Wow! Plenty of other people evidence such a shockingly extreme degree of hopelessly irrational obtuseness, but I’ve never encountered any who implied they were psychic, too! Notify Randi that you’re ready to take him up on his million dollar challenge immediately.
Because other than mind-reading, you could not point to any evidence at all of me using the phrase “self-hating Jew” in this thread (prior to this post), nor could you possibly know if I think it “okay” or not in this thread and context.
If your [del]logic[/del], er…, specious and fallacious assertion that the phrase “self-hating Jew” degrades all Jews were valid, then the phrase “self-hating gay” (referring, for example, to people such as Rev. Haggard and closeted gay conservative politicians who openly excoriate all gays and applaud people like Fred Phelps and his “God hates fags” signs) would degrade all gays! That’s some [del]logic[/del]!
You are correct and I was mistaken to lump you in with those who used the phrase. You did not use it, nor did you imply an equivalent.
While you make an interesting argument regarding Fred Phelps, the analogy fails completely because the phrase “self-hating Jews” is an opinion about an opinion based on ethnicity, not bigotry against a biological state. The first is denigrating someone’s ethnicity for having a dissenting opinion, the second is denigrating a whole group’s biological orientation. Both are condemnable, but for completely different reasons.
As Brain Guy observes to Pearl Forrester concerning her argument that not going after Bobo after he falls into a wormhole would be dangerous, to wit:
“Your logic is irrefutable…”
But remember, if you allege that a Bobby Fischer is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew, that just shows how much of an anti-Semite you are. It’s even worse if you allege that an American Jew who set out to craft a piece of deception in order to ‘show’ how evil the American Jewish community is (and by strange alchemy, Israelis too) might have some sort of problems with belonging to the American Jewish community. :smack:
:smack::smack::smack:
…:smack:
:sigh:
Is there no limit, no limit at all, to your fondness for evincing extreme irrational obtuseness, especially in rejecting the plain meaning of words and phrases and bizarrely misinterpreting them to say something utterly alien and flatly contradictory to their actual semantic content?
First: At no point in this thread did I produce an “argument regarding Fred Phelps”, “interesting” or otherwise. You merely claimed that I had done so, apparently for the exact same reason that Dana deceptively claimed that he and Blumenthal “sought … to prove that Zionist youth groups foster uncritical, reactionary support for Israel”; to wit: To serve as a disingenuous public premise upon which to attempt to defend the intrinsically indefensible.
What I actually did was point out that your laughable, specious “argument” that using the phrase “self-hating x’s” (where x represents any group of which the individual is a member) “degrades x’s who disagree with other x’s in particular and all x’s in general” is, in fact, a laughable, specious “argument”.
Neither the “ethnicity” nor the “biological state” (whatever the hell relevance that is supposed to have, let alone even mean in this context) of the individual or group matters in even the tiniest degree! Anyone can freely and justifiably use the phrases “self-hating Jew” or “self-hating gay” or “self-hating Kurd” or “self-hating Kiwanis” without in any way degrading, insulting, or demeaning all Jews or all Jews who disagree with other Jews; all gays or all gays who disagree with other gays; all Kurds or all Kurds who disagree with other Kurds; or all Kiwanis or all Kiwanis who disagree with other Kiwanis! The obvious fact that this needs to be explained to you over and over and over, on the other hand, does self-degrade, self-insult, and self-demean all posters to this thread who constitute the group of those who use the SDMB handle The Second Stone!
Sheesh!
Finally, to explain – in little words, as is clearly a necessity – why I insist that:
review my actual words and note carefully that instead of making an “argument regarding Fred Phelps”, I merely mentioned his name peripherally and incidentally as a randomly-chosen example of just one of millions of gay-haters whom some self-hating gays, including “closeted gay conservative politicians”, applaud and support.
Oops! I apologize for using the terms “peripherally” and “incidentally” after promising that I’d use only “little words”. To compensate for my error, I’ll try and explain those words if you wish. Just ask…
So where is this video now?
Apparently, Gala Matrix Fire searched and couldn’t find it, the most likely reason being the one I alluded to in my response to Gala.
I’m not going to search for it yet again, but if you find it, you are most welcome to post a link to it here.
Let’s just say that if we dropped an axe on the line dividing good and bad behavior, you would probably lose the end of a toenail. I’m not sure how you define “exceptional aptitude for obtuseness,” but it is not a compliment in any way and it seems pretty personal to me:
[ /Modding ]
Can’t find it. Seems to have been removed everywhere.
Tough not to debate censorship under those circumstances. (Though I guess censorship isn’t the right word, since it’s not the government forcing the videos down…)
Paul, that doesn’t adequately address the actual question I asked. I asked about an “anti-scientifically selected group of people”. As I described above where I correctly explained that an “anti-scientifically selected group of people” includes people who were tricked or even paid to say whatever the producer wanted them to say.
