even if it did, are the Jews supposed to think that 50 years of relative peace is the end of pogroms, persecution, etc.? Statistically, it’s an abberation.

“You think we’re going to trust the U.S. to protect us? 50 years from now, America could be a fascist, anti-semitic state - you can say it won’t happen, but can you say it can’t happen?” Personally, I think it’s more likely that Israel would become a fascist (though obviously not anti-Semetic) state in 50 years, but if I were Jewish, I doubt that I’d want to take that (to my mind) infitesmial risk. Remember, Germany was probably the most Jewish-friendly state in Europe prior to Hitler.

Personally, I have no problem with Zionism. I do wish they had chosen a different place to found a Jewish homeland, but the concept of one makes eminent sense given the unfortunate history of the Jews.

Sua

4

Evenin’, Ben. Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier - busy day at work.

Look, we seem to have two issues here. The first one, and to me, the more important one, is one of etiquette. In the middle of a rather innoccuous argument, in which neither of us had any deep emotional involvement, you dredged up a post I had made last July - a post I regret making, a post using what may be described as “excessive zeal” and poor attempts at fiery rhetoric, a post I made before I fully realized what one can or cannot say on the SDMB. And in bringing it up, you forced me to defend it once more.

Yes, you admitted that you failed to appreciate the full context of the post, both internal and external. And yes, you explane your reasons for quoting it. But you refused to apologize for the most important aspect of this mess - that you should not have quoted this post of all, context nonwhistanding.

Captain Amazing said something about how this looked like a long-time feud. I had been thinking upon similar lines myself - and I was deeply puzzled. As far as i can recall, you and I have never argued before; in fact, I’ve always liked your style, your wit, and more often than not I’ve agreed with your opinions. But when you bring up a post from nine months ago, a post I had nearly forgotten about completely, what was I to think? It looked very much like you have somer long-standing grudge against me, the kind of grudge that makes you wait for an opening in order to lash out. And frankly, that’s what offended me - not your criticism of my opinions; not the fact that you called me a racist, something I most certainly am not; but that, in my opinion, you weren’t fighting fair.

A doper should not be expected to defend his distant past. We’re not politicians here, dammit. I’m not running for office. If something I posted last July has direct relevance to the current thread, then maybe, possibly, you should consider bringing it up. But otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie.

And if that’s not Straight Dope policy, then gosh-darn it, it should be.

The second issue is my statement itself - because when something has been brought to the open, it has to be adressed, although I could think of thousands of things I’d rather be doing which aren’t dealing with words I once spoke in anger. The no.1 thing, BTW, involves the smell wafting in from my kitchen - Mrs. Alessan is making Bulgarian Kebabs, and old family recipe and the seventeenth wonder of the world. So I’ll be brief.

Once again, SuaSponte, you astound me. Although we often don’t see eye to eye, your posts are wise, even-handed and very perceptive. And in this case, dead-on. I only have to add a few notes:

  1. I’ve become much less paranoid since moving to New York. In my countypeople’s defense, I must say that I’ve always been paranoid for an Israeli - it comes with being the child of American immigrants (don’t ask; the sociology is complex beyond belief). That said, I think that it’s always best to err on the side of caution.

Better paranoid than sorry.

  1. Frankly - and don’t let this get out - I also would rather have founded the country somewhere else. But what can you do? What’s done can’t be undone, at least not easily. Besides, do you see a Jew for 1905 Minsk moving to Uganda? People will rally behind an idea and a symbol faster that they’ll rally behind just an idea.

  2. I agree - unfortunately, Israel may “go fascist” before the U.S. But still - and you’re going to hate me for asking this - if you have to live in a totalitarian country, what would you rather be, a member of the majority, or a minority?

5

**

Well, I disagree. I think that it was entirely appropriate for me to bring it up, given the context. I’m sorry that I did so without understanding the circumstances, and you seem to be a lot nicer person than the post made you out to be- but like I said before, if a Gentile had made a post like yours, most people would have a hard time believing that it was even psychologically possible for him to radically change his views in a mere 9 months.

Thank you for your comments. While I have no interest in debating the subject myself, I found your explanation to be interesting.

You are, however, not addressing the third, central issue: the apparently false statements you made in attacking me and defending yourself. You accused me of taking your comments out of context, and stated that in context, they “clearly” meant “I don’t trust you to protect me.” You specifically stated that in context, no reasonable person could read your comments as being anti-Gentile paranoia about people like the gentiles on the SDMB killing and raping Jews. Based on this point, you seemed to imply deliberate dishonesty on my part.

