Who Is IOZ?: A Distant Episode

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

A Distant Episode

Look, states do not have rights--to exist, or otherwise. The belief is a conceptual fallacy. 4,000 years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax does not constitute a right. States come into being or do not, grow or do not, prosper or do not . . . but all of them eventually decline, disappear, or simply change beyond recognition. The fact that the liturgical traditions of most Jewish communities call the Jews a nation is totally non-germane to the question of whether or not a modern nation-state with a system of ethnoreligious citizenship can continue its present existence indefinitely in a region where the group to whom full citizen rights are exclusively granted is a distinct minority.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...: You know, that beginning of your paragraph works just as well if you substitute "human" for "state."

YF; 10:50 AM
la Rana said...: fucking nihilist; 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Humans have no rights?
Do you have a right to say that?; 11:46 AM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: Human beings do have rights, which have been defined and codified. Those rights are routinely violated, of course, but that's another question. The right of a state to exist, though, hasn't been codified anywhere that I know of. And if it has, does Palestine have a right to exist? I've noticed that since I began asking Zionists that question when they ask me if I believe Israel has a right to exist, they change the subject.

I think that the "right to exist" canard is the result of taking that phrase out of its context in "Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders," which is a different kettle of fish.

Judea Pearl is a liar, incidentally; he claims that Chomsky is an anti-Zionist, when Chomsky is a two-state-solution Zionist and always has been.; 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: And it doesn't strike you as odd that human rights have been codified, almost exclusively, by states?

YF; 12:18 PM
Travis said...: "And it doesn't strike you as odd that human rights have been codified, almost exclusively, by states?"

I think its completely irrelevant that the rights have been codified anywhere.

Humans have rights by virtue of being alive and conscious. I want to be free from murder, torture and imprisonment and I know I can't demand these things for myself without demanding them for everyone.

States are not alive or conscious. They get conflated with large ethnic groups, but they are not these things either. They are a legal fiction created to legitimize murder and theft. They may be necessary to protect their citizens from foreign or domestic predation, but they have no right to exist apart from the right of people to band together to defend themselves.; 1:52 PM
paul from the clue-by-four said...: They are a legal fiction created to legitimize murder and theft. They may be necessary to protect their citizens from foreign or domestic predation

Well, which is it?; 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "Humans have rights by virtue of being alive and conscious. I want to be free from murder, torture and imprisonment."

Me Too.

"and I know I can't demand these things for myself without demanding them for everyone."

Bullshit.

I demand that I be free from murder, torture and imprisonment (and so far, I've been successful in all three, BONUS!), And I don't care one whit for, and certainly do not demand, the same treatment for human persons born, and currently residing in, Iraq.

Also, you're being internally inconsistent. First you make some natural law argument that the rights are inherent within us as humans, and then you turn around and make them contingent on some sort of Rawlsian concept of reciprocity. Which one is it?

YF; 2:41 PM
lucid said...: Being that I'm a Kantian, human being have rights by virtue of inherent rationality. The fact of self-consciousness itself establishes equality as the grounding human right. What that looks like is subject to universalizable rules derived therefrom.; 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I would point out, that of the four arguments for human rights trotted out in this thread so far, three of them, codification, reciprocity and natural law, can just as easily be applied to States as to humans.

YF; 2:48 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: I have rights. come an try an take`em, bitches! I'm an autonomous being!; 2:59 PM
Cüneyt said...: If states themselves had a right to exist, then individuals would have no right to dissolve them and remake them or emigrate from them. Fuck, I've got to hand it to IOZ; his site attracts the most ambitious trolls, but trolls they remain.

And if you're going to use a sig, You Fuck, fucking register and save us the trouble.; 3:01 PM
Brian said...: "I demand that I be free from murder, torture and imprisonment (and so far, I've been successful in all three, BONUS!), And I don't care one whit for, and certainly do not demand, the same treatment for human persons born, and currently residing in, Iraq."

So...how far does the glorious moral concern of You Fuck extend? Only to himself? Himself and his immediate family? Perhaps his block or village? Ethnic group? If You fuck only cares about himself, what kind of structure can be set up to guarantee his security in person? perhaps universalizing "rights" makes protecting the rights of You Fuck easier, especially over the long term?

Or perhaps not. You Fuck's bald pronouncement of his status as a moral island, independent of any other reality, doesn't really advance the argument very much.; 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "what kind of structure can be set up to guarantee his security in person?"

