The Fire Pit is Interesting

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Jeff » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:21 pm

chlamor wrote:Another interesting thing to note about The Fire Pit is how many topics in the Fire Pit are related to Israel-Palestine.


That's a token of the passions which the topic inflames, not of the topic itself. There have been plenty of threads in GD on the topic that remain in GD, or in the "Middle East" subject forum, because they haven't burst into flames, gone personal, or become a gateway to crypto-fascist discussion of the "Jewish problem."
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:22 pm

jingoism:
extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:33 pm

sunny wrote:jingoism:
extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy


Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests.


When you use the foreign policy jingoism of the former Soviets and the Palestinians and Arabs, you are a fellow traveler, spreading the jingoism; advocating the use of threats and force against Israel.

This is not to say that Israel does not engage in the exact same thing.
Doodad
 

Postby chlamor » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:37 pm

As to the "passions" if I were wanting to get a topic locked/deleted for specific ideological reasons it would be quite easy. The first thing to do would be to divert attentions away from the topic I felt uncomfortable with. Next I would begin with mildly abusive ad hominems or false accusations directed at the poster. Next I'd use a-historical concoctions and knee-jerk labels to confuse and rile the matter further. Ultimately the thing sparks an all out feud and thread locked. Great I win. Topic no longer discussed and "chilling effect" put in place. Sound familiar?

Three further points:

1) Passionate and contentious discussions are important. Show me a discussion group that has no such thing and I'll show you a classroom where very little is being learned or even being said;

2) If what was considered in that particular thread was "too passionate" I am confused to how limited are the boundaries;

3) Noone has given any refutation of merit to dispute the quotes listed.

In light of all of this and in light of the larger picture, wholesale censorship and media distortions regarding Israel/Palestine, I find the pulling of the thread to be quite disturbing.

What would be highly instructive is to go to say FAIR's website and get a close examination of how the media distort's the picture. If that picture cannot be righted in some small way at a place like this we are in deep trouble.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=18&region_id=21

The degree to which Israel and the IDF have been involved in brutal acts can hardly be overstated.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:39 pm


By all means speak up. Just try and avoid the jingoism such as sunny just posted.


Could you please cite the specific paragraph and/or sentence that you deem to be jingoistic?
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:47 pm

2 ways to make the argument.

1.Israel should MUST end the occupation because it needlessly harms Palestinians. Here is some proof that they don't need to occupy to secure their safety...........

2. We must threaten to do the following things to Israel...............because they MUST end the occupation because they are committing genocide and Apartheid.

The first would be a good honest argument.

The second is repetition of jingoism.
Doodad
 

Postby sunny » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:52 pm

Pacifism - the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to opposition to violence under any circumstance.

sunny-Member and moderator of a parapolitical forum called Rigorous Intuition. Wife, mother, grandmother, sister, friend, pacifist.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:58 pm

sunny wrote:Pacifism - the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to opposition to violence under any circumstance.

sunny-Member and moderator of a parapolitical forum called Rigorous Intuition. Wife, mother, grandmother, sister, friend, pacifist.


I have no doubt you are a pacifist. I have no idea why you then don't criticize Israel in other ways than advocating threats to do this and do that; jingoism on behalf of nationalistic Palestinians.

It's easy to do, you know. Just argue from honesty and your pacifism while ignoring the urge to repeat jingoism and propaganda.
Doodad
 

Postby sunny » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:02 pm

threat- An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby sunny » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:08 pm

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. ...

Atheism as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

sunny-ardent admirer of Jesus and Jehovah.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:09 pm

sunny wrote:threat- An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

Threat: n act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response.
Doodad
 

Doodad - You need to read up on history

Postby slow_dazzle » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:10 pm

Not the stuff you were fed at school, although you strike me as far too intelligent to fall for the official version. I'm referring specifically to your comment:

the foreign policy jingoism of the former Soviets


The west regarded the Soviet threat, post WW2, as negligible. For all the warnings of a red menace the west did not regard the Soviets as sufficently powerful to mount a credible, military threat. And now that the Soviet threat has gone we have a new one...which is a tad convenient for the policy makers who desperately need a reason to control the oil and prop up the dollar.

I must state unequivocally that my debunking of the red menace rhetoric that fuelled the arms race and justified Anglo-American foreign policy does not translate into support for dictators. Totalitarianism is odious irrespective of whatever colour of funky team strip it wears.
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:16 pm

sunny wrote:Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. ...

Atheism as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

sunny-ardent admirer of Jesus and Jehovah.


sunny, I have pointed out the Soviet propagandist origins of the "zionism is racism, " talking point which led to the apartheid canard. It's well documented. When you repeat it, you are talking from their foreign policy which stood against Israel and WITH those who sought to destroy her and indeed duped Egypt into the events of 1967 by lying about Israeli troop movements.
Doodad
 

Re: Doodad - You need to read up on history

Postby Doodad » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:19 pm

slow_dazzle wrote:Not the stuff you were fed at school, although you strike me as far too intelligent to fall for the official version. I'm referring specifically to your comment:

the foreign policy jingoism of the former Soviets


The west regarded the Soviet threat, post WW2, as negligible. For all the warnings of a red menace the west did not regard the Soviets as sufficently powerful to mount a credible, military threat. And now that the Soviet threat has gone we have a new one...which is a tad convenient for the policy makers who desperately need a reason to control the oil and prop up the dollar.

I must state unequivocally that my debunking of the red menace rhetoric that fuelled the arms race and justified Anglo-American foreign policy does not translate into support for dictators. Totalitarianism is odious irrespective of whatever colour of funky team strip it wears.


Uh, arming Israel's enemies and lying to forment a war with them isn't exactly non-menacing despite the facts you present. Training terrorists in propaganda and violent terrorism isn't exactly non-menacing. etc etc
Doodad
 

Postby sunny » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:20 pm

Caution: Careful forethought to avoid danger or harm.
Close attention or vigilance to minimize risk.Prudence or restraint in action or decision.
A warning or admonishment, especially to take heed. A cautious action; a precaution.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Fire Pit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest