Presumably if a non-Jew said, “let’s kill the President” and not “let’s kill the President because he’s insufficiently pro-Israeli” nobody would assume they wanted him killed for his Israel policy. Isn’t that what Warraq meant?
Then a reasonable person could only conclude that your lack of understanding is willful, especially since I went to the trouble of trying to clarify any honest misunderstandings you were left with and your response is to handwave it away and complain that it’s more “verbose”. At the point where you declare that acting in accordance with the very denotation of the word “traitor” would not make one a traitor, and that it would be an “unsubstantiated” accusation, you have rather obviously kicked loose of any sort of claim to linguistic accuracy.
Of course, your argument in this thread has been somewhat less than honest from the word go. From your steadfast refusal to admit that one can object to the actions of a traitor absent the context of patriotism to switching “Israel-firster” with “R-AIPAC” as if they were the same, to ignoring that by your own formulation anti-Israel critics who think that it’s of paramount importance should call themselves “Israel-firsters” if they don’t mean “traitor” (except, of course, they never self identify as such, funny, that), to your endless repetition that a useless, non-descriptive term like “Israel-firster” is somehow totally dissimilar to other slurs involved in politics… well, it certainly appears that you were having a wank and not really interested in crafting a cogent argument.
Indeed, one of us certainly does not understand what a pejorative term is.
Hint: it’s the dude who thinks that “traitor” isn’t necessarily pejorative because he’s just not much of a patriot. :rolleyes:
A conversation takes two parties, Dan.
Your repetitions of “nuhn uhn!” and then whining about how someone taking the time to fight your ignorance is being “verbose” aint exactly counting as holding up your end of that whole ‘conversation’ bargain thang.
Indeed. A reasonable person could not possibly say, “Can you clarify your position?” or, “How do you account for this?” or even, “Do you agree with this implication?” A reasonable person may only conclude that my disagreement with you is a deliberate denial of DA TROOF.
Well whatdja know, them thar percentage points must be goin’ up.
Indeed. One might even point out that I have repeatedly done that and you’ve refused, over and over, to admit that logical gaps in your argument exist, let alone address them and then clarify how logical gaps in your argument can be solved, how the very denotation of “traitor” somehow doesn’t amount to a pejorative, and why you disagree with certain facts other than with your “nuhn uhn!” responses. Just like it’s pretty obvious that you’re not really stupid enough to believe that “traitor” isn’t a pejorative, but for some reason you’ve decided to back yourself into a corner and can’t bring yourself to just admit you fucked up.
On the other hand, a reasonable person would indeed conclude that the denotation of a word is proof of its meaning and that someone who steadfastly uses transparent bad faith debating to ignore addressing facts like that isn’t interested in the truth. Indeed, one might draw interesting conclusions from the fact that someone refers to a word’s definition as “DA TROOF!” in an attempt to handwave it away.
But like I said, it’s obvious that you came in to have a good wank and hopefully you’ve gotten it out of your system. Or perhaps you’ll post in response to me a few more times about how you won’t post in response to me.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. You wanna do this? Let’s do this.
That’s a lie. What I actually said was:
You wanna substitute “traitor” for “treason”? Fine: a traitor is someone who betrays their country (or cause or whatever). It is NOT someone who values a particular group more than their country, elsewise the Amish are all traitors, as are all folks who value human rights above the narrower interests of their government. It’s an idiotic definition of traitor, but knock yourself out if that’s what you need. In any case, I never said my lack of comprehension was due to a lack of patriotism; quite the opposite.
This is a lie. What I’ve actually said is:
Do you think “wall street toady” is value-neutral?
This is a lie. I’ve never said that “traitor” wasn’t a pejorative. The closest I’ve come was to forget that I’d called it a “slur” earlier, thinking I’d actually called it the roughly synonymous “pejorative,” and was astonished that you’d keep thinking I was calling it value-neutral, so I suggested off-hand you ought to figure out what a pejorative was. My apology: I should have said you should figure out what a slur is.
No: we could conclude instead that you aren’t actually lying, but instead are just too wrapped up in the inevitability of your own intelligence to pay attention to what people are actually saying.
Wow, yet another post after you went on about how you weren’t gonna post to me, go figure.
Now you’re lying in order to claim I’m lying? Whoa dude, meta. Did you, in fact, say that your non-comprehension was due to your lack of patriotism, emphasis mine?
Yep.
- You* are the one who substituted “treason” for “traitor”. You are also engaging in yet more of The Argument From Nuhn Uhn!!!
As already pointed out:
You never did answer that or explain how it was incorrect. But, of course, you did whine about how I should have pointed out your errors (like that one). Funny, that. Rather obviously, your absurd response of “but but but the Amish!” does not address the core issue of a politician selling out their own country for the benefit of another.
Did you, in fact, say that “Israel-firster” is value neutral?
Yep.
