Redfury, 'Bush apologists' and a hearty FU

[XT]

Getting ready to jump on a plane so will be gone most of the day. Still, thought I’d respond to a few things here:

@John Mace

XT: I think it would help if you fleshed this out a bit more. And I know you and RF have this Spanish/Mexican thing going where you feel some kind of weird kinship through shared cultural ancestry or something, but it’s really not good form to insult someone over their nationality. I mean, what does RF being Spanish have to do with anything?

Fair enough John…it’s a valid question. First, what does his being Spanish have to do with anything? Well, nothing really…and yet, quite a bit. For the last several years Red and I have butted heads on numerous occations and he has made some things clear to me in those discussions…the biggest of which is that he is a class A hippocrate.

I’m not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like. The short of it though is that Red is an apologist for the brutal ways of his ancestors. He has linked in threads to Spanish apologists cites in the past and tried to portray some of the more aggregious Spanish actions in the past in the same light as Holocaust deniers do about the Nazi’s and the Jews. He has told me (to paraphrase) that the indians ground under the Spanish boot during their various conquests were better off being civilized by the Spanish…since they would have simply been killing themselves off anyway using ritual sacrific and such.

Now…none of this is that big a deal. Red is proud of his Spanish heritage and he’s willing to hand wave away or gloss over past crimes. Fine and dandy, though it rubs me raw a bit considering my own heritage…but ok, no biggie. However, it especially strikes me as hippocritical and trollish when he not only says I’m an American apologist (something that, while I disagree with at least could be debated I suppose) but a Bush appologist as well (something that is patently incorrect and simply put a load of horseshit). And this coming from someone who is pretty obviously either a complete troll or an apologist of the first order for his own birth country…or both.

Why did I throw in the parts about his being a Spanish prick? As I said, it was a gratutous slam on my part…HE knows very well why and this thread was aimed at him, not really for the general consumption of the board per se. Just know there is a lot of history between us…which is why he tossed in the ‘Bush apologist’ bit in the thread I refered to in the OP. Consider…was that necessary either? At least I confined my own acid response to the Pit…

@BG

Then you are being unfairly maligned by RedFury, and are, in fact, capable of acknowledging that Bush and many of his cohorts are simply criminals?

You know I don’t BG, and you SHOULD know this has nothing to do with my supposed support for Bush et al. To me, they will be criminals when they are tried in a court of law, convicted and sentenced. Until then they are just fuckups and disasters as an administration and a President goes, and I can’t wait until we shake the dust of their fucked up admin off our collective boots and move on.

@'luci

I’ll give it to you straight, XT, your kinda confusing. You tear into lefties with sneering snark at great length, and then, in kind of a footnote, you allow as how, yeah, the criticism is justified. Its like you can’t disagree with lefties about Bush, because the facts just won’t let you.

Some of the criticisms from the left (and center and everywhere else) about Bush are entirely justified. He DID lead us into a stupid war that we are now neck deep in for gods know how long. He HAS fucked up by the numbers in just about everything he’s touched and I can’t wait until he is finally gone.

But criminal charges need to be weighed and judged in a structured setting…not speculated on in a message board. I don’t see any movement on actually DOING anything about these supposed charges against Bush and his merry men…and frankly it’s wearing thin that Bush and the Evil Republican’s are blocking movement, that the Dems can’t do anything about it, or that the Dems are sucking up to Bush, going along, etc etc. If the Dems ARE sucking up to Bush or going along, then why vote for them 'luci? If they aren’t going to do their part and maintain the checks and balances they are REQUIRED to, then the system is well and truly fucked.

If that’s the case then a pox on both your houses 'luci…both parties are completely useless.

@'luci

But you’d rather nail your pecker to a tree than admit that we’re right about something.

Complete horseshit. I have changed many of my preconceptions and attitudes since I’ve come to this board. My entire stance on the Iraqi war has shifted and I have freely admitted I was wrong and many on the left were right…and my dick is un-nailed to any wooden structure. I’ve changed my in more subtle ways about even some left wing economics views, though I’m still pretty firmly an economic conservative.

