Da Boss wrote: Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.
Its the same tone as I'm seeing here. The Palestinians are either the downtrodden masses (throw in some pictures of screaming mothers), or freedom fighters standing up to a tyrant. Where every other instance of criticism against them is retorted by "but the Israelis made them do it".
It just seems weird that in other conflicts people are fine to criticise terrorists, though in this one its difficult not to jump on the victim blaming. "Palestians have been burning loads of Israeli land this past month". - "The Israelis did it first!", yeah, but that's whitewashing the issue and turning every discussion into "meh, eye for an eye" without addressing anything.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.
Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.
The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.
I know. This doesn’t make the statement I challenged any less misleading.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
That may be true from the Israeli standpoint, but that does not make it universally true. It's like saying that Donald Trump is the greatest president the US has ever known. It may be true to his followers, but it's not an actual objective truth.
Let me use a more extreme example from the past:
Nazis invade France, partisans fight an asymmetrical war against them. What groups like the Maquis did was, by the standards both then and now, absolutely 'terrorism'. So, when the Nazis slaughtered whole villages in what we now would call COIN, were they justified?
I mean, if the French had done that to English troops, surly the Allies would not have had such a high opinion of them.
See, when people perceive a group as being on their 'side' anything goes. Which, again, was my point earlier with the IRA. The US didn't see the IRA as an enemy and, in fact, a lot of Americans saw the Irish as an oppressed people, and thus morally had no issue with supporting terrorism, as they felt it was justified. On the flip side, the US also supports despotic regimes who oppress all sorts of people, and calls anyone who opposes those regimes 'terrorists' and oks the murder of their families with drone strikes, and Americans feel that's morally justified too.
Do you see the issue yet? It's not whether or not their actions are reprehensible, it's the perception that a group is an enemy. Not the reality of it, not how horrific their acts, just if they seem to be for us or against us. That's why the west loves Israel and it can do no wrong, and that's why the Arabs love Palestine and it can do no wrong. The issue really is in how people think.
Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world...
But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Da Boss wrote: Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.
Its the same tone as I'm seeing here. The Palestinians are either the downtrodden masses (throw in some pictures of screaming mothers), or freedom fighters standing up to a tyrant. Where every other instance of criticism against them is retorted by "but the Israelis made them do it".
It just seems weird that in other conflicts people are fine to criticise terrorists, though in this one its difficult not to jump on the victim blaming. "Palestians have been burning loads of Israeli land this past month". - "The Israelis did it first!", yeah, but that's whitewashing the issue and turning every discussion into "meh, eye for an eye" without addressing anything.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
No of course not. Because we ('we' meaning Europeans) are a direct party in the conflict against ISIS. ISIS is our enemy, we don't want to justify their actions. But the Palestinians aren't our enemy, and neither is Israel. Europe is pretty impartial in that conflict, and so both sides get constant criticism, because where two fight, there is two to blame, and both sides are bad. If criticism for Israel seems more frequent, than that is due to the fact that people expect more from Israel, Israel being a democracy that has close ties with the West and having vastly more means at its disposal to facilitate an end to the conflict than the Palestinians do. Not to mention that Israel has the upper hand in the conflict and that its actions frequently cost massive amounts of Palestinian lives, making them objectively worse than the Palestinian actions, who are no longer capable of doing anything really bad to Israel anymore.
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world... But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world...
But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
Which is not the same as the West being able to "rule the world at our discretion", hence simply untrue. If it was at our discretion those difficult governments wouldn't exist and a lot of those concepts you mention would go a lot farther.
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
As with other fake stories, its falsity doesn't matter. Even after the truth comes out the public have already experienced the story, and many won't be following up on it. Instead they'll just roll over onto another story.
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
Well, it doesn't help your argument either when you don't get the facts from the article YOU personally, linked either.
What happened here was one American (not the media you seem to have an axe to grind with) doxed another and accused her of being the killer. Then the usual BS on facebook and reddit and twitter began, and the Media then assumed there was a story here. Turns out there wasn't.
But boy does it make the Palestinians look bad, so the pro Israel press runs it. Even though everyone actually involved was an American.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
So, then Germany was right to conquer France, then? I mean, they ruled you, so their view was better, so you were wrong to oppose them, then, correct? Same logic there.
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
Well, it doesn't help your argument either when you don't get the facts from the article YOU personally, linked either.
What happened here was one American (not the media you seem to have an axe to grind with) doxed another and accused her of being the killer. Then the usual BS on facebook and reddit and twitter began, and the Media then assumed there was a story here. Turns out there wasn't.
But boy does it make the Palestinians look bad, so the pro Israel press runs it. Even though everyone actually involved was an American.
...Are you disputing my use of the word media here, or is there some other point of contention? I'm entirely confused, as I don't see anything in what you said which isn't reflected in my post. Maybe I should be choosing my words better, though the way you're leaping on my post seems like you're trying to start a dispute over nothing.
...Are you disputing my use of the word media here,
Yes, I really don't see a random person in the US doxing another random person in the US and accusing them of murder as 'the media' which has a somewhat larger implication.
Ah, ignoring my whole point that the issue was then picked up by others on social media and elsewhere who made into a larger thing rather than just a doxing incident among individuals? ...Or is it just that easy to ignore the point of the article regarding the parroting of stuff like "the story may be fake, but she's still guilty!".
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world... But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
Which is not the same as the West being able to "rule the world at our discretion", hence simply untrue. If it was at our discretion those difficult governments wouldn't exist and a lot of those concepts you mention would go a lot farther.