I think that the quote in context clearly appears to say, if anything, that for every Jew killed by us gentiles, you and your comrades will kill ten Gentiles. What you most specifically did not say was, “We don’t need you to protect us, because if someone attacks us, we’ll kill ten of them for every Jew they kill.” You said you would kill ten of us. Now, maybe you regret saying that. Maybe what came out isn’t even what you meant to say at the time. But I resent the implication that a straightforward reading of your post, as written, is somehow proof of deliberate dishonesty on my part.

This is, to me, the sticking point. I made an argument based on a comment you had made some time ago, and which had stuck with me because I found it to be so extreme. You explained the circumstances, and I dropped the matter. I mean, think of what that means. You claim that you aren’t a politician, and you shouldn’t have to defend your distant past- but I never demanded that you defend it. All I did was to assume that you meant what you said, just like I assume that you mean what you say when you make much less offensive comments. When you declared that you regretted your earlier statement, I tried to drop the matter and made explicit moves to talk about something else.

The entire reason I’ve started a Pit thread about you is not because your statements about “tribes” are such a big deal to me, it’s not because you ranted in haste about “Gentile bastards,” it’s not because I’m forcing you, against your wishes, to “defend your distant past,” but because for some reason you weren’t willing to drop the matter, and in the process of arguing your position you made attacks on me based on statements which seemed to progressively stray further and further from the truth.

Like I said before, maybe this is all a big misunderstanding. For all I know, maybe you feel threated by my disagreement with you over “tribalism,” maybe you’re threatened by the idea that I’m not the only gentile who finds your views offensive, and underneath it all the real issue is that you feel the need to justify your beliefs. I’m willing to drop this, and I’ve tried to do so several times, but I feel the need to defend myself when you start claiming that I’ve twisted your words around and quoted you blatantly out of context.

-Ben

6

If I might add two more cents…

the more I think about your complaint, Alessan, the harder it becomes for me to understand what, exactly, you’re complaining about.

Nine months ago you stated that in a natural disaster, you would save Jews before Gentiles.

I brought up your comment in the B.C. thread.

You tell me that it’s “bad form” to bring up an old comment, and that you regret having made the comment.

I then drop the matter, and try to steer the conversation elsewhere.

You then go on to defend your original comment at length, and to try to justify the “tribal” viewpoint which you were trying to express with it. You further state that you regret the comment not because you disagree with what was said, but because you now know that Americans would be offended if you revealed your true views about “tribalism.” (It’s a little unclear to me whether you feel that the comment was poorly phrased.)

Now, you state that you shouldn’t have to “defend your distant past,” and complain that I still haven’t apologized for bringing up the comment in the first place.

But if you still agree with what you originally said, how is it the “distant past”? Sure, I brought it up, but haven’t you been spending a lot of energy reiterating the comment? Would you be happier if I were to apologize for bringing up the old rendition of the comment, and instead attack yesterday’s rendition?

How is it “bad form” for me to bring up a comment that you still agree with, which you have never repudiated, which you have now affirmed within the last 24 hours, but which you wish you hadn’t made so that people wouldn’t be exposed to your true views? Let’s suppose a fundie had made some remarks about how he thought homosexuality was a perversion and an abomination, and then didn’t talk about homosexuality for 9 months because he realized that his views are unpopular on the SDMB. If I brought up his earlier remarks, would he be justified in saying that it was “bad form” for me to point out that the thinks homosexuality is a perversion, simply because he regrets, for whatever reason, having exposed his beliefs and wishes he had kept them to himself? Is the “distant past” irrelevant to the present when he hasn’t changed his views on homosexuality?

Am I missing something here?

It seems to me that once again, the key to all this lies in your use of the word “tact,” which you still haven’t defined despite my trying more than once to steer the conversation back to it and away from your remarks about Gentiles. It seems to me that, to you, “tact” means that there are certain views which one keeps quiet about. To you, then, “tact” might mean that while you would save all the Jews before you saved any Gentiles in an emergency, “tact” demands that you not discuss your view in front of American Gentiles, who don’t understand “tribalism.” And, in such a scheme of things, perhaps you see me as being at fault not because I portrayed you as holding views which you no longer held, but because I portrayed you as holding them openly when you had long since decided to hold them secretly.

Is this the case? I assume so, based on what you’ve said, but when I asked you about these things earlier, you refused to confirm or deny. As a result, I’m reduced to shooting in the dark, and I run the risk of putting words in your mouth.

-Ben

7

I’m just psyched to see material from a very old thread of mine making the rounds again. . .

8

1. Regarding my claim that you had no right to cite my post from 7/2000:

It has been brought to my attention that you, in fact, are right and I, in fact, am wrong. I will hereby stop badgering you on the subject.