@'luci

So, yeah, its confusing.

Why? Because I don’t agree with you (et al) about Bush being ‘obviously’ a criminal until, you know, there is a trial thingy? That makes me a ‘Bush apologist’ and confuses you? Doesn’t matter that I didn’t vote for the man, can’t stand the man, think he’s a terrible president, etc etc…I’m still a ‘Bush apologist’ because I disagree with you guys on this or some other points? Or it’s confusing enough to you that you really can’t tell?

C’est la vie…think what you will. At least YOU are a nationalistic, hippocratical prick with delusions of objectivity as friend Red obviously is.

-XT

[elucidator]

@xtisme

…At least YOU are a nationalistic, hippocratical prick with delusions of objectivity as friend Red obviously is.

Well, gee. Thanks. I guess.

(Given my proven talent for mind-reading, I have inserted a qualifying “not” in an appropriate place, presuming to know the intent beyond the wording…)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@xtisme

For the last several years Red and I have butted heads on numerous occations and he has made some things clear to me in those discussions…the biggest of which is that he is a class A hippocrate.

A student of Hippocrates? A container for large aquatic artiodactyls native to sub-Saharan Africa?

[FinnAgain]

@Giraffe

FinnAgain, I’ve seen you throw the trolling accusation at RedFury a lot lately. While you’re welcome to your opinion of his motives, some of your statements in this thread have made me suspect that you don’t really understand what trolling is for the purposes of message board moderation.

I do, and I believe that the mods have adopted an improperly narrow definition.
I’ve elaborated on my claim, and I’d be happy to do so again if you’d like.

@Giraffe

If someone is inconsistent or hypocritical in their opinions, that doesn’t automatically imply that they’re lying and/or trolling.

Automatically? No.
But blatant and massive hypocrisy in the service of picking fights certainly provides a good reason for taking a closer look.

@Giraffe

Heck, given my general stances on invading other countries, it could easily be argued that my support for the invasion of Afghanistan was hypocritical and that I wouldn’t have held that position had it been another country attacked by terrorists – was I trolling when I said it was OK for us to invade? Or when I said it wasn’t OK for us to invade Iraq?

Depends. If your position was that it’s never okay to invade another country, and then you supported invading Afghanistan while alleging that anybody who supported invading another terrorist sponsor was a professional apologist nationalist warmonger?

Then the case could be made that you were either trolling or very dense and inconsistent.

@Giraffe

On an anonymous internet message board, you’ll never know for sure if people truly believe what they’re typing, or are who they say they are. It comes with the territory.

That’s certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.

[elucidator]

A student of Hippocrates? A container for large aquatic artiodactyls native to sub-Saharan Africa?

So long as it has nothing to do with pachouli oil or love beads, I’m cool with it.

[RedFury]

@xt

I’m not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like

Just as expected. Another mealy-mouthed weasel who can’t support any of the feces he’s desperately flinging in the hopes that they stick on sheer credulity.

Up yours, disposable skinbag of manure!

---

Not that it’s anyone’s business, but the accusations of racism against me go beyond the pale…my own son is not of “pure blood” as he’s the descendant of an Irish/Dominican.

Make of that what you will.

[elucidator]

@RedFury

…Not that it’s anyone’s business, but the accusations of racism against me go beyond the pale…my own son is not of “pure blood” as he’s the descendant of an Irish/Dominican…

Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don’t get into the habit…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

“Hippocratical?” Is Redfury an anesthesiologist?

[RedFury]

@elucidator

Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don’t get into the habit…

Dick

But dontcha know? It’s what “hippocrates” do.

There. I’ve confessed.

[jayjay]

@elucidator

Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don’t get into the habit…

Too many more of those and you’ll be sent to conventry…

[elucidator]

@RedFury

…There. I’ve confessed.

Egotist te absolvo. Go, and keep on rockin’ in the Free World.

[Maeglin]

@FinnAgain

Automatically? No.
But blatant and massive hypocrisy in the service of picking fights certainly provides a good reason for taking a closer look.

To be fair, even ironclad consistency in the service of picking fights is not exactly admirable. It is not altogether clear to me that one is better than the other. Using one’s consistency as a bludgeon is not a great way to endear oneself at parties.