We fully lead the world. We don't tell each citizen in the world when to poop and when to sleep, of course, if this is what you understood. I didn't mean that. In addition, this would be against our very own values that we spread all over the world. But, we are in a world that we shaped, for our own interest, and in which we hold all the cards. We don't need to destroy every regime on Earth, as long as they don't clearly threathen us, because this is coslty (in money and in men, unfortunately). No need to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that. And the Gaza / Israeli violences show it pretty clearly: people throw some rocks at Tsahal, and Tsahal kill them and noone even notice it. We can clearly see that when you are in the "good" side, you do pretty much as you want
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
So, then Germany was right to conquer France, then? I mean, they ruled you, so their view was better, so you were wrong to oppose them, then, correct? Same logic there.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ? What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.
It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.
Ultimately, yes it's bad, and the Palestinians should cut that sort of thing out. However, the fire kites have been mentioned before (I thought in this thread, though I may have been mistaken) and been mentioned or featured on just about every major news network. The issue is, the damage inflicted is negligible in terms of the stuff people care about (lives and homes), and among the great see of examples of horrible things all sides can point to, it's a minor talking point in the grand scheme of things. A wildfire in a nature reserve kicked off by teenage arsonists tends not to generate as much concern as 60 dead on a border wall.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth?
How did that go again...
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
godardc wrote: [
We fully lead the world. We don't tell each citizen in the world when to poop and when to sleep, of course, if this is what you understood. I didn't mean that. In addition, this would be against our very own values that we spread all over the world. But, we are in a world that we shaped, for our own interest, and in which we hold all the cards. We don't need to destroy every regime on Earth, as long as they don't clearly threathen us, because this is coslty (in money and in men, unfortunately). No need to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that.
And the Gaza / Israeli violences show it pretty clearly: people throw some rocks at Tsahal, and Tsahal kill them and noone even notice it. We can clearly see that when you are in the "good" side, you do pretty much as you want.
When you say things like "rule the world at our discretion" and "we hold all the cards", those two statements are easily proven to be false. If this was actually true there would be quite a few regime changes around the world. We hold a good number of cards, but by no means all, as demonstrated by the limited reach of Trump.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.
Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.
The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.
I know. This doesn’t make the statement I challenged any less misleading.
Still it's an interesting thing to remark since the conversation goes on and off about the founding of the state of Israel.
House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.
It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.
Ultimately, yes it's bad, and the Palestinians should cut that sort of thing out. However, the fire kites have been mentioned before (I thought in this thread, though I may have been mistaken) and been mentioned or featured on just about every major news network. The issue is, the damage inflicted is negligible in terms of the stuff people care about (lives and homes), and among the great see of examples of horrible things all sides can point to, it's a minor talking point in the grand scheme of things. A wildfire in a nature reserve kicked off by teenage arsonists tends not to generate as much concern as 60 dead on a border wall.
Which was my point. Field burning is so common (and bipartisan) it's discussed every now and then but it hardly makes the news because there's much worse going on there to warrant anything other than local coverage.
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ?
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
No, I was implying that he was starting to smell like a Russian troll pretending to be French. Since pretty much every actual Frenchman I've ever met would have responded pretty negatively to the idea of just letting the Nazis rule over France, no matter how many lives it cost. Mind you, most of said Frenchmen also fought in WW2, so there may be a connection there.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
No, I was implying that he was starting to smell like a Russian troll pretending to be French. Since pretty much every actual Frenchman I've ever met would have responded pretty negatively to the idea of just letting the Nazis rule over France, no matter how many lives it cost. Mind you, most of said Frenchmen also fought in WW2, so there may be a connection there.
Being opposed to nazi rule and standing up to nazi rule are two different things. Even Pétain, the national hero of Verdun surrendered to the Nazis, and led Vichy France for the Nazis. The French today even recognize that the Résistance was little more than propaganda to make themselves feel better about capitulating. The actual Résistance was prone to attacking other resistance groups instead of the nazis because they were more concerned with their own power base than with dislodging the nazis, it was so bad the allies stopped supplying them with guns.
Calling godard a collaborator is extremely unfair to his character.
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ? What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote: The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them. Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty. I have never advocated for the killing of "the ones we don't like"....
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth?
How did that go again...
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.
Ok that's nice, but/ why should I care about what a guy wrote in the declaration of independance of an other country so many years ago ? Lots of men wrote lots of things, and I don't think the thoughts of one man, you, me or he, to be more valuable just because he is famous.
To stay on subject, do you think we will, in our lifetime, see the end of this conflict ? If yes, how ? Frankly I don't think so
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ?
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them.
Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty.
I have never advocated for the killing of "the ones we don't like"....
So how come the Fascists lost WW2? I'll answer my own question: because the democracies could shift gear and realize that their old ways of thinking didn't work anymore, leverage their diverse skillset and acceptance of diverging ideas, and leverage that to create a situation where they were more powerful than the Fascists. The Fascists, meanwhile, reaped huge successes at first when Blitzkrieg proved to be a really successful counter to the old strategies of the Allies, but collapsed once their strategies no longer worked, especially against Russia. Humanity's biggest strength is flexibility. Authoritarianism, "might makes right", and fascism throws that flexibility away because it forces people to always watch their back against backstabbers.
Plus, I already showed that "might makes right" is incompatible with meritocracy. Galileo was objectively right, the Catholic church suppressed him using their position of power. "Jüdisches Physik" was correct, Nazi Germany used their position of power to suppress it.
Might is important, as you mentioned, to protect us from those that would use it to bully their way to power, but, to use an old cliché, with great power comes great responsibility. There is no room for humility or self-reflection in a system goverened by brute force, and those two traits above all else are the cornerstones of the scientific theory: the recognition that no one, no matter how illustrious, is flawless. Not even the greatest scientific minds have all the answers in their fields. The more points of view we have to consider a problem from, the bigger the odds that we'll find a solution. Humanism and the scientific method go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other. Why do you think the USA is world-leading in science? E pluribus unum.