You're not talking about human rights, you're talking about human laws. Laws, I believe in. Rights, they belong in the realm of religion and other magic.

YF; 4:33 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: my loyalty extends to as far as I can throw a baseball.; 4:33 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4:46 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: Brian, your retort to YF's "I only care about me and my family" is essentially "yeah well what about the rest of us!?! a lot of good that does our society, or the world, as a whole!" at which point, we reach escape velocity and careen off into space. and at that point, YF takes stock of his provisions, perhaps checks the ammo in his closet (the royal "his" the editorial), maybe loads a gun, and wonders which window of his house offers the best line of sight for a shot of yins crazy people approaching all yapping about universal rights and Vietnam an shit.; 4:55 PM
la Rana said...: Why believe in laws more than rights, YF? They don't "exist" in any sense other than we wrote them down.

You've gotta work out somma these kinks in yer nihilism, or Mr. Fun will just keep finding a connection to Vietnam.; 6:10 PM
Aaron said...: The law is a literary character. People read the bible and they don't get that. What it means is, Israel is a literary character. Do literary characters have rights? Well, it depends on your preferred model of IP.; 6:58 PM
Inkberrow said...: States come and go: "anti-Zionism" is about the interminable sibling rivalry between Jews and Arabs. Yes, it's possible to lampoon the idea that the whole Jewish cultural/historical construct has "rights", but my guess is that you wouldn't think of directing such ridicule at something far more laughable and tenuous, where the orderly disposition of the Holy Land is concerned, anyway---namely, Muhammad's dream journey to the Dome of the Rock. Nor does Judea Pearl's far more odious counterpart in the battle for American hearts and minds, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have the slightest qualms in squealing "racism", "bigotry", and "hatred", when any portion of the Islamic hagiography and its "imperatives" are questioned.; 7:29 PM
Aaron said...: Okay, states have no right to exist, but -- look over there! A bird in Dolly Parton's cleavage!

So persecuted we are, so unfair it is! Americans are incapable of reading the Tabaqat Al-Kabir critically. A shandah for the goyim.; 8:07 PM
Coldtype said...: Oh Inky come off it will you? The ridicule directed at the ludicrous concept of Israel's (or any state's) "right to exist" is the issue here. Try to address that if you please. Perhaps there's a market for red herrings over at Digby's joint.; 9:00 PM
TGGP said...: Speaking of rights, I don't think I've plugged The Myth of Natural Rights quite enough yet. After you've read it you can carve out a space to conceal small liquor bottles, shivs or a smaller book, like the Koran hidden in the Bible used to swear Obama into office.; 10:08 PM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: Whoa. I wasn't 'arguing' for codification as the basis of human rights. I was distinguishing between rights that have been codified and those that haven't. One might, for example, speak eloquently of everybody's right to have a superhot sex partner, but that right isn't in any law code that I know of, and it probably couldn't be because it's self-contradictory (because the hotties that the toads and trolls and dogs desire would have the same right, and forcing them to couple with the the trolls and toads would violate it). (And TGGP, I'll pass on The Myth of Natural Rights; I don't think think that rights are natural and haven't claimed that they are.)

What I mean is that, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains certain provisions, and if someone claims that the UDHR grants him the right to the riches of the body of whatever supermodel is hot these days, you can look it up. As far as I know, the right of a state to exist isn't a right under international law; maybe it should be, but it isn't. And since it isn't, it can't be appealed to. That's not necessarily a definite objection -- someone might argue that a right should exist, or that some conduct not currently a crime should be, but I haven't seen a good argument in favor of the right of a state to exist. If I encountered one and were convinced by it, I'd still have to ask why Palestine doesn't have a right to exist.

Someone -- oh yeah, Inkberrow -- claimed that "'anti-Zionism' is about the interminable sibling rivalry between Jews and Arabs." One could as cogently say that Zionism is about the interminable etc., but it ain't. Israel was destroyed first by the Babylonians, then by the Romans, not by "Arabs." Nevertheless, Jews and "Arabs" managed to coexist in Palestine mostly with fair success until European Zionists began moving in with an eye to taking the place over. Given this historical context, to speak of "sibling rivalry between Jews and Arabs" is like speaking of sibling rivalry between, say, redskins and palefaces. When the Indians (or Native Americans or First Nations) resisted the European invasion, it wasn't because of some inexplicable hostility to white people, but because they were being invaded, terrorized, slaughtered, and displaced.; 10:41 PM
Cüneyt said...: Inkberrow, you're a jackass. That's traditional boiler-plate: "Never mind the Israelis' nonsense; have you taken a look at those wacky ragheads?"