You do know your posts don’t vanish, right? In response to my pointing out, again, that calling someone an “Israel-firster” is an accusation that the person is a traitor and that it was always used as a pejorative as even with your handwaving claim that maybe it was value neutral, anti-israel people who considered our relationship with Israel to be of prime importance never, ever, ever, self-identify as Israel-firsters… (another failure in your argument that I poitned out and which you ignored) you claimed that I didn’t understand what a pejorative was.
Ahhh, so if I notice you’re spewing bullshit, I must not be paying attention. Yah… that’s it. Oh, no, wait, nope. It doesn’t take any particularly great amount of intellect to realize what the denotation of “traitor” is or that it exactly matches the use to which “Israel-firster” is put. Nor does it take any great intellect to realize that when I’ve dismantled our argument from the basic assumptions all through its chain of logic, that I am in fact paying attention. If it comforts you though, claim that I just don’t understand you. Then talk some more about how you’re not going to respond to me.
Good fuckin’ lord. Does it look to anyone else like Finnagain’s paraphrase of my words is accurate?
I know that, idiot. I was saying I"m happy to go back to the word “traitor”.
Again, good fuckin’ lord. Your quote of me supposedly saying the word is value-neutral calls it an accusation.
When I call the word an accusation, does that look to anyone else like I’m saying it’s value-neutral? What, you think it’s one of those complimentary accusations? “I accuse you of lookin FOXY!” What?
Good fuckin, once again, Lord. Did you not read my explanation of that? Again: I NEVER SAID IT WASN’T A PEJORATIVE. Again: IT IS PEJORATIVE. IT IS A SLUR. IT IS AN INSULT. IT IS AN ACCUSATION.
Now, here’s a hint for you. Evidence that these guys intended Israel-Firster to be an unambiguous accusation of treason (or traitor, if you really are stuck on that word) won’t consist of some sort of attenuated literary analysis of what the definition of traitor could technically mean, even if such a definition would apply to pretty much any politician who helped out a special interest group.
No, here’s what it’d consist of: corroborating language. If someone intends to call their enemies traitors, they tend to do so. So these CAP employees who called someone Israel-First? Surely they also used words like “traitor,” “treason,” “treasonous,” “betray,” “foreign agent,” or “go grab a goddamn thesaurus yourself” to describe these same people. If you’re right, the corroboration will be out there.
Of course, if I’M right, it won’t be.
And yet another response after you swore off responding, go figure.
I know, it’s not like you said that you didn’t comprehend that it was anything bad because you lack patriotism and it wouldn’t bother you if a politician betrayed their nation’s trust and put another nation above their own country. That’s totally different from saying that your non comprehension was based in your lack of patriotism because , well, ya know… Finn’s you idiot lying liar!!!
I pointed out earlier that the term under discussion was “traitor” not “treason” and had already corrected you and you continued to make the mistake, and then ever after I’d corrected you, you stated that we could “go back” to the other version, and you think that makes me an idiot? The guy who doesn’t random swap words that start with T that both have negative connotations, that’s the idiot in the pair? Kay.
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
You included it among other statements such as “Jesus-first” which does not hold any negative connotation among most people in the country and finished not by honestly calling it an “accusation”, as you’re now bullshitting, but calling it a “not […] particularly vicious accusation”. It’s a rather clear use of the rhetorical trope of irony, just as if a parent said that their child not eating their vegetables was “not a particularly vicious crime” would not, actually, be calling their child a criminal.
…it means just what you choose it to mean, neither more nor less. There’s glory for you.
Mega-full of shit, it seems. In one breath you admit that it’s a slur, and then claim that we still need some sort of additional evidence that it’s being used as an accusation for its actual meaning. And for fuck’s sake, especially since you’re spazzing out about how much of an “idiot” I am that I can keep a single word straight in my head, you might want to realize that “treason” has a precise legal definition but “traitor” does not, and there’s a reason why one is used instead of the other. Or continue spazzing, your call.
Nope, you’re still full of shit. It would consist of saying that someone had betrayed the trust placed in them and violated their obligations/duty. Ya know, like claiming that a politician had placed another country before their own. They might even use a phrase like “[that other country]-firster”.
No, if you’re full of shit you might hang on to this pathetic apologia.
“Sure, they used a claim that’s semantically identical to calling someone a traitor, but then they didn’t also use other words. See, it’s not based on semantic content, but how thorough they are with using a thesaurus. Since they use the same term consistently, a term that means “traitor”, obviously they do not mean “traitor”. Solid, incontrovertible proof!”
Your stupidity here is by far the worst I’ve even seen you at, Dan. I mean, ever.