That’s certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.

That is a slightly watered-down intentional fallacy. It really doesn’t taste any better diluted.

[Giraffe]

@FinnAgain

Depends. If your position was that it’s never okay to invade another country, and then you supported invading Afghanistan while alleging that anybody who supported invading another terrorist sponsor was a professional apologist nationalist warmonger?

Then the case could be made that you were either trolling or very dense and inconsistent.

I think you have an unrealistic view of human nature. People have always viewed the actions of themselves, their families, their communities and their countries by a different measure than those of others.

In my case, had 9/11 taken the form of e.g. 19 Pakistanis blowing up buildings and killing 3500 people in India, I’d have still been strongly opposed to an Indian invasion of Pakistan. Not simply because of the geopolitical implications, but also because I’d have argued that the actions of a few people don’t justify mass retaliation against a nation. Even if the government had previously shown complete disinterest in catching and prosecuting said terrorists, an Indian argument of needing to defend their national security wouldn’t have been sufficient to me – I would have felt such an invasion was wrong.

From a dispassionate standpoint, my views on the two situations are inconsistent, strongly colored by my views of the pre-invasion government of Afghanistan and by my assigning greater significance to an attack in my own country than one in another. Yet I still would feel no obligation to support a future invasion by another nation, even if the circumstances exactly mirrored the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. While inconsistent, I don’t think such opinions are either dense or troll-like.

That’s certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.

I agree, but I don’t think you are a good judge of those indicators when you’re in the middle of an argument with someone.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mighty_Girl

These are not his actual words. And I just can’t go from what he actually said to that. Not his most brilliant moment, but nowhere near what you attribute to him. All I can conclude is that you seem to have a problem with his being a Spaniard. He is not the Spanish police. I hope I am not held responsible for the actions of the Dominican police anymore than I hold Polycarp* responsible for Abu Ghraib.

I am very interested, please do provide some more cites.
By sheer coincidence I am holding a book called Los Judios en el Destino de Quisqueya right now. From what I see it is pretty pro-Jewish.

Totally off topic, but have you read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz? It just won the Pulitzer Prize. It’s a strange but interesting novel about a Dominican “ghettonerd” growing up in Jersey. It’s very much a Doper kind of book. The main character is a total sci-fi/fantasy/comic book geek. It’s a combination of geek culture crossed with Dominican immigrant ghetto culture, punk culture and Dominican history under Trujillo. Great book. The author was on Stephen Colbert last night.

[Mighty_Girl]

@xtisme

I’m not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like.

Is that how it works now? I have to bring my own cites to your argument?

[Maeglin]

@Mighty_Girl

Is that how it works now? I have to bring my own cites to your argument?

Those Latino immigrants to the US are so fuckin’ lazy.

<d&r>

[Mighty_Girl]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Totally off topic, but have you read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz? It just won the Pulitzer Prize. It’s a strange but interesting novel about a Dominican “ghettonerd” growing up in Jersey. It’s very much a Doper kind of book. The main character is a total sci-fi/fantasy/comic book geek. It’s a combination of geek culture crossed with Dominican immigrant ghetto culture, punk culture and Dominican history under Trujillo. Great book. The author was on Stephen Colbert last night.

G’darn, off to find that video.

Yes I read it. And fellow doper and Dominican resident Martha is one of his groupies :). It’s a great book, better yet if you actually understand what he is talking about (or maybe not).

From what Martha, who’s actually met him, told me, yes, he’s totally Doper material.

[FinnAgain]

@Giraffe

In my case, had 9/11 taken the form of e.g. 19 Pakistanis blowing up buildings and killing 3500 people in India, I’d have still been strongly opposed to an Indian invasion of Pakistan. Not simply because of the geopolitical implications, but also because I’d have argued that the actions of a few people don’t justify mass retaliation against a nation.

The analogy is a bit overwrought. The Taliban made AQ a part of their Ministry of Defense. It wasn’t a case of simply not opposing them, but of them supporting and giving shelter to them.
Even then, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and we didn’t attack them.