Sorry.
2. As for my careening about from position to position:

Well, consider my situation. First of all, you throw me completely of balance with a post I believed you had no right to make. So I condemn you for that, and explain the proper context. Then you respond to me in what I percieve to be a patronizing way (remember, you can take the phrase “I now know you have no double standard” several ways), and call me a racist. I rush to defend my post, claiming it was not racist, merely misguided. I start getting paranoid, and basically start defending everything I ever said.

I *told *you I wasn’t very good at debating.

**3. As for my position about Jews and Gentiles (BTW, I hate using that phrase - “non-Jews” tends to work much better for me, these days) - you’re making it seem a bit one sided. I know that we don’t see eye to eye on this, but consider these facts:

-In 1994, the largest foreign aide unit in Somalia was from the Israeli army. Hundreds of doctors, nurses and medics set up a full field hospital and treated literally tens of thousands of victims of that vicious civil war. I know some guys who were there. They told me stories which made lose sleep for weeks.

  • In 1999 a huge earthquake ripped apart northern Turkey. Remember that? The U.S. sent a rescue team over. Israel sent an entire battalion of rescue units, including heavy earthmoving equiptment, teams of trained civil engineers and some of the most advanced search-and-rescue equiptment in the world. A massive charity drive was held in Israel, and people donated hundreds of tons of canned goods and clothing to help their muslim neighbours. the field hospitals stayed there for months.

I have rarely felt prouder for my country and for my fellow Jews than I did at those times.

Remember, I think of Jews not, primarily, as a religion or as a race, but rather as a nationality. That’s why I feel a greater responsibility to them, just as you may or may not feel a greater responsibility towards your countrymen. That’s also why I was confused by your comment about the U.S. South - what racial differences are there there? All I see living there are Americans, some of which are paler than others.

Simplistic, I know, and besides, that was last summer. Living abroad is working it’s way into my world view, making it more… confused.

I think another reason I said that I’d rescue Jews first from a city in a state of disaster is because I know that whenever disasters happen, people tend to turn on the Jews. Plague? The Jews have poisoned the wells. Civil war? The Jews are a Fifth Column. Poverty, hunger? The Jews have been stealing our money, let’s take some back. History has made me very, very cynical; and I do not regard history as something which took place in the past.

4. As for “tact”:

You won’t agree with me on this, but I think that just because you have an opinion, you shouldn’t feel obliged to speak it. Listen, opinion is just thought, and thought is meaningless - only action counts, and communication is a form of action. Let me explain:

We don’t always say what we think. If I told my boss what i thought of her, I’d be out of a job; if I told my wife every criticism I had of her behaviour, I’d be divorced. “Do I look fat in this?” she asks. Should I answer that one truthfully?

If every atheist on this board said what they really thought about Christians, and vice versa, how long would this place last? Not very long. But we all know what these opinions are. What I’m saying here is not that you shouldn’t speak your opinion, but that you shouldn’t do it without a purpose. And even if you have a purpose, you should consider who you’re hurting, and whether or not it is worth it.

Your purpose can be a noble one - to defend your rights, to further your goals, to convert people to your world view. But to hurt someone with your words - even words you have a full right to say - just so you can feel better with yourself for having said them? I wouldn’t exactly call that very civil.

When I made that miserable post back in july, I was being obnoxious, overbearing, over-generalizing and basically uncivilized. However, I said it because I was provoked - someone had thrown some serious insults and lies in my direction, and I took action to protect myself. Yes, I opened up with both barrels when a snide remark should have worked, but I was not the one who started a fight. Johnny Hart, on the other hand, was being insulting - almost certainly without him realizing it - for no reason other than to feel good with himself. That’s the difference between hart and myself, and that’s why your analogy was out of place.

That’s my definition of “tact”: to avoid hurting other people for no purpose. It’s not a matter of rights: everybody has a right to say what he wants. It’s not a matter of thoughts: a man can be a hate-filled bigot, but so long as he never insults or hurts his fellow human beings in word or in action, his problem is only with himself. It’s a matter of manners. Manners are what makes civilization possible.

If you can’t say something nice…

5. Summation:

Well, we had some gale-forced winds, and i think I saw some waterspouts, but I don’t think any of the tea spilled over the edge of the pot. If you want to continue arguing my opinions on free speech and tact, then I’m game; otherwise, I’d like to leave this whole mess behind me.

9

6. Regarding my previewing skills

Shit.

10

**

Apology accepted.

