Letters to the Editor
-
Wow!
Then I post that there is hidden structural bias and agenda hidden with some of the AIPAC and ADL criticisms, and I get the whole, "Where is it explicitly stated?"
That was me and I also asked you to give us an example of this antisemitic narrative "on the left" or "extreme left" as you originally put it. Please do. And I'll ask again: Where, what or whom is this mythical "extreme left" you are talking about? I may want to join it.
I'll just say it again: Wow!
All this edumakashun and reading and you still can't parse the difference between a Mearsheimer and Walt and a David Duke or a Hal Turner. This is why I stopped taking philosophy seriously years ago. It really is a complete waste of time. It's a guilty pleasure like theoretical physics.
Paul
You still don't get it, and I grow tired of trusting you to parse the nuance of the satire of your binaries.
The entirety of 20th Century philosophy was to advance thought away from simplistic mathemetical logical reductionists. I invoked Lacan to introduce psychoanalytic affect. I invoked the structuralists to discuss how fragment and dialectic play a role in consciousness.
You return to silly 10th grade high-school "logical fallacy" tropes. Did you google it, or retain that high school brilliance all on your own there, P.R.?
The point of the structuralists and even more so the post-structuralists like Derrida, was to remove reductionist thinking as the false constructs that they are.
Clearly, you never moved beyond that stage. But hey, you'd have been massively popular in the 19th Century when the whole kit and caboodle was being broken down into if/then formulae.
Far be it for me to break up your undergrad party. Like with Bohr's model of the Atom, the basic logical fallacies are crucial for getting us to a more complex mode of thinking.
So I mocked your dated intelligensia for what it is, a dude playing smarty pants dress-up.
Until you engage the culture industry tropes like Adorno, until you bridge the dialectics of consciousness on a level without resorting to all or nothing pedagogical simplicities and binary linguistic polemical distraction games, you'll fail to grasp even the rudimentary concept behind a cultural narrative perpetuating stereotype, as seen with AIPCAC.
You continually assume I'm defending AIPAC, further demonstrating your inability to transcend the binary: I'm either liberal or Neo-Con.
You must categorize me. Which is it? Liberal? Or Neo-Con.
Logical fallacies dictate we must have an either/or answer. It's the only way a weak mind can create the reassurance of false conscious construction and reassure himself that the structure really isn't there, the simulacrum is fictional, and the Gulf War really did happen.
-- WinSmith
Rhetoric and invective. Can't win with logic, dazzle them with Derrida and bullshit.
I'll bet kids under ten get the distinction. We all see what you are saying but there is a big difference between criticism of the undue influence of the Israeli lobby on our foreign policy and fear of ZOG, (the Zionist Occupation Government).
-
at the risk of piling on at 38 pages and counting
Do I dare tie the insidious nature of Winsmith's argument to the premature claim of irony's death? As the ADL ostensibly lays claims to the appropriate use of Hitler, Nazi, etc., so does Winsmith to the arbiter of nuanced antisemitism. We are beholden to him and presumably others (perhaps he can tell us exactly who) as to what consummates antisemitism.
I think it's the moral authority argument, the equivalent of "You can't be racist if you're not black" myth.
As I understand it, aside from the obvious occasions, one has made an antisemitic statement regardless of intent, if one in any way even through ignorance, makes a statement that alludes or relates in any way to statements made in the past or could be made in the future by antisemitic persons.
It's up to you to think your criticisms through critically and make sure you're using facts and not slipping into age old canards
The right to interpretation of the age old canards is Winsmith's. The right to compare a portion of your statement to one of David Duke's is Winsmith's.
The complicated thinking required to determine on occasion a claim that "dissent is quelled through false charges of antisemitism" is in fact false and antisemitic is instilled only in the mind of Winsmith.
Congratulations.
-
The clarity clarifies
I think I get it now.
People who attack the tobacco lobby are classist poor-people-haters.
People who critique the corn syrup lobby are sizist fat-people-haters.
People who don't like Ann Coulter are sexist.
People who hate broadway musicals are homophobes.
People who think Florida screwed up the 2000 election are agist.
There's a certain rhythm to the tune once you figure it out.
-
Yellow Bells or Red Sweet Bells?
Be careful after harvesting green jalapeno that get stuffed with cheese.
No touch the privates if you need to urinate. And no touch your eyeballs.
You get tears.
-
WinSmith
"We did not invade Iraq because of AIPAC. Yes, I'll use a simplistic statement even Paul R. can understand. I repeat:
We did not invade Iraq because of AIPAC."
Office Depot called, They'd like you to return the "easy" button right away.
-
Heh.
WinSmith... At its very core, there's this simple truth: Take AIPAC out of America. Make it disappear tomorrow.
No one here argues that. We might like to see them made to register as an agent of a foreign power. A nuclear foreign power. Israel does have nukes after all. And lose it's tax exempt status. They seem to get very special treatment no other such group in the world gets in America.
-
Paul, I am going to out this guy
I know this win guy. He's the English undergrad who has too much free time and spends it reading a small selection of theorists. He's the student who goes to class and sneers at the "reductionist" arguments of his peers. He knows more than everyone, including his professors. He knows that binaries are stupid! Because he is such a genius. He loves to trip those names off of his tongue--Zizek! Lacan! Marcuse! He doesn't realize how limited his vocabulary is; he uses the word "trope" over and over, even though he doesn't seem to know what it means. He loves to add the word "structural" to as many sentences as he can, and doesn't worry that it adds no meaning at all. He's the student that writes long, pointless papers in which he misapplies all the lingo of the theory and cultural studies fields. And then he becomes enraged when no one is impressed.
Maybe he will learn some humility when he grows up, at which point he will know that spending hours online arguing with almost everyone on this thread, and making no headway at all, is, to say the least, not the best use of his time.