A better analogy would be that you enthusiastically supported attacking Afghanistan for supporting Al Quaeda, but then when Nation X supported and gave shelter to Terrorists Y, you claimed that attacking Nation X would make one a warmongering fascist.
In that case, you’d either be dense or you’d be pretending to hold the view that attacking terrorist sponsors was bad, only in order to piss on your political opponents.

@Giraffe

Yet I still would feel no obligation to support a future invasion by another nation, even if the circumstances exactly mirrored the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. While inconsistent, I don’t think such opinions are either dense or troll-like.

It depends. If you’ve decided that it was wrong to invade Afghanistan, then you’ve changed your views. If you didn’t change your views but you believe that the circumstances are sufficiently different to warrant a different position, no harm no foul. If you still supported the US’ right to invade a terrorist sponsor but opposed any and all other nations’ in identical circumstances, you’d be rather dense.

If, on the other hand, you put forth a view that it was always wrong and vile warmongering to attack a terrorist sponsor, and then spent your time calling people who supported such actions vile, imperialist warmongers… while still supporting the invasion of Afghanistan? I think that assuming you were anything other than a jerk or a troll would be a reach.

@Giraffe

I agree, but I don’t think you are a good judge of those indicators when you’re in the middle of an argument with someone.

Possible, but by the same token, I lurk much more than I post and I would characterize some folks’ posts the same way even if they were talking with someone else.

Oh, missed this one:

@Mighty_Girl

I see no proof that Spaniards are significantly more antisemitic than any other European nation.

The higher percentage of anti-Semitiic beliefs among Spaniards would be the proof of that. And I already cited it. If you don’t understand why claiming that Jews control US policy or have traitorous dual loyalty to a foreign power/other Jews and are against the interests of their own homes, or that “Jews don’t care what happens to anybody but their own kind” are all anti-Semitics statements, I suppose that any elaboration would be rather pointless.

@Mighty_Girl

The only proof you offer of Red’s defense of the Spanish barbaric practices during the colonial period is this Sorry, but “my post is my cite” has already been done. Please provide an actual cite.

And this is where we end this dance, as you’re bullshitting. I didn’t cite my post as his support for Spanish imperialism, but his post. Ya know, the one where he said that Spanish imperialism was good, as it civilized the Aztecs? My post, the one you quoted while ignoring his, correctly summed up what the history of Spanish imperialism actually entailed. By logical necessity, anybody who supports the history of Spanish imperialism… supports the history of Spanish imperialism. This is hardly rocket science nor is it asking that my post be my cite.

So the “only proof” is where he explicitly supported the history of Spanish imperialism as a civilizing influence. I cited that specific post. That you missed it strains credulity beyond the breaking point.

If you don’t understand why supporting the history of Spanish imperialism means supporting what Spanish imperialists did, butchery and all, and you’re actually going to claim I’m putting words in someone’s mouth, I have no desire to deal with such dishonesty.

@Mighty_Girl

All I can conclude is that you seem to have a problem with his being a Spaniard.

And all I can conclude is that you’re full of shit.
Ah well.

[elucidator]

@FinnAgain

…And all I can conclude is that you’re full of shit.
Ah well.

Mighty Girl treated you with respect and a careful civility, qualities that I can admire (without the slightest intention of emulating). She is a compliment to these Boards, and a graceful incarnation of the Goddess. Furthermore, she rocks.

You, on the other hand, are a dickosaurus.

[Mighty_Girl]

@FinnAgain

The higher percentage of anti-Semitiic beliefs among Spaniards would be the proof of that. And I already cited it. If you don’t understand why claiming that Jews control US policy or have traitorous dual loyalty to a foreign power/other Jews and are against the interests of their own homes, or that “Jews don’t care what happens to anybody but their own kind” are all anti-Semitics statements, I suppose that any elaboration would be rather pointless.

Bolding mine.

Before you said:

60 percent said that, in general “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries in which they live”

Which is what the actual poll says (“Are Jews more loyal to Israel than this country?”).

If you misrepresent your own cite, I don’t see how we can go any further.