**

It’s not a question of debating. It seems to me that there are three problems here:

  1. Miscommunications sometimes happen, and this is no exception on either of our parts.

  2. You are, by your own admission, a little paranoid. All I did was bring up an old post you made and then immediately drop it, and you started complaining that I was haranguing you and forcing you to defend your past, as if you were a politician. Similarly, Hart says that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and your immediate response is to say that Hart’s statement is equivalent to saying “That rabble-rouser Jesus got what he deserved.” This is probably old news to you, but I think that you have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. You yourself stated that my comments surprised you, since you thought I was suddenly out to get you when you had had no problems with me in the past. If somebody like, say, andros were to appear to suddenly attack me out of nowhere, I’d keep a level head and figure out what was going on before I started launching attacks on his character and accusing him of having no interest in the truth.

  3. It’s not about “debating” well- it’s about honesty. I never, not once, laid any sort of tricky rhetorical trap for you. All I did was point out that your statements didn’t add up. If you had explained away the apparent falsehoods, or explained and admitted you made a mistake, I would have accepted that.

Lest you get the wrong impression, let me state that I’m not trying to attack you with this. I’m just adding my own post-mortem to your own, in the hopes of furthering understanding.

On to the issues:

**

It’s unclear to me what you’re trying to say here. If you’re trying to say that you fully support humanitarian aid to non-Jews, then I accept the point. OTOH, it seems like you’re trying to engage in some boosterism and teach me that Israel looks out for non-Jews. That’s an unusual point to be making, since I was criticising you, not Israel.

**

Could you explain this further? This implies that you think of “Jews” as actually being “Israelis.” Your earlier comments indicated that you thought of Jews in racial terms: as an extended family, bound by common ancestry, as well as common customs and culture.

**

I find it hard to understand what you’re saying. First you draw a distinction between “race” and “nationality” by saying that you think of Jews as a nationality, not a race. But you then state that there are no “racial differences” in the U.S. South, because all the people living there are “Americans.” Of course, such a definition equates nationality with race, negating your earlier distinction between the two.

In terms of your earlier (9 months ago) definition of the nature of Jewishness, your definition is unquestionably racial. The KKK defines the “white race” in terms of common ancestry and shared customs and culture. In defending their racial stances, they argue that they are defending “white culture” in order to ensure its survival. Whites have been around for millenia, and they want to ensure that Whites are around for a few more, you see?

I find your stance problematic in part because of what I’ve seen other Jews make of it. I remember a Jewish woman who refused to marry a Gentile on the grounds that it would “contaminate her blood,” and she would blandly talk about the “purity” of her “blood” in the same terms that white supremacists rail against “miscegenation.” When told that her views were racist, she declared that no, Jews are a “people,” not a “race.” She’s not the only one whom I’ve heard make such arguments- some Jews even equate intermarriage with genocide.

The fact is that thus far I see little to distinguish your arguments about the Jewish “people” from similar arguments about the White “race.” As I’ve said before, virtually all you’ve said about your “people” could be made literally indistinguishable from a racist rant by substituting “White” for “Jewish.” Conversely, I could probably dig up a rant by a White supremacist, substitute “Jewish” for “White,” and trick you into defending it, since it would express nothing which you hadn’t said already. It also appears to me that by your own admission you don’t understand racism and, in effect, don’t really know what racism is- and as a result, you don’t see how similar your arguments are to those of racists.

**

This is fairly reasonable, IMO. It is, however, completely different from the original argument which I was criticising.

**

But you are not acting out of etiquette- you are acting strategically.

**

Of course you should. Do you want her to go around in a dress that makes her look fat? It seems to me that there are ways to express an opinion tactfully; being tactful doesn’t require that one not express an opinion at all.

**

So you think that all (or at least most) atheists and Christians on this list have opinions of each other that are so contemptuous that they cannot be spoken openly- but without them being spoken, you know what people are really thinking?

I beg to differ. It seems to me that people around here have been expressing their opinions quite freely, and the list has only been strengthened. I also think that plenty of atheists and Christians here understand that there are issues on which reasonable people can disagree.

You state that we all know what atheists and Christians around here think of each other even when their opinions aren’t stated- but bear in mind that this thread was started when you decided that I was trying to harangue you, even when I stated otherwise and explicitly tried to drop the matter. Perhaps you should reconsider whether you are really so tuned in to other people’s unstated thoughts?

**

It appears to me that he was doing it in order to praise God, and to try to save people from eternal torture in Hell.

**

The difference between Hart and yourself is that he expresses himself without calling his audience “bastards” or telling them “tough shit.” If nine months ago you had expressed your views in the language you are using now, I wouldn’t have claimed that you had a double standard.

**

But again, you define certain opinions as being respectable, but as being incapable of expression without hurting people. Yes or no: is it possible for Hart to state, in a nationally syndicated newspaper comic strip, that Jesus is the Messiah whose coming was proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets? Is there any way he could phrase such a sentiment tactfully? Is it possible for any other Messianic sect (such as the Lubavitchers) to tactfully state their core beliefs in a public forum?

-Ben