Fascism could work if you had perfect knowledge of what constitutes strength and weakness, stupidity and brilliance, but as you do not it doesn't.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them.
This is the crux of the issue. Who decides who is brilliant and who is stupid? Who is weak and who is strong? Those are just social constructs. Democracy draws its ultimate strength from the fact that there is no greater strength than the population of a country working in relative unison. The strength in a diverse set of minds, being able to consider any given situation from a multitude of angles and coming up with a solution based on those various considerations, is far superior to one that is homogenized and simply follows what it percieves to be "strong".
This is the crux of the issue. Who decides who is brilliant and who is stupid? Who is weak and who is strong? Those are just social constructs. Democracy draws its ultimate strength from the fact that there is no greater strength than the population of a country working in relative unison. The strength in a diverse set of minds, being able to consider any given situation from a multitude of angles and coming up with a solution based on those various considerations, is far superior to one that is homogenized and simply follows what it percieves to be "strong".
The above is intrinisically self-defeating as an argument, because it states 'strength' is subjective, before attempting to objectively state that democracy is the 'strongest' system.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a complete advocate of democracy as a system, but I don't buy into the concept that it's inherently a 'superior' or 'stronger' system on account of the fact that 'strength' in any situation is entirely relative to any given matter at hand. So to take the example of military 'strength you've postulated':-
So how come the Fascists lost WW2? I'll answer my own question: because the democracies could shift gear and realize that their old ways of thinking didn't work anymore, leverage their diverse skillset and acceptance of diverging ideas, and leverage that to create a situation where they were more powerful than the Fascists.
You're somewhat barking up the wrong tree. France was a democracy. It lost to Nazi Germany on the battlefield in World War 2. Being a democracy meant nothing in terms of 'strength', at that point.
You could try and argue that democracies are more likely to have stronger economies, but in 1870, the more democratic France was a strong economic power (and theoretically, a stronger military one too). It still lost to Prussia. The economic muscle didn't translate into an effective military muscle in sufficient time.
Equally, military muscle doesn't always mean much at all. Napoleon had a much stronger army than Great Britain did before he invaded Russia. Yet his military 'strength' on the ground meant nothing, because he couldn't move it from Point A to B and invade Britain. His 'strength' was of the wrong type for the goal he wished to accomplish. Hitler faced much the same problem.
The lesson to be learnt here is that vague conceptual 'strength' in potentia as it were, be it economic, military, political, or any other type, means absolutely nothing if it is inapplicable at the point of utility. Are democracies better at R&D? Possibly. I'm not sure. Yet the Soviet Union managed to achieve the ICBM , and modern day China is fast developing it's capabilities in STEM research without converting to being democracies. Certainly, it's not the case that only democracies can do these things, and it might well be possible that other efficiencies imposed by an autocratic system can compensate and give different 'strengths' in other fields to counterbalance any minor decrease in R&D efficiency. It's not something we should have assumptions over.
Stating "Authoritarianism, "might makes right", and fascism throws that flexibility away " and that "might makes right" is incompatible with meritocracy' isn't accurate. The machine underneath an autocracy can easily function in much the same way as if there were a bunch of people standing around casting votes. Democracy matters less then people think when it comes to the making of decisions and flexibility of power structures. If the people at the top of the system want to promote meritocracy throughout it, then meritocracy will be promoted. Meritocracy and democracy are not intrinsically linked concepts, far from it. Why?
Because in any given social hierarchy. you ultimately have people at the top giving orders. Having the ability to collectively remove some of them from office as a nation doesn't affect the fact that there is always people at the top. We work collectively as a species through a complex hierarchy. The means by which the people at the top reach that point is not necessarily relevant as to the social and cultural makeup underneath it. Sure, your meritocracy might not quite extend as far as the most powerful five people in the country, but then again, how many people ever get into those positions to begin with? Making appointments functon differently for that handful of positions doesn't have to affect how the many millions of positions underneath that are appointed, after all.
It's why you can have democracies with cast iron constitutions and institutions from the word go collapse into corrupt, inefficient dictatorships whilst places that literally have royal hangovers and no written constitutions still bumble along as reasonably effective democracies and institutions.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."
Xenomancers wrote: I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.
Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.).
Glorious? Depends on where you were located in that power dynamic.
And as I said above, 'strength' is entirely dependent upon applying a resource at a given point.
So scientific strength is all well and good, but if you're under siege by thousands of Boxer rebels in China with limited resources, your slightly superior weapons mean nothing. Alternatively, Britain's place as the leader of the Industrial Revolution in no way gave them the power to remove Napoleon or win the war of 1812. Or in modern times, to seize back the crown of shipbuilding from places like South Korea, or to negotiate a better trade agreement with South Afcrica. R&D or technology are wonderful things, but they mean nothing outside of their given fields and applicable contexts.
Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard
Unless the might belongs to the thugs and dictators....
Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty.
Liberal democracies care for many things. As do liberal autocracies. Or Conservative of either. Attempting to generalise in such broadbrush terms is the very definition of writing meaningless sentences.
Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined.
I don't think cumulative quantitative concepts work as a basis of comparison for suffering. When someone has their leg cut off in a gruesome accident, you don't say 'Ah well, at least a thousand people cut their knees falling over today'. More Russians might have died, but that has little to do with a given level of 'suffering'. If I shoot five people quickly and cleanly, and then spend five days torturing another, you wouldn't say that collectively, the first five suffered more.
