Redfury, 'Bush apologists' and a hearty FU

[FinnAgain]

@John Mace

Nah, you’re distorting what he said. The only thing I see about that exchange is that XT is upset that Red doesn’t view the Spanish conquest with as much disgust as he, XT, does

No, I’m not distorting anything. To describe the wholesale slaughter, slavery and oppression that imperialist Spain practices as having a “philosophical and moral foundation” is indeed providing an act apologetic and white washing.

Red was talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying he wasn’t proud of it, but then holding it up as some sort of example of ‘moderate’ atrocities. It’d be like saying that one was not proud of Stalin, but his butchery was based on a “philosophical and moral foundation” and was comparatively “moderate” when placed next to Nazism.

Providing a bit of apologetics for Spanish imperialism and then going batshit nuts about US imperialism is, at best, nationalistic partisanship. At worst, outright trolling.

@Really Not All That Bright

You could take all the time you want to explain those things, but you’d be making it up.

Doesn’t it embarrass you to be so totally clueless of the facts while not only spewing, but alleging that someone who obviously actually knows what he’s talking about, doesn’t?

Yep, we recognized Israel. Which I think your fellow travelers would call “mere rhetoric”. As a matter of fact, ya know, facts, the things you’re supposed to have before babbling like an idiot?
Anyways, as a matter of fact, in 1949 the US was a signatory to the Tripartite Agreement, which placed an embargo on supplying Israel with weapons (what support!). Then the US sold hundreds of millions worth of weapons to Arab nations during the 50’s and 60’s, and not until 1962 did it sell the Hawk missile system to Israel.

The initial recognition wasn’t accompanied by any significant military or economic grants either, until… we began to use Israel as an ally against the Soviet sponsored Arab nations and the Six Day War when Israel fought and won against a large number of Soviet funded-armed armies. Even then, economic and military aid didn’t really spike until the years leading up to the Yom Kippur war and the events that followed it. Ignoring the role that the Cold War had in shaping our Israel policy is just standard boilerplate militant ignorance. But again, as you’d probably find it easier to talk to an uncritical audience about how “Jews control US foreign policy” over at Stormfront, I won’t bother you with any further facts that would get in the way of your racism. They’ll pat you on the back over there, actually.

Anyways.
Just like I said. Just as the facts confirm. Just like you’ve shown yourself to be ignorant and have no problem speaking from a position of ignorance.
How very unexpected.

[Giraffe]

@FinnAgain

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.

See, that’s the thing. Of course I’m going to believe the circumstances are sufficiently different if my country is the one involved, even if they aren’t. You’re assuming that there is an absolute standard by which two situations can be judged to be sufficiently similar, when of course there isn’t.

@FinnAgain

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.

Despite the unlikelihood of anyone actually taking such simplistic blanket positions like that, I still don’t agree that hypocrisy automatically equates to jerkishness or trolling. Consistency is not the be all and the end all of social or political values. Someone can hold an irrational or immoral view on one subject and a moral view on another – the former doesn’t negate the latter.

In any event, I don’t see what you’ve described as actually having happened here. I see you ascribing absolute positions to those you’re arguing with, and claiming that they’re trolling when they deviate from them. The only way for that to make sense is if there’s clear evidence to support your initial interpretation of the other person’s position.

For example:

@FinnAgain

Since, by his own admission, he actually sees nothing wrong with imperialism and conquest, going so far as to support it (when it’s his country doing the invading and butchery), he’s trolling when he picks fights with Americans for not being against behavior which he himself supports, as long as it’s his country that does it.

Your over the top interpretation of other people’s views completely invalidate any point you’re trying to make. Here, you claim that RedFury truly believes that invading and butchery is OK, and thus the only reason he’s criticized the Iraq war is to piss off Americans. In other words, because he supports invading and killing people, he’s actually happy that the Iraqis are being killed, and his only regret is that it’s not at the hands of the Spanish.

I’ve read a lot of posts by RedFury and I’ve never seen anything to suggest that he’s actually a comic book supervillain. I think he’s more critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than he would be if the tables were turned and Spain was doing the invading, but that’s human nature, as I said. It’s not even close to the same thing as making up a position just to piss people off. IMO, calling him a troll makes you look like a nut – stick to debating the facts with him, and you’ll convince more people who read your threads, even if you never convince him.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@FinnAgain

Doesn’t it embarrass you to be so totally clueless of the facts while not only spewing, but alleging that someone who obviously actually knows what he’s talking about, doesn’t?

Does it embarrass you that you’re a complete and utter douchebag?

Should I even bother discussing US policy on Israel since 1967?

Not fucking likely - I’d probably get a more reasoned debate from Joe McCarthy on the potential benefits of Communism. Tool.

[SisterCoyote]

@wring

well, hell do you realize how much damage bobbed hair did to Doris Day and Rock Hudson alone??? Iran’s gotta pull some mighty big stuff iffin they want to get into the big leagues like bobbed hair!

