|
Remind me again what the danger is in "cheapening comparisons to Nazi Germany"? What does that even look like? Just answer clearly and explicitly what the absolute worst case scenario is that takes place when the comparison is permitted to stand. I mean, sure its an effective rhetorical tactic that draws easy connections between the parade of right wing nationalists responsible for the subjugation and murder of an entire people and Nazis, but have you considered that should the Dark Lord Sauron take power in the near future comparisons to Hitler would be so cheapened as to not even make him feel a little guilty?
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Well now you've done it! The equivocation fairy has resigned her post and all the world's historical comparison tokens have vanished. Thanks a lot, Hitler sayers!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You can see it right in front of you in this very thread in stupid derails about whether or not the comparison is apt, and people rightly taking offense to having policies of their country spuriously equivocated with the actions of people who aimed to annihilate them as a race. It makes it even less likely that any kind of sensible discussion be made. Sensible discussion takes place between groups that already agree on at least one thing. Rhetorically, the problem with saying "the policies of Isreal share many disturbing similarities with other colonialist apartheid states" as opposed to "Isreali leaders are a pack of loving Nazis currently engaged in what most authorities on the issue think of as genocide" is that most people can happily stomach a little colonialist apartheid, and besides which Isreal's defenders react with the same level of indignation to the weaker claim. There are neo-fascist groups and parties in every corner of the world and they're rightly referred to as jackbooted Nazis by their sincere critics. I don't see why the fact that Isreal's happen to actually be in power should disqualify them from that particular criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So you're saying we should use irrelevant hyperbole because it packs a stronger punch? That's exactly the problem with cheapening this comparison, especially since people have been making the Israel=THE REAL NAZIS comparison for ages, it means that when you say it now, when it may be say a bit truer than 10 years ago, people who were not originally invested in anti-Israeli rhetoric will say "oh, you always say that." It's the boy who cried "wolf". Well, I mean for one thing people who are trained in debate and study rhetoric and persuasion as a discipline would see this as a bit backwards. The rule is typically that you lead with your strongest card. Surely one can see, for example, how a long history of various officials bodies refusing to name the Gaza occupation a "genocide" has damaged the credibility of the claim today. But what I'm saying is that in order to take seriously the notion that this or that equivocation can be "cheapened" through overuse, we have to accept basically a whole host of really weird facts about how language actually works. I mean, is the reverse claim a possibility? Is there some risk of raising to an intolerable level the bar for what actually qualifies as being "an awful lot like what Nazis did" by abstaining from current equivocation? This actually seems like a stronger claim. People already wrongly believe that Nazism is all Death's Heads and black trenchcoats, after all. Does anyone actually weigh the validity of such claims based on how they've historically been deployed? I kind of doubt it. Is there a risk that some future neo-fascist organization will successfully rise to power because the necessary language for debating them was all used up? It seems absurd, right? This just reminds me of the way people are warned against labeling various sorts of lesser, pettier discrimination "full-blown racism". Like, oh, be careful! Don't go calling just anything racism! When the real racism comes around no one will believe you!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So you're agreeing with me, then? I don't think so? quote:I've actually seen this happen in Israel with people talking about fascist government for so long that the general populace ignores literal fascist movements popping up. Okay but is that what's actually happening? Someone "cried wolf"? You can't possibly believe that "literal fascist" movements are the result of... what, even? Name calling? The general populace of Israel have plenty of good reasons to look the other way or indeed gleefully indulge reactionary politics, not least of which is the fact that they have been enormously profitable for the general populace of Isreal. What a strange coincidence that such politics have been carefully insulated from the obvious criticisms--those which have occurred naturally to so many people that, as you point out, there's a whole law on the internet dedicated to it. I mean, you're the expert here. Tell me, how does the average Isreali react to the claim that Isreal is "merely" a settlerist apartheid state with a few "disturbing parallels" to other monstrous regimes like South Africa that still enjoy a certain of sympathy amount the world's reactionaries? Is this really a more tolerable argument to anyone who might actually be persuaded? Is it actually less agreeable now that the N-word is on the table? It seems more likely to me that any criticism of Isreal that is not sufficiently weak as to be justifiable by historical mistreatment of Jews and their modern "security" needs all falls into the same unhearable category of "hysterical hyperbole".