I personally would hesitate to ever say which 'people' collectively suffered more than the other here (I mean seriously, what kind of a gauche one-upmanship conversation is that in this sort of context?), but if one was going to make the attempt, this is not the way to do it.
Fair criticism, I think in retrospect that my post went a bit all over the place and could've done with a lot more polishing, because as you pointed out it ended up pretty badly. I probably should've just been content with discussing the dichotomy between "might makes right" and meritocracy. and how they ultimately cannot co-exist. Either you let the people with the might decide, in which case you override meritocracy because you're basing someone's position on the ability to wield force whether that is relevant to the position or not, or you let the people with proven ability use that ability without the people wielding force interfering, in which case might doesn't make right anymore.
Sure, the Soviet Union were cutting-edge on a lot of things, but as a whole they were behind the Western nations. Free discussion and disemmination of ideas is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Again with the Galileo example, no matter how much the people with might insisted they were right, they weren't.
My point regarded the fact that I consider "strength" a social construct was badly worded. What I meant was that what we percieve as "strength" and objective "strength" (if indeed there is such a thing) are different. As you said, Napoleon thought he had "strength", but it turned out that, in the end, he didn't. Hence my argument that democracy is more likely to achieve objective "strength", as it is more likely to have a point of view that finds and seizes on opportunities. It's essentially exploiting probability, as you only need to find a good solution once. This also doesn't mean that authoritarian regimes cannot achieve successes, as your China and Soviet Union examples show, only that they are less likely to do so. It's the same reason the scientific method is good; it's completely possible to make scientific advances without it, but it greatly increases the odds of success. Thus, if we assume that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of its citizens to the best of its ability, a democracy is so far the best method we've found.
Of course, if you don't give a hoot about part of the population, that changes...
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."
Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.
I'm not underestimating and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, what I'm saying is "suffered the most" is subjective. Sure, the Soviets overall suffered a lot in sheer numbers and I studied it extensively from the war crime perspective. However, you do have to take into account that for the Soviets plenty of suffering was brought on by the Soviet leadership in the war effort in a manner that for example the Jewish population had no control over. The actions of Stalin for example had a big influence on overall casualty counts. Again, not saying the Soviets didn't suffer a lot, but you have to recognize the subjective nature of suffering and the overall level of agency employed by the groups victimized at the hands of Nazi Germany. The Jewish population as such had a lot less agency in what happened compared to how the Soviet state pursued its strategy since 39 with an undeniable level of callousness.
And it doesn't take away from what either had to suffer through, but you can't use something that happened 70 years ago to make others suffer. Recognize that you suffered sure, but don't wield it as an excuse. Like Netanyahu saying the Palestinians convinced Hitler to carry out the Final Solution
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."
Xenomancers wrote: I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.
Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.
Yeah - you are right. In terms of total lives lost - the Russians suffered the most and I wasn't trying to undermine that. Poland was occupied for the entire war and a good portion of it's population was systematically exterminated. Most of their cities were at least 50% destroyed - many completely destroyed. Then they had to endure political manipulation after that. Just a really bad situation there. I feel a little silly for measuring the suffering of people who went through unimaginable atrocity. Let's just agree that the situation sucked pretty badly for all those involved on the eastern front.
The point I was making though is that Russia at least gained something during the war. Like Israel they took the opportunity to acquire territory after they were invaded and Russia was not very nice about it. Every territory they wanted they took with ruthless determination. What Israel did by comparison in Israel is childsplay and the part that bothers me the most is "the right thing to do" is not getting Israel out of this situation. If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.
Xenomancers wrote: If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.
The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).
Xenomancers wrote: If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.
The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).
I'm speaking specifically of when they were invaded by Egypt/Syria/Jordan in the 70's and straight rolled over all opposition. It would have been bad at the time but nearly 50 years later it would have faded into the pages of history.
Xenomancers wrote: If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.
The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).
I'm speaking specifically of when they were invaded by Egypt/Syria/Jordan in the 70's and straight rolled over all opposition. It would have been bad at the time but nearly 50 years later it would have faded into the pages of history.
Rolled straight over is a bit of an overstatement. It also became clear the Sinai wasn't worth holding long term.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread !
So, again, if that's true how'd the Nazis lose WW2 again?
And, yes, we've just passed the point that I'd 'merely' call him a collaborator.
Tell me more of the 'Glorious' genocide of my people, oh white overlord. Perhaps you'd like to put on a brown shirt while you're at it?
For those of you failing to grasp, our french friend just implied that an event that had a body count of 10 Holocausts stacked on top each other was 'glorious'. That's 60 million people.
I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.
I think we passed the point of being able to expect reasonable discourse when one side started arguing that fascism is a meritocracy, let alone the colonisation stuff.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Fair criticism, I think in retrospect that my post went a bit all over the place and could've done with a lot more polishing, because as you pointed out it ended up pretty badly. I probably should've just been content with discussing the dichotomy between "might makes right" and meritocracy. and how they ultimately cannot co-exist. Either you let the people with the might decide, in which case you override meritocracy because you're basing someone's position on the ability to wield force whether that is relevant to the position or not, or you let the people with proven ability use that ability without the people wielding force interfering, in which case might doesn't make right anymore.
What if the mightiest chooses to apply meritocracy for everyone beneath them though? You're still following might makes right in that you're setting up a hierarchical power structure, but so long as the vast majority of society function in a meritocratic fashion, it's still a meritocracy.
Hence my argument that democracy is more likely to achieve objective "strength", as it is more likely to have a point of view that finds and seizes on opportunities. It's essentially exploiting probability, as you only need to find a good solution once. This also doesn't mean that authoritarian regimes cannot achieve successes, as your China and Soviet Union examples show, only that they are less likely to do so.