Palestinians' claims to Israel has nothing to do with Muhammad's supposed transportation to Jerusalem. That's a red herring, and it ignores the numerous Christian Palestinians who were likewise expelled in the war. I personally find much blame to go around in all this, but don't come here and deliver your typical rightist routine. It's a lot easier to mock Islam's ridiculous tenets then, say, discuss the fucking history.; 11:09 PM
Aaron said...: Not to split hairs -- well, OK, to split hairs -- but the idea that "Israel" was destroyed by Babylon is not only question begging (assumes the basic premise of Zionism! direct correspondence between sacrificial-economic city-states in 500 BC and capitalist nation-states in the present day) but biblically inaccurate. It was Judah that was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and his Lower Mesopotamian neo-Babylonians. "Israel" supposedly got axed about 140 years earlier by the Assyrian empire based at Ashur and Nineveh in Upper Mesopotamia (around present-day Mosul).; 11:21 PM
Dunc said...: "anti-Zionism" is about the interminable sibling rivalry between Jews and Arabs.

Sure. I mean, what other possible motivation could there be for opposing the idea of a state explicitly based on religious or ethnic exclusivity, where members of the "right" group on the other side of the planet have more rights than members of the "wrong" group whose families have lived there for hundreds of years.

I'm guessing you're too young to personally remember the anti-apartheid movement?; 8:00 AM
Cüneyt said...: Don't be silly Dunc. Inkberrow's ideological fellows took up much the same positions when it came to South Africa.

Civilization versus savages, sympathy for the subjugated but absolute opposition to their tactics, a greater war between the West and creeping international evil...

They still make the same arguments in reference to Rhodesia, which is fast becoming mythical to old reactionary white assholes.

Personally, I've got a lot more respect for Israel than I think South Africa deserved, but you must understand that to the defenders of establishment power, it's all the same.; 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: "Whether or not a modern nation-state with a system of ethnoreligious citizenship can continue its present existence indefinitely in a region where the group to whom full citizen rights are exclusively granted is a distinct minority?"

Germane Questions, in no particular order:

Can the modern nation-state etc. -control its population?

Does it have the means of repelling all external/internal threats?

Why would it want to?

How would it support these measures? etc.

The fact that the liturgical traditions of most Jewish communities call the Jews a nation, along with a lengthy struggle (perceived and real) of the diaspora in relation to their neighbors, seems to be precisely germane to why/how Israel continues its present existence.

Just b/c Judea Pearl is a fucking moron doesn't make your sentence correct. I'd imagine you'd argue Not as opposed to Whether, in which case I'd have to agree...but it will be in spite of, or more amicably in recognition of, the totally germane traditions (liturgical and otherwise) which have reinforced Israel's grip on its current "portion" of the region.

As for You Fuck, I guarantee he cares about the poor schmucks in Iraq he just doesn't like to admit it b/c he gets a hard-on for acting like he doesn't. You Fuck was also the highlight of this string of comments...although the chastisement for him not taking the time to come up with some sort of witty-yet-not-trying-too-hard blogroll identification so that the regulars can really respect his bullshit and invite him to the virtual circle-jerk held monthly at Cuneyt's website is a bit much.

-COT; 10:17 AM
Cüneyt said...: Website, huh?

In any case, COT, you're right, you really are. I was unfair to harp on the gentleman's choice of name, though using a sig? A little gauche, but you're right to call me on it. It was incidental.

What was really the matter, for me, anyway, was his stubborn insistence on states' equivalence with individuals, which is confused, because states are, at least at first, often voluntary associations, if not of all then of the rulers. Are states first born and then after some point become essential, imbued with rights independent of their constituents? At what point does this occur? Goodness, no one would talk about a union's right to exist independent of its members, or a sports team's right to exist. Cities and counties have long been established and disestablished. Why is the same not to be true of greater states?

Israel has no rights. Can not have any rights. The Israelis have rights, in my opinion. This is not a semantical argument. It's about state sovereignty versus popular sovereignty, a very elementary question, I grant you, but one very pertinent in this age where collectives and organizations seem to hold sway over the individuals who form them and may rightly and naturally dissolve them, should they wish.

I'm sorry for being flippant. I thought I was answering in kind, but that's no excuse, particularly when dealing with a newcomer.; 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Fair enough -- let it be known that I was in no way attempting to defend YF's right to exist in any form in a virtual world, I just was pissed that you dampened my enjoyment of your term You Fuck by speaking bloggeekbabble in the same sentence. That and my initials spell a shitty bed so I had to put something in their preemptively to satisfy my own self-consciousness.