Just admit the painfully obvious fact that calling someone an Israel-firster is not just a pejorative, not just a slur, but an accusation that someone is a traitor. Or, ya know, stop your spastic flailing and explain how a politician selling out his or her nation for the benefit of another is not betraying the trust placed in them and violated their obligations/duty. You and I both know that you can’t, that you started wanking in this thread and took up a position that’s indefensible because of just how stupid it is, and now you’ve painted yourself into a corner and you can’t just say “oops, got carried away folks”. But try. Do explain how it’s not an act of betraying the trust placed in 'em and a violation of their obligation and duty as public servants. Try.
Should be worth a few laughs.
And there goes the thread*
*Is that anti-semetic? Did they used to say, and there goes the neighborhood when Jews moved in?
Truly, it’s sad. Won’t someone do the heavy lifting of making American political discourse safe for dog-whistle accusations of Zionist treachery? Won’t someone think of the children???
You’re right. When an angry monkey wants to hoot and holler at you, you can hoot and holler back, or you can lock them in a soundproof room where they can hoot and holler to their heart’s content. It’s a shame, because Finnagain occasionally does have interesting things to say–but he’s so loathsome in his bizarre insistence that people say what he wants them to say, not what they actually say, that there’s no point in engaging with him further. My apologies to everyone for engaging in and enabling his hijack.
I know, and then he quotes you saying what he said that you did, and all you can do is toss personal attacks and it’s just horrible how horrible he is when he’s being so horrible as to quote your own words.
By the way Dan, what is kinda loathsome is your bit of bullshit there, that your posting to me, and then trying to pick a fight with me, was my hijack. Can’t even take responsibility for your own actions, eh?
Putting aside all the personal stuff that seems to be between the two of you, but it seems to me that if you claim somebody is more loyal to a foreign country than their own; not just that they like that country, or they’re biased toward that country, but that they’re actually more loyal to that country than their own country, then that’s a very nasty accusation indeed, whatever you call it, and if it’s not treason, it’s pretty close to it.
When you’re making that accusation of a government official, that’s all the more serious, the first reason being that government officials have a lot more power than the rest of us to help or harm the country, and the second being that government officials are supposed to be loyal to the country before all else. They’re supposed to act with the good of the country first in mind. So saying somebody’s not doing that is making a very serious accusation.
I guess, from where I sit, this is so evidently and blatantly anti-Semitic, I’m having trouble understanding how anyone can defend it as not being, and it scares me when I see people on this board, including some whose opinions I respect, trying to defend it, because I don’t know if it comes from actual anti-Semitism on their parts or just a kind of ignorance about what anti-Semitism is.
Did you read my post #74?
Because you are making the leap from personal insult to hatred of an entire race. A leap that doesn’t have any justification in this case.
I mean, if the rule is to consider all insults that can be related to past anti-semetic bigotry, why did Rick Perry get a pass? Here you have a presidential candidate accusing a prominent Jew of treason. Worse yet, a Jew employed as a banker.
Again, while folks like David Duke apparently introduced the idea of Israel-First to refer to folks who are essentially foreign agents, advancing the interests of the Hebrew Nation instead of the interests of the US, I’m unconvinced that these journalists in this case are using the word in this sense–it seems plausible to me that they’re using it in the sense of someone who’s giving undue (in the author’s opinion) importance to the US relationship with Israel, prioritizing keeping that relationship healthy more than is wise.
“Unconvinced” here doesn’t mean that I’m convinced the authors aren’t antisemitic. They may well be, and I don’t have sufficient evidence to say they’re not. I just don’t think the use of this word is, by itself, sufficient evidence that they are.
Except, of course, the claim is not Israel-more-than-is-prudent-er, or Israel-more-than-should-be-prioritized-er, but Israel-firster. It is obviously (well, to most folks) that a politician is betraying the trust placed in him and is being false to his obligations and duty if he puts another nation first, ahead of his own country. That means it is an accusation that a politician is a traitor, not that he’s merely giving undue consideration. That’s why the term isn’t “People who disagree with me about our proper policy wrt Israel” but “Israel-firster”. It’s an accusation that one’s political opponents are traitors.
Which is why, at best, it’s dog-whistling about Zionist corruption of power within the US and at worst an anti-semitic accusation.
This is elemental.
Even if this only represented a slur on one Jew (Sen. Lieberman?), it is easily and understandably viewed (by friend and foe alike) as a slur on all Jews who support our alliance with Israel too strongly for certain people to stomach.
“You Jews who aren’t Israel-Firsters are O.K., it’s those other Jews who are the problem” doesn’t sit well with Jews in general, any more than “You decent hard-working blacks are alright, it’s those rabble-rousing crack-dealing Nee-groes we have to look out for” appeals to African-Americans.
I think the implicit slur exceeds that. Some of the politicians named aren’t Jewish. It harkens back to the Protocols slander of Teh Juuuz Kontrol Teh Whirled.
But that isn’t the subtext, at least as far as I can tell.
Can you explain why Perry accusing Bernanke of treason wasn’t anti-semetic?