Again, I'm not really buying that these benefits are intrinsically reserved for democracies. I know it's something of an exaggerated caricature of an example, but take Plato's philosopher King. Or alternatively, a democracy where women or people of colour cannot vote (which didn't stop the Industrial Revolution or various other incidences of creative industry throughout history).Giving or restricting voting rights don't automatically bestow this culture of initiative and innovation, that comes from wider cultural contexts. It requires institutions to sponsor them, opportunities, availability to finance, a more untrammeled flow of information, and so on.
It's the same reason the scientific method is good; it's completely possible to make scientific advances without it, but it greatly increases the odds of success. Thus, if we assume that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of its citizens to the best of its ability, a democracy is so far the best method we've found.
Is it? Benevolent Dictatorship is very much a thing. Look up France-Albert René of the Seychelles during the 1980's.
I think it would be more correct to say that a functioning democracy is more likely to attempt to improve the lives of its citizens, but even then, that's only the case when it's appropriately hedged about with appropriate supporting factors. There are countless 'democracies' in Africa which qualify for the title on paper, but do little to help the citizenship in reality (and often much to oppress it).
I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.
I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.
That still leaves 12 million.
I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I could go and look it up I suppose, but I figured he'd be more likely to have the facts to hand.
Didn't the english, french, etc... colonists of north america gave the native americans blankets and that kind of stuff with the idea of them becomin ill?
IIRC from my post-colonialism studies there's no evidence that was ever done deliberately, but there seem to have been a few cases where it happened inadvertently and the settlers were genuinely trying to be helpful. There was enough atrocities anyway.
Galas wrote: Didn't the english, french, etc... colonists of north america gave the native americans blankets and that kind of stuff with the idea of them becomin ill?
I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.
Yes, and many more were killed in conflicts with each other that arose following that. Look up the Beaver Wars for example.
Did the US have atrocious policies towards the Native Americans? Undoubtedly. Did we kill a lot of them? Of course. Did the United States ever take on a policy of genocide, of wiping them from the land, a'la the Jews in the 40's, or the Armenian Genocide? Hardly.
The Native American's got the raw end of the stick, no question about it. But they were hardly innocent victims that the white dudes just rolled up and started murdering outright (at least the ones in North America, Spaniard's got a lot to answer for...). War was a first option among many of their cultures, and one they used quite frequently, not just against white settlers, but against other native people as well.
"Spaniard's got a lot to answer for..." hmmm... I think you shouldn't speak about history you don't know.
Lets just say, in south america everyone is of mixed ascendence... the natives aren't in reserves.
The reason the Aztects were destroyed as an empire (They where allready in decline when the Spanish reached america) was because most natives tribes united with the Spanish to destroy them, because they where extremely ruthless and tyrants.
Not saying spanish colonists and conquistadores didn't did bad things, of course they did. There was slavery, killings, etc... but if you study a little history you'll find the worse crimes and genocides agaisnt the natives were commited by the "criollos" (Mixed native-spanish descendants) agaisnt the natives post-independence.
But I'm not an expert in colonialism history so I won't enter in details and specifics I don't know well enough, but I know enough to have learned that black legend that was the colonisation of america is that, just a legend. (And, I'll say again, I'm not saying they didn't did nasty things)
Well, no. It's not. I refer you to the inventories of Fort Pitt, where the book keepers helpfully added notations to the inventory given to native from the small pox hospital to, and I quote
INVOICE for 1763 June
Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763
"To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Vizt:
2 Blankets
1 Silk Handkerchef
&
1 linnen do:
General Amherst then engaged in Correspondence with Bouquet, thusly:
"Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." In addition, Amherst wrote, "Captain Ecuyer Seems to Act with great Prudence, & I approve of everything he mentions to have done."
Bouquet, responded on the 13th, "I will try to inoculate the Indians with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. I wish we could make use of the Spanish method to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove that vermin."
On July 16, Amherst replied, "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race. I should be very glad your scheme for hunting them down by dogs could take effect, but England is at too great a distance to think of that at present"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: t I know enough to have learned that black legend that was the colonisation of america is that, just a legend. (And, I'll say again, I'm not saying they didn't did nasty things)
I'm curious how you explain Mexico going from 30 million people to 1 million. Oh, and for a 'legend' the Catholic Church were quite the tale tellers then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: But they were hardly innocent victims that the white dudes just rolled up and started murdering outright
Wounded Knee and Gnadenhutten immediately spring to mind as examples of them doing exactly that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: IIRC from my post-colonialism studies there's no evidence that was ever done deliberately, but there seem to have been a few cases where it happened inadvertently and the settlers were genuinely trying to be helpful. .
I refer you and your class to the surviving documentation which shows that was exactly done deliberately.
2.a. The demographic disaster of conquest and colonization
There is consensus that the sixteenth-century was a demographic disaster for Mesoamericans. Table 2 displays ten authoritative estimates of population decline for the native population of "Mexico" (or diverse parts thereof) during the first century of Spanish conquest and colonization. Estimates of the magnitude of the disaster ranges from less than twenty-five percent to more than ninety. Three schools or interpretations cluster along this broad band of figures: catastrophists, moderates and minimalists. Catastrophists place the scale of demographic disaster at 90% or more and descry a large native population at contact, exceeding ten, twenty or even thirty million. Moderates detect decreases of "only" 50-85%—disasters nonetheless. They favor smaller populations at contact (5-10 million) but agree with catastrophists on population totals at nadir (1-1.5 million between 1600 and 1650). Minimalists perceive the scale of the disaster as much smaller, on the order of 25%. The principal proponent of the minimalist position, the Argentine linguist Angel Rosenblat, is the catastrophists’ most determined critic. Rosenblat sees a decline of the native population from 4.5 to 3.4 million inhabitants, or 24%, and stabilization beginning within a half century of initial contact with Europeans. It seems to me that the population of central Mexico at contact must have been no less than the minimalist estimate of four or five million and was likely double and possibly even triple that figure.