This is highly relevant to my specific argument cited at the beginning of this post because your counter-argument claims that you would find it highly interesting if I paid a professional Qatari or Israeli or American actor to recite racial slurs on camera on the streets of a Qatari city! Why?
Oh, you or anyone else is free to debate that issue regardless of any of that. But I would greatly appreciate it if you conformed to the request in my OP and its title and started your own separate thread to debate that issue. As I wrote in my OP:
Let’s just say that if we dropped an axe on the line dividing good and bad behavior, you would probably lose the end of a toenail. I’m not sure how you define “exceptional aptitude for obtuseness,” but it is not a compliment in any way and it seems pretty personal to me:
[ /Modding ]
Why should that require its own thread? Why can’t we discuss all aspects of this video, including its suppression, here?
“You seem to be deliberately ignoring me” phrased differently is well within the rules. Personally, I don’t collect toenail clippings.
Jeez, what is on this video that is so horrible that it has been taken down from every internet source? Why has it been taken down?
I find it really disturbing that this video has been effectively erased from the internet, regardless of what its content may be. I gather that it’s a bunch of young drunks mouthing off about Obama. OK, can we see the video please, so that we can have a rational, fact-based discussion about it? What the hell?
Here, at least, is a more complete description of the video than appears in this thread: from The Jerusalem Post
OK, drunken idiots spouting off about Obama. No huge surprise there, I guess.
Much more concerning to me is that the internet has been edited to remove this video from view. Why? How?
Welcome to the thread. Reading it is probably a good idea.
The negative reaction to the video is because of the deceptive purposes that its creators set out with. Imagine a Jaywalking segment, except random drunk black college kids were interviewed in order to ‘prove’ that Africans are genetically less intelligent than everybody else on the planet. Same deal.
Why you’re claiming that our discussion has been less than rational or factual is anybody’s guess. Why don’t you identify any specific arguments and elaborate on your claim that they aren’t cogent or are non-factual?
Along those lines, “the internet” has not been edited. That’s wonky.
Certain cites on the internet have chosen to take the video down, off of their own servers, for the above stated reason. Just like the “Africans are genetically less intelligent than everybody else due to drunk black college kids” video wouldn’t be posted anywhere other than white power websites, or what have you.
All sites have taken it down. Not certain sites. (Or maybe you can link it?) Why? Why is this video being hidden from view? If it is insidious, shine a light on it, don’t hide it away. How and why has it been erased from the internet?
Distinguish between “negative reaction to” and “censorship of” please. I understand the negative reaction. That’s fine, and there’s been discussion of that. Why does that require censorship of the video?
How so? What stereotype is the video supposedly reinforcing? Doesn’t seem to be in the same vein at all to me. This was (I gather) an attempt to speak to people with their guard down, so that they might say what they actually think. In vino veritas and all that.
It’s drunk kids mouthing off. With obscenities and racial epithets. We can’t handle that?
Very dramatic. The fact is that the few sites to which it was given have taken it down, of their own volition. Going on about how it’s been “erased from the internet” just sounds silly. Why don’t you write to the video’s creators and ask them to host it on their own servers and pay for the bandwidth themselves, rather than getting upset that private companies choose not to spend their own cash on that out of some ‘keep it in the public so we can talk about it!’ ideology.
You’re also asking, yet again, why this has happened when just about this entire thread has been on why the video was deliberately deceptive in service of a specific agenda. Why on Earth is that not enough reason for sites to choose to remove a video?
A good hint is whether or not private individuals/companies are using their own money to bring you content or not… or if government censors have decided that something can’t be shown and then forces others not to show it.
Again, complaining about “censorship” is an absurdity. An oft-heard rant by some who don’t get it follows the lines of: “The New York Times won’t publish my opinions, it’s censorship!!!”
No, it’s not. Talking about (oooga booga!) censorship because private groups aren’t spending their money on bandwidth is silly. And it doesn’t become any more about ‘censorship’ if the NY Times and the LA Times both reject your submission. No, not even if the Washington Post does, too.
You have no right to demand that private individuals/companies provide you content lest they be guilty of ‘censoring’ that content.
They’ve been mentioned in this thread, which claims that we’ve been discussing do you disagree with, and why?
As it is, you yourself are trying to tie this video to “what they really think”.
‘Not all people in group X are sainted, film at 11!’ isn’t exactly news.
But then again, that’s not what the video’s creators had in mind, in any case. Their explicit goal was to find these views and then conflate them with “the American Jewish community” as well as Israeli opinion and politics.
You’re really not seeing why “this shows why Zionists, American Jews and Israelis are hateful and bad” could possibly play into any stereotypes?
If by “handle that” you mean “make other people pay for the bandwidth costs because you’d prefer it, and if they don’t pay out of their own pockets it’s censorship”… then no.
Some participants in this thread are claiming the video was deliberately deceptive. As proof, they are citing their imaginations.