compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm wrote:Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:44 pm wrote:compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote
David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)
brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated
There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.
I'd make that one myself.
Just practical politics.
This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.
It seemed intended as an illustration of the personal accusations of anti-Semitism against other posters that you and others feel AD has been making against you.
So I don't see how pointing out that it's a legitimate political argument with no personal implications is diversionary, unless I'm wrong to read it that way.
Please let me know if I am, and in what way.
CW, that is the correct banana
c2w,
My issue isnt even with the Implication - it is with the starting point
David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)
This is creating an equivalence between
'David Icke and his pals' and
Any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)
This is from early on in the thread.
ADs second post was
American Dream » 17 Jun 2013 18:13 wrote:
Who wants to drink a big glass of Kool Aid with extra vitamins?
It's at least 50% pure!
Slimmouse said
You see, this is the problem with this kind of discussion. You try to engage with someone about their knowledge of their critic, or better still with the very poster himself ( that would be you AD) and this is where we always end up going.
Its pretty much a waste of time as such.
I mean seriously, this isnt too RI to me.
So what does this actually mean? From Wiki
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications. At Jonestown, Jim Jones' followers followed him to the end: after visiting Congressman Leo Ryan was shot at the airstrip, all the Peoples Temple members drank from a metal vat containing a mixture of "Kool Aid" (actually Flavor Aid), cyanide, and prescription drugs Valium, Phenergan, and chloral hydrate.
So it appears that Kool Aid was not actually even served LOLwhut??!!
Well this is what I took from it :YMMV
AD is suggesting that 'defenders of Icke aka CW/SLAD/SM/S08 have mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
Except, again, it is ambiguous - was it directed at 'defenders of Icke'? a random rant?
Again there is no clarity about what is wanted back
Looking at it in the Wiki definition, this is putting Icke in the same camp as a mind-controlled cult leader and his mindless dogma hoovering drones.
If the ADs sources are then looked at and questioned (a VERY RI thing to do) this is labelled as 'avoiding the question'
and that as we say here in London, is total pants.