The "war over numbers" continues because population estimates prior to 1895, when the first national census was conducted, are unavoidably crude for any large region of the Mexican subcontinent. For the sixteenth-century, the data are dreadfully crude: often derived from gross tax allotments, not actual receipts, or numbers of taxpayers, not total population. Methods for working these data are more numerical than demographic, and at best the results point to orders of magnitude. The fact remains that most places extant in 1519 were never enumerated by either native or colonial authorities. Yet today there survives a surprisingly large corpus of population-like numbers for an exceedingly diverse array of administrative units: hamlets, barrios, subject boroughs, towns, district capitals (cabeceras), and provinces. Some places ceased to exist within decades of first contact, others changed names, and not a few were relocated through the Spanish policy of congregación. Most native capital "cities," with populations ranging from 10,000 to a disputed 350,000 for the Mexica capital Tenochtitlan, survived the conquest and subsequent demographic catastrophe.
Only a couple of schollars use those numbers (From 30 million to 1 million, 90% of mortality)
Spoiler:
I'm not gonna start a discussion here because this is offtopic and to be honest I'm no expert in this. But I just found strange that number you gave. Of course, numbers outside historical study don't matter, killing more or less doesn't make less aberrant the fact of what they did. I have no problem admiting that in the past people did horrible things. But I prefer when those horrible things are true and not exagerations.
Iron_Captain wrote: Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Did you use an online resource?
You may have to pick up a book or use archive.org
Iron_Captain wrote:Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.
"Okay, we may have fired into the crowd of protesters, but we only fired a little."
No, Israel, that is not what a good excuse looks like...
Just stop shooting into crowds of people.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Did you use an online resource?
You may have to pick up a book or use archive.org
Iron_Captain wrote:Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.
Accidents happen during war. Sometimes in war you kill your own soldiers too. Plus anyone getting shot in a rowdy protest/riot knew full well they were going into a dangerous situation. ESP in Israel.
Accidents happen during war. Sometimes in war you kill your own soldiers too. Plus anyone getting shot in a rowdy protest/riot knew full well they were going into a dangerous situation. ESP in Israel.
Actually, it is Israel's fault for killing this woman and not her fault for being murdered while she was doing medical work in a humanitarian crisis. It isn't the first time they've intentionally opened fire on medical professionals and it won't be the last.
And never mind the matter of whetehr this can actually be called a war situation and what the rules of war would have to say about opening fire on civilians.
Again, if it's war, the 'war crimes;' have been stacking up like cord wood. I mean, seriously, men were hanged for WAY less then we've seen Israel do by thier own admission in the last few weeks. Not the stuff they might have done, the stuff they openly admit to would have sent someone to dance the Tyburn Jig.
Is it unreasonable to hold Israel to the same standards we hold other nations to?
Again, if it's war, the 'war crimes;' have been stacking up like cord wood. I mean, seriously, men were hanged for WAY less then we've seen Israel do by thier own admission in the last few weeks. Not the stuff they might have done, the stuff they openly admit to would have sent someone to dance the Tyburn Jig.
Is it unreasonable to hold Israel to the same standards we hold other nations to?
No it's not. Nor is it resonable to hold Israel to a higher standard. What is the procedure here from prosecuting Israeli soldiers who are guilty of a war crime? Is the procedure not being followed? Is there any evidence this was intentional - in the article nor video do I see any. Witnesses (who are completely biased against israel and therefore completely unreliable can not be the judge here) say she was targeted. Is there any video? Or any Israeli soldiers who are willing to testify against the shooter? Without that there can be no war crime as Israels statement is completely reasonable granted the situation. Disproportionate? Maybe. Investigations by 3rd parties should be conducted - I am sure Israel will cooperate with them.
I'm hoping this part was sarcasm since their cooperation with any investigation in the past has been, effectively, a massive middle finger, even when the subject was found to be responsible for war crimes even under Israeli law. Ariel Sharon was found 'personally responsible' for the massacre of civilians during the Israel - Lebanon war, though their argument was effectively the same one that was used against Kurt Meyer (who was sentenced to death but later had his sentence commuted) vis a vis that while he had not ordered it, his lack of action constituted his approval.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Did you use an online resource?
You may have to pick up a book or use archive.org
Iron_Captain wrote:Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.
Accidents happen during war. Sometimes in war you kill your own soldiers too. Plus anyone getting shot in a rowdy protest/riot knew full well they were going into a dangerous situation. ESP in Israel.
THe problem is, its known that any conflict between IDF and Hamas, will be dangerous for anyone involved or close to it.
the two sides are not exactly considered for there ability to bend and back down from a fight..
the lines between Riots, and wars and enemy combatents starts to blur, espechilly when Hamas start to dozens of the dead where Hamas fighters, IDF, everyone knows has no soft western mode, we are used to our weak willed, and so etc leaders and policies. The middle east fights on the old rules of victory or death. there is no middle. You win, or our nation dies.
Hamas never claimed they were Hamas fighters, just members. Hamas is more than just a militant organization. Its a full fledged political party and government with a militant wing in Gaza. Just because they are members doesn't make them combatants.