I, uh, I’ve been laughing for five minutes over this, and I’m not even sure why it’s so funny.

[FinnAgain]

@Giraffe

Your over the top interpretation of other people’s views completely invalidate any point you’re trying to make. Here, you claim that RedFury truly believes that invading and butchery is OK, and thus the only reason he’s criticized the Iraq war is to piss off Americans. In other words, because he supports invading and killing people, he’s actually happy that the Iraqis are being killed, and his only regret is that it’s not at the hands of the Spanish.

No. It’s that he whitewashes and provides an apologia for the butchery as long as it’s Spain doing it. When it’s the US doing it, not only is it horrible, but anybody who isn’t willing to ignore the law in order to punish Bush is a “professional apologist”.
Nor is it human nature to apply a sliding scale where one’s own country is involved. It’s perfectly possible to not only hold principles, but to stick to them. Partisanship isn’t the default condition, although it is unfortunately prevalent.

When someone pretends to hold a position, but does not when it applies to them, then they’re shown not to hold that position in actuality. If they use that position to start fights with people, then they’re shown to be using a position that they don’t actually hold in order to start fights.
That’s trolling.

@Giraffe

It’s not even close to the same thing as making up a position just to piss people off.

So if, for instance, I claimed that posting without reading up on an issue was jerkish or trolling, and then posted in a thread on string theory, calling anybody who agreed with it a dupe and a patsy while I hadn’t read a thing about string theory and didn’t know it from shoelaces. That wouldn’t be proof that I was only adopting a position to fuck with people and was bullshitting when I claimed certain things?
Just like when CBescapee, or whatever his name was, used to spew bigoted crap about how “Americans” were this or that, and then claim to be anti-bigotry and hassle posters who he viewed as being “bigots”.

If your contention is that such crap is just normal human behavior and not indicative or jerkishness or trolling, that’s your call. But I still say that you’re wrong.

@Giraffe

stick to debating the facts with him, and you’ll convince more people who read your threads, even if you never convince him.

For what it’s worth, 99% of the time when I actually do waste time responding to him and eviscerate his counter-factual babbling, it’s in GD so not only do I not call him a troll, but I simply point out how, factually, he’s full of shit. Here in the Pit, I can vent.

Speaking of folks who are full of shit…

@Really Not All That Bright

Should I even bother discussing US policy on Israel since 1967?

Why? I already pointed out how you were bullshitting when you claimed that I ‘made up’ the fact that US support for Israel wasn’t substantial until we began using them more and more against our Cold War enemies.
Do you feel a need to bullshit about post 1967 events instead?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@FinnAgain

Why? I already pointed out how you were bullshitting when you claimed that I ‘made up’ the fact that US support for Israel wasn’t substantial until we began using them more and more against our Cold War enemies.
Do you feel a need to bullshit about post 1967 events instead?

Yes, dear. Now take your medicine.

[Giraffe]

@FinnAgain

When someone pretends to hold a position, but does not when it applies to them, then they’re shown not to hold that position in actuality.

Here I think is the kernel of our disagreement. I don’t believe you can show that someone does not hold a position they claim to hold merely by showing that it’s inconsistent with their position in a different situation, particularly if they have some strong identification with a party in one situation but not the other.

Anyway, I think we’re going around in circles at this point, so we can just agree to disagree.

[FinnAgain]

@Giraffe

Anyway, I think we’re going around in circles at this point, so we can just agree to disagree.

That sounds fair enough.
And my thanks to you for actually providing a reasoned and well through out explanation of your position. I’ve actually got another point to make, but as it involves mod statements delivered in confidence, I’ll shoot a quick PM to you.

[John_Mace]

@FinnAgain

No, I’m not distorting anything. To describe the wholesale slaughter, slavery and oppression that imperialist Spain practices as having a “philosophical and moral foundation” is indeed providing an act apologetic and white washing.

Red was talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying he wasn’t proud of it, but then holding it up as some sort of example of ‘moderate’ atrocities. It’d be like saying that one was not proud of Stalin, but his butchery was based on a “philosophical and moral foundation” and was comparatively “moderate” when placed next to Nazism.

Well, firstly those are not Red’s own words, but the words of someone else he was quoting. I’m not even sure what that sentence means, but it seems to be referencing the fact that people in the 15th century didn’t have the same sensibilities that we have today. At any rate, I don’t agree 100% with either **Red **or **XT **on the subject, but I think **Red **is closer to the truth than **XT **is. No way were the Spanish worse than the English/Americans in their treatment of the Indian population. Frankly, there were enough atrocities committed by all the Colonial powers that we’d probably be better off just admitting that terrible things happened and not worry so much about who was better or worse. In fact, you don’t even have to leave the continent to chalk up war after war in Europe itself. I can’t even count the number of wars that were fought between the various states there throughout history.

[Algher]

I realize that this thread has drifted hither and yon (yon currently being defined as anti-semitism and Israel)…

I just want to ask how does one get hired to be a Professional Bush Apologist on the SDMB? I mean, I am just an amateur poster around here and if there is money to be made from posting irrelevant links and poorly thought out arguements (as is the character of many posters - Bush and non-Bush here) - I want in on the gravy train!

[FinnAgain]

@John Mace

Well, firstly those are not Red’s own words, but the words of someone else he was quoting.

But do you really feel that Red wasn’t endorsing those views via his quoting and underling them? If he didn’t endorse them, why post them and emphasize them?

@John Mace

I’m not even sure what that sentence means, but it seems to be referencing the fact that people in the 15th century didn’t have the same sensibilities that we have today.

Quite right, it was about the ‘White Man’s Burden’ and how the Spanish conquerors believed that they were civilizing the Mayas, Incas, etc… with their brutality. But excusing it, or worse, championing it in order to piss someone off by bragging about the torments probably inflicted on their ancestors?

[John_Mace]

Yes, I thought that insult was in bad taste, and I said so earlier. As was XT’s in his OP.

[elucidator]

@Algher

I realize that this thread has drifted hither and yon (yon currently being defined as anti-semitism and Israel)…

I just want to ask how does one get hired to be a Professional Bush Apologist on the SDMB? I mean, I am just an amateur poster around here and if there is money to be made from posting irrelevant links and poorly thought out arguements (as is the character of many posters - Bush and non-Bush here) - I want in on the gravy train!

Such a deal is available. Can you draw a pentagram?

[FinnAgain]

@John Mace

Yes, I thought that insult was in bad taste, and I said so earlier.

Well, I’d say that goes far beyond simple bad taste, like taunting a black person about how your ancestors might have owned theirs and they should consider themselves lucky because Africa was a real shit hole.

But I doubt that either of us is going to change the other’s subjective interpretation.

[John_Mace]

@FinnAgain

Well, I’d say that goes far beyond simple bad taste, like taunting a black person about how your ancestors might have owned theirs and they should consider themselves lucky because Africa was a real shit hole.

But I doubt that either of us is going to change the other’s subjective interpretation.

Except that they have a history of insulting each other on a pretty personal level. If that came out of the blue, yeah it would’ve been beyond bad taste. In the context of the insults that fly back and forth, it’s just one more to add to the list.

[RedFury]

Holy Popemobil, what have we got here? Looks as if FrothAgain is in full melt-down mode.

What a sorry fucking spectacle and yet I don’t feel a thing for the douchebag. For why would I when he’s confronted with facts by a very classy lady I am proud to know in person. Modest by nature, this most intelligent woman is quite a successful writer and entrepreneur…not to mention of being in possession of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge of the Dominican Republic’s history and well beyond. Spend a couple of hours with her and you’ll learn that you don’t know shit from shinola.

OTOH, you’re a scumbag unworthy of laying as dirt under her fingernails. If you were a quarter as smart as you think you are, you’d promptly realize how over your head she is in just about any department you can think of. Hmmm…yeah, perhaps that’s why I don’t give a shit if you’re having some kind of psychotic episode and are in dire need of medical care.

Yep, yep, that about covers it.

So keep throwing your crazed, incoherent tirades at me but leave her the fuck out of it, Zionist asswipe.

[RedFury]

PS-I’d like to thank my very classy Latino friend, XT, for providing me with much needed amusement. For apart from the vulgar spectacle that is FrothAgain, this thread has what have to be some of the funniest posts I’ve read on the SDMB.

From links provided to “prove” my racism:

@xt

…but even I, prejudiced as I am against the Spanish

Hell’s bells, I think I’ve just found another candidate for Himself to nominate as a racist scumbag. Or whatever the fuck he’s babbling about.

Welcome to the club, xt! Just don’t sit next to me.

[elucidator]

@Red

…Zionist asswipe.

Gotta confront you on that one, Red. I really wish you would not use the term “Zionist” as a pejorative without modifier. Zionism if defined simply as support for the notion of a Jewish homeland is not inherently evil. That some Zionists are inhumane in their approach is no reason to presume that all Zionists are complicit, any more than I can justifiably insult you for the activities of Pedro the Cruel.

With all due respect, and if its not too much to ask, could you knock it off?

[Maeglin]

@elucidator

Gotta confront you on that one, Red. I really wish you would not use the term “Zionist” as a pejorative without modifier.

I think the modifier here is “asswipe”. I am a Zionist by any definition, yet so far as I am aware, there is no consensus that I am an asswipe.

[elucidator]

Understood, but I am under the impression that the term could stand alone and be intended as an insult. Like when my Uncle used the term “Mexican”, it was always an insult, a pejorative.

I’d be happy to be wrong, and be so advised. As for “asswipe”, well, 'nuff sed.