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I don't know what to tell you dude but you are just making a series of logical fallacies and inventing an academic consensus on certain subjects where such a consensus doesn't exist. You seem to have accidentally said something true without managing to grasp its implications. There's a very good reason the American and Israeli scholars who routinely bitch about how carefully the word "genocide" ought to be applied aren't actually invested with exclusive authority over the meaning of words like "genocide". Actually, G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E came to have meaning all on its own the same way all other words acquire their semantic content--as names for discreet experiences, of which Auschwitz is only one example. If it had happened differently, there'd be no controversy. Not because it would never have occurred to anyone to call the occupation of Gaza genocide, but rather because no one would bother object except for the uniquely terrible connotation of the word and its inherent moral obligation to intervene. In other words, the issue is not what the word means, but what it means for those who toil beneath it and those who have made it their weapon. So long as there aren't any unambiguously, uh, "genocided" people who resent the use of the word to characterize Israeli treatment of the Palestinians (Native Americans are a noteworthy example of one such group known for expressing their unequivocal solidarity with Gaza), there are only two real reasons left to object to the use of the word: 1) Commitment to liberal essentialism, devotion to capital-T Truth in language and an abiding deference to the intensional definition of all words, lest they be wielded as weapons against the worlds confidence in the validity of Nazi comparisons. Also, you don't know how language works. 2) To diminish--whoops sorry I meant "contextualize"--the crimes of Isreal. Notice how unappealing it is to actually have to argue against the description of "genocide" as applied to the occupation. If I were an Israeli scholar I would surely be outraged. I'd have to split all these little hairs to make my case. "Oh come on, that's just colonialism! And that other stuff? Anyone can see it merely amounts to war crimes! But genocide? It's ethnic cleansing at best!" You can get away with this kind of poo poo as long as you're arguing about the definition of genocide, which particular boxes need to be ticked and all the various legal technicalities that need to be avoided, but when you have to go about that project with an eye towards how language actually works, or should I say with an eye towards the truth that "words do in fact have meaning", you have to consider whether the experience of Gaza ought to be incorporated into the semantic content of G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E, which is a question that more or less answers itself for anyone with a sincere interest in the conflict beyond just categorizing various species of atrocity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do you think the distinction between "first degree murder", "manslaughter", "involuntary manslaughter", etc, are apologetic pedantry, or some kind of commitment to "liberal essentialism"? I think precisely the distinction is how we come to view the perpetrator, which is the whole point. I mean, would you honestly guess that a courtroom is a place likely to resolve the question of genocide to anyone's satisfaction?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That isn't true at all. There is a lot of public outrage at people who have done something perceived to be more heinous than what they end up being indicted for. On the other hand, if you indict someone for something more serious than the evidence can support, it increases the chances of them being acquitted, which means zero sanctions as opposed to less than what you'd wish. Semantic content isn't produced in a court room! It exists first as experience, then it gets a name, sometimes a hundred different names and sometimes a thousand different things share one name or both happen. The difference between the law and language itself is that the semantic content of a word isn't the list of attributes it has, but rather the list of things it names. There are plenty of excellent reasons to conclude that Gaza belongs on G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E's "list" so to speak, not the least of which is that other victims of unambiguous genocide are not shy about saying so! Their critics all shout the same absurd non-sense: "using the word to describe a thing would render the word meaningless!" The opposite seems like a much better argument: "disallowing the use of the word renders the word meaningless". More colloquially: "If what's happening in Gaza isn't Genocide than I don't know what is." People who defend Israel are happy to claim the former is true, but they themselves certainly behave as though the latter is the case, just as virtually all political elites have done for basically forever. quote:I think that international tribunals or at least the UNSC is usually where these things are expected to be adjudicated and sanctioned, otherwise people wouldn't bother writing lengthy legal briefs and UNGA/UNSC resolutions and treaties defining them. Even the BDS movement claims to be promoting sanctions against Israel because of its violations of international law. That wasn't the question. If there were a Truth and Reconciliation commission, say, and tomorrow it judged that the occupation of Gaza didn't tick enough genocide boxes despite being whatever the sufficiently polite word for double bad war crimes is, would anyone be moved by such a judgment?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"Open-air prison" has the advantage of being a bad thing that is also clearly supported by the facts, rather than "genocide", which isn't. Why not use terms that are actually the bets fit to the situation, rather than the most extreme ones you could possibly wrestle the facts into if you look at them funny and have a supportive audience? "Genocide" communicates the correct moral understanding of the occupation, which is that of being indefensibly outrageous. Plenty of people here and elsewhere have said this or that word is "bad enough" and yet so far as public opinion goes, particularly in places that provide material support to Israel, it hasn't proved to be much trouble to make sure no one gives a poo poo about "open-air prisons". Of course, your acceptance of the term "prison" is suspect, here. I mean come on, it's not literally a prison. Such hyperbole!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So, again, you're defending it as hyperbole that you think has the proper emotional charge, rather than whether or not it is merited by the evidence. Why should we bother even collecting evidence or defining anything if all we want is to provoke the appropriate level of moral outrage? Mind you, this is misguided, because while it might shock some people on the fence to side with you, others will be taken aback, making the easier prey for apologists for the Occupation and other crimes committed by past and present Israeli governments to completely dismiss criticism. No. I'm defending the word because it tracks intuitively with what I know to be the case about the occupation, about the symbol G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E, and how both of those relate to other unambiguous cases of genocide. Look, you don't get to make the rules about this. Like I said, calling Gaza an "open-air prison" isn't technically accurate, but for you its intuitively within the boundaries of acceptable rhetoric. Fine, I don't disagree, but don't pretend that where you draw that particular line has something to do with "evidence". The line doesn't just suggest itself. It's as ideological as anything. I'm sure if I cited international law you'd just quibble about "intent" or "destroy" or some other bullshit. You have a right to do that but don't mistake what your motivation for doing so actually is--emotional, ideological, all the same things that led people to agree that "genocide" was an apt term to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:There's also the 'inescapable irony' of posters who not two pages ago accused us of playing 'genocide apologism' by practicing 'liberal-essentialism' via insisting that Israel is not engaged in genocide by demonstrating that it 'doesn't tick a few boxes in the checklist' now presenting a checklist themselves and attempting to demonstrate that Israel is indeed engaged in genocide because it ticks a few boxes in the checklist... but not those others countries of course, no, they don't tick off enough boxes. Restating an argument isn't refutation, it actually doesn't even rise to level of engagement. The point that you've failed to grasp once again is that the semantic content of a word is determined by more than just whatever you say it is. If you want to answer the question "is Israel engaged in genocide" you should at least understand in principle how those questions are typically settled. Like you're hugely full of poo poo and way out of your depth and I can already tell how this is going to go by the fact that you haven't actually bothered to quote or argue with the post that you've spent the last two pages being so butthurt over. We're both competent speakers here (well...) so you're going to have to do better than "Israel and its allies aren't willing to use the word to describe their own behavior" if you want to argue that genocide has some fixed immutable meaning that explicitly excludes Israel. You being wrong about super basic poo poo like how words work doesn't invalidate the perspective of numerous people--including those who are actual victims of what is uncontroversially genocide--who don't see any problem with calling a spade and spade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
We'll he's antisemiotic!!!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth, putting it in italics doesn't either, you are seriously invoking 'numerous people' as some infallible appeal to authority. I already told you it would be nice if you could start naming scholars who support this view before you qualify it as uncontroversial. heck, can you even demonstrate a consensus concerning israeli genocide among Palestinian scholars? I'm gonna bet you won't be able to do any of that, so you basically can keep repeating this same line but it doesn't change the fact that you're presenting your dumb minority opinion as something which it isn't. if that wasn't clear: you're a liar, if people choose to buy your bullshit that's fine, they are likely idiots, but you are still just a simple liar. See this is how I know you aren't actually reading my posts. The "uncontroversial" genocides are the ones that aren't controversial (weird!). So like the big obvious example would be Holocaust survivors who signed a letter stating explicitly: People who have an interest in the topic beyond just mining it for smugness posted:We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. There's also the thousands of American Indian activists who appear every year to express unqualified solidarity with Palestinians whenever Israel does something horrible enough to make news. There's Armenian student solidarity groups supporting BDS who would probably describe this whole argument as depressingly familiar. Obviously Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is "controversially genocidal". It's been an on-going argument for years! Of course, the answer to the question "who agrees that Israel is guilty of genocide" really depends less on who you ask and more on whether you're sincerely wondering or just pulling the usual D&D bluff of insisting someone write you an entire thesis and hoping they'll give up. Just loving google it, dude. At the very least the question of genocide is an open one. Opponents of the view tend to argue, as you are, by feigning indignation over the question because again it's a lot more appealing than having to utter words "it's merely ethnic cleansing", or quibbling over petty bullshit like "oh well Israel says they aren't genocidal so you can't prove that they actually intend to eradicate literally every Palestinian." quote:You've already abandoned any attempt to support your definition for genocide short of it just kinda feeling right and that you believe it signifies that sort of 'immediate call to action' you wish to conversationally convey when you are talking about how Israel bad and that attempts to actually use the common definition for the word are used by dirty hasbarists and their allies to discourage an immediate international action, that's a nice laughable position to have but it barely merits a discussion as you've already made it plainly clear that the meanings of words are to be used as a political weapon whenever the situation is severe enough to call for it. "Just kind of feeling right" is actually the way people who aren't terminally loving goony experience semantic meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 22:14
|
|