I'm hoping this part was sarcasm since their cooperation with any investigation in the past has been, effectively, a massive middle finger, even when the subject was found to be responsible for war crimes even under Israeli law. Ariel Sharon was found 'personally responsible' for the massacre of civilians during the Israel - Lebanon war, though their argument was effectively the same one that was used against Kurt Meyer (who was sentenced to death but later had his sentence commuted) vis a vis that while he had not ordered it, his lack of action constituted his approval.
I was being sarcastic. International law is a freaking joke. ICC is a joke. UN is pretty much a joke too. You can only hope that people inside of Israel will start to have enough influence fix this from within.
I'm hoping this part was sarcasm since their cooperation with any investigation in the past has been, effectively, a massive middle finger, even when the subject was found to be responsible for war crimes even under Israeli law. Ariel Sharon was found 'personally responsible' for the massacre of civilians during the Israel - Lebanon war, though their argument was effectively the same one that was used against Kurt Meyer (who was sentenced to death but later had his sentence commuted) vis a vis that while he had not ordered it, his lack of action constituted his approval.
I was being sarcastic. International law is a freaking joke. ICC is a joke. UN is pretty much a joke too. You can only hope that people inside of Israel will start to have enough influence fix this from within.
Well if they tried to be consistent at the very least.
You don't need an international court to judge your country's own military shooting your subjects. An Israeli judge should be the one stepping in.
jouso wrote: You don't need an international court to judge your country's own military shooting your subjects. An Israeli judge should be the one stepping in.
Thing is, the palestinians are not Israeli subjects when it comes to being shot by the IDF. They're not even granted the same legal procedures if they're arrested for something. Israelis get to see a civilian court, palestinians are sent to a military court.
Thing is, the palestinians are not Israeli subjects when it comes to being shot by the IDF. They're not even granted the same legal procedures if they're arrested for something. Israelis get to see a civilian court, palestinians are sent to a military court.
If they see a court at all. Looking back at the 'burning children alive' thing, remember that when the victim's American relatives turned up to basically ask 'WTF?', the Israeli police response was to torture one of them for several weeks before releasing him.
The state department was so upset as to write an official complaint, and then do absolutely nothing. If they had been Muslim or Arab police, the Marines would have landed the next day.
Well, an interview came out, that I missed in this: An Israeli general gave a radio interview in Israel, discussing how the Israeli snipers covering this had orders to shoot any children at the protests, to be certain that they did not find any weak points in the fence, or damage it.
also, it would distract their parents, which was more effective then just shooting terrorists.
When I saw a new post on this thread I thought it would be about Israel removing Arabic as an official language and granting specific rights to Jewish people (as opposed to the 20% Arabic population).
jouso wrote: When I saw a new post on this thread I thought it would be about Israel removing Arabic as an official language and granting specific rights to Jewish people (as opposed to the 20% Arabic population).
It was known Israeli Arabs were next on the chopping block just not this quick.
It's not too bad, they stripped out the part where all Arabs lost their citizenship and had their property taken, as well as the rule that Judges could only ever rule in favor of Jews.
jouso wrote: When I saw a new post on this thread I thought it would be about Israel removing Arabic as an official language and granting specific rights to Jewish people (as opposed to the 20% Arabic population).
It was known Israeli Arabs were next on the chopping block just not this quick.
It's not too bad, they stripped out the part where all Arabs lost their citizenship and had their property taken, as well as the rule that Judges could only ever rule in favor of Jews.
And people claim Israeli are not Nazis....
Well, Israel did help the White Helmets escape Syria, so that is a positive note at least. But yeah, Israel's discrimination of its Arab citizens and oppression of the Palestinians is getting worse. And given that it was already quite bad at times, well... Hopefully elections in 2019 will bring more moderates to power in Israel, because Israel seems on course to slowly become an apartheid state as of now.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, an interview came out, that I missed in this: An Israeli general gave a radio interview in Israel, discussing how the Israeli snipers covering this had orders to shoot any children at the protests, to be certain that they did not find any weak points in the fence, or damage it.
also, it would distract their parents, which was more effective then just shooting terrorists.
Do you have a link or the general's name? If true, this is absolutely horrific and needs to be punished.
Or as the Russian media would call the, "White Helmet Terrorists".
They did have links to the terrorist groups and extremist organisations that make up the vast majority of the Syrian rebels, so yeah. Those links were necessary to be able to operate in rebel areas (and many White Helmets are in fact members of said rebel groups themselves), but by doing so they did clearly pick a side in the war. They are anything but apolitical, they are a rebel group. And a rebel who does good deeds is still a rebel. And since they are clearly on the losing side, it is good that they are being evacuated. Because with a few exceptions, they are good, heroic people, but I am pretty sure Assad won't see it the same way.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, an interview came out, that I missed in this: An Israeli general gave a radio interview in Israel, discussing how the Israeli snipers covering this had orders to shoot any children at the protests, to be certain that they did not find any weak points in the fence, or damage it.
also, it would distract their parents, which was more effective then just shooting terrorists.
Do you have a link or the general's name? If true, this is absolutely horrific and needs to be punished.
Pretty standard 'evils of Israel' blog (I'm not saying that makes them inaccurate, merely pointing out the political affiliation). I can't speak as to the accuracy of the transcript and the translation only starts part of the way in. The subject of the discussion would appear to have been teenagers being shot near the border; likely because during the recent border troubles several 14 & 15 year olds got capped by snipers. The gist is that ex-Israeli General Fogel states that anyone trying to damage, infiltrate, plant explosives, or otherwise mess with the border wall is liable to be shot and killed, under 18 or not.
There's no comment about it distracting the parents though that I can find in the transcript or any of the other sites carrying the story; that seems to have been added later on. It's also being deleted as a 'fake news' story on Reddit at the moment apparently, though I've no idea why. I saw elsewhere that the Brigadier-General Fogel in question is a relative of those killed in the Fogel Family Massacre seven years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_attack), which was carried out by an 18 & 17 year old. If true that could explain his attitude, but like the Reddit thing and translation, I've no real corroboration. It should also be pointed out that Fogel retired from the IDF over a decade ago (2004); he's not actually a serving officer and has absolutely nothing to do with the border.
Assuming that the transcript is perfect, Fogel said those things, and is indeed related to the family that got butchered by teenage extremists; I can understand why a decade and a half after being put out to pasture he'd be willing to handwave away some teenagers getting shot along the border for playing with the fence. I'm not saying it's justified (I don't think it is), but I can understand his reaction. If one of my cousins had had their baby's head sawed off with a knife by a seventeen year old, I'd doubtless be able to bear the idea of similar teenagers being shot with remarkable equinamity.
jouso wrote: When I saw a new post on this thread I thought it would be about Israel removing Arabic as an official language and granting specific rights to Jewish people (as opposed to the 20% Arabic population).
It was known Israeli Arabs were next on the chopping block just not this quick.
It's not too bad, they stripped out the part where all Arabs lost their citizenship and had their property taken, as well as the rule that Judges could only ever rule in favor of Jews.
jouso wrote: When I saw a new post on this thread I thought it would be about Israel removing Arabic as an official language and granting specific rights to Jewish people (as opposed to the 20% Arabic population).
It was known Israeli Arabs were next on the chopping block just not this quick.
It's not too bad, they stripped out the part where all Arabs lost their citizenship and had their property taken, as well as the rule that Judges could only ever rule in favor of Jews.
And people claim Israeli are not Nazis....
Methinks you are ignorant of who the Nazis were.
You know the Pro/ Anti- Israel subs banned the use of referencing Israel to Nazism. ...Mostly so people could find other less played out analogies.
Methinks you're ignorant of how they got to where they went. The Jewish State Law, in it's original form, bore a horrifying resemblance to Germany's Nuremberg Laws of 1935. As originally pitched, any Arab or Christian living in Israel would have lost not only all rights to things like voting and property, but also lost the right to a fair trial, and the right to legal redress of wrongs. What got passed is morally and ethically questionable as hell, but they did give up on the idea of stripping all non-jews of any and all rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Throwing around terms like Nazi, fascist, racist, communist and Marxist instantly discredits the person using them...
I might point out that would mean that any and all history texts would be self discrediting.
And, bluntly, it was frankly the best comparison, aside from maybe apartheid.
Methinks you're ignorant of how they got to where they went. The Jewish State Law, in it's original form, bore a horrifying resemblance to Germany's Nuremberg Laws of 1935. As originally pitched, any Arab living in Israel would have lost not only all rights to things like voting and property, but also lost the right to a fair trial, and the right to legal redress of wrongs. What got passed is morally and ethically questionable as hell, but they did give up on the idea of stripping all non-jews of any and all rights.
I think the part that he really wanted was the bit where Jewishness was more important than Democracy or or other laws. Or that a jew could never lose in an Israeli court, unless it was against another Jew. That was really lovely.
He was really trying to hustle things along to the 'Death Camps are Legal!' stage.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Throwing around terms like Nazi, fascist, racist, communist and Marxist instantly discredits the person using them...
You can call me a communist if you want. I don't mind.
Sometimes using those terms is justified, because there are actual Nazis, fascists, racists, communists and Marxists out there. Although I agree with you that in 90% of cases when these terms are used they are not used to refer to actual communists, fascists etc. And that is bad.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Throwing around terms like Nazi, fascist, racist, communist and Marxist instantly discredits the person using them...
You can call me a communist if you want. I don't mind.
Sometimes using those terms is justified, because there are actual Nazis, fascists, racists, communists and Marxists out there. Although I agree with you that in 90% of cases when these terms are used they are not used to refer to actual communists, fascists etc. And that is bad.
In this case, i see nothing wrong with calling people who propose laws stripping anyone not of their ethnic or religious group of any and all rights (including fair trials, ownership of property, etc) 'Nazis'. Even if they are not, technically, members of the National Socialist party.
In this case, i see nothing wrong with calling people who propose laws stripping anyone not of their ethnic or religious group of any and all rights (including fair trials, ownership of property, etc) 'Nazis'. Even if they are not, technically, members of the National Socialist party.
That'd make them fascists, not Nazis. A Nazi is a specific kind of fascist that thinks that social Darwinism is awesome, is obsessed with racial purity and their own superiority, likes to day-dream about purging "unclean" races and worships their leader as a living god (aka the Imperium of Man). Not to mention that Nazis are virulently antisemitic (something which the Israeli government is hardly guilty of). Common fascists merely are autocratic ultra-nationalists, often but not necessarily with xenophobic tendencies. I don't think the current Israeli government, despite a lot of nationalism and some nasty xenophobic tendencies, has gone far enough yet to be deserving of either title. They are still a democracy, and Israeli Arabs and Christians still have access to virtually the same rights that Israeli Jews have access to.
Iron_Captain wrote: They are still a democracy, and Israeli Arabs and Christians still have access to virtually the same rights that Israeli Jews have access to.
'Still' though barely. We both know Netanyahu will never stop trying to get those taken away and has the political capital to eventually get them passed.
Iron_Captain wrote: They are still a democracy, and Israeli Arabs and Christians still have access to virtually the same rights that Israeli Jews have access to.
'Still' though barely. We both know Netanyahu will never stop trying to get those taken away and has the political capital to eventually get them passed.