The idea that we've settled or been settled upon with rather random territorial demarcations that we now call states is historically accidental at best and in most cases involved what most would define as an unjust and often irrational distribution of resources. I agree that it is not a purely semantical question, that the present nation-state in its averagely expressed form may not be the most effective or "just" form of expressing popular sovereignty, and that the myth of the inherent correctness of state sovereignty is often used by dickless IR theorists to skip over questions they deem invalid.

YF is wrong about this: And it doesn't strike you as odd that human rights have been codified, almost exclusively, by states? Christ, Genghis Khan. had a code too. They are just writing down the shit that somebody told them or they have in their DNA or they think they fell from the sky or they got together as a big group and hashed out. Why it is surprising or "odd" that the current predominant form of territorial control and governance are the ones who write those laws down is beyond me.

However, I don't think YF is insisting on states equivalence w/individuals -- rather, he just wanted to change the subject to say that also, humans have no rights so he could be provocative (and the way IOZ wrote the paragraph lended itself nicely to his digression). Then he announced how he believes in laws at which point it got pointless.

I think the union and sports teams analogies are dispensable, but the city/county is more appropriate. However, the fact that you argue that members of the state could rightly dissolve/change/etc. and IOZ correctly points out that these things change over time anyway doesn't persuade me that presently a state has no rights vis-a-vis other states. Isn't that precisely the point of the collective form of governance and your quarrel is just with the size and power that has been ceded/taken/willfully granted to Israel et al?? If I'm picking sides I'm with you and not Pearl, but that doesn't mean you can come up with another form of governance that won't have rights vis-a-vis like entities. How they got there and where they/we should go from here are important.

- COT; 12:17 PM
Inkberrow said...: Cuneyt:

You seem overwrought. I would never say or even think "ragheads" in the manner you casually attributed to me during the course of your stock ad hominem avoidance of the issues at hand. I simply find the faddish, hypocritical attacks on Israel's ethics tiresome, along with the concomitant paeans to Palestinian "victimhood". Both sides believe they act in self-defense, against a complex, long-term historical backdrop. Why impute bad faith or triumphalism to Israel because Nasser couldn't find his ass with both hands?

Historically speaking, who are the "Palestinians" anyway, Cuneyt---did you read Aaron's (no Zionist, or ally of mine) caution concerning the who, what, and wheres of this Semitic family squabble? Balfour is long over, for better or worse, and the year-by-year reality since then makes Israel more like Lesotho than your turgid comparison to South Africa. And the Prophet's Dream Journey remains crucial, because it remains the pretext for their Western apologists to pretend the Middle Eastern Muslims don't want Israel driven into the sea just for the sheer pleasure of it.; 1:38 PM
Cüneyt said...: That's funny, Inkberrow. I thought the Western apologists most frequently pointed to the fact that they were kicked off their land. And no, you didn't call them ragheads, no. I apologize for suggesting it. But your conflation of the Palestinians (who, I suppose, if they cannot be defined according to your demands, simply do not exist) with the Arabs to falsely imply that all this stems from some religious dictate or tribalism or hippie fads rather than, simply, our taking sides then, now, and ever in supporting several groups of refugees to dominate a region and, periodically, expel the previous residents. Criticizing one side in the conflict is not to take the other side, and it is that which stokes my ire, because you are a liar, a falsifier, and a partisan, and you make generalized arguments against straw men (the Arabs, the Western apologists, the faddists, the hypocrites), rather than discuss with us, as individuals, what we ourselves have said. Talk to us about what we have said, or shut the fuck up, you tiresome preacher.

And COT: Let me catch my breath and mull this over further, but I definitely agree on the poor quality of my earlier analogies; I was building to a better one, namely the city/county comparison, even though I do believe that civic clubs and political organizations exist on the same spectrum of voluntary creation, codified rules and privileges, and inevitable dissolution or absorption.

And as far as your conclusion, let me say that this is not a functional conversation. It's a philosophical one, I think, and it's important, because part of what IOZ addressed (I think) was that "the rights of the state" itself is a myth, an objectification of a concept that doesn't have any real existence. It's an idol. A state's "right to defend itself" is really the rulers' ability to inflict force. Moving on to the kernel, for me: If a state is supposed to represent all its inhabitants, as democratic republicanism claims, how is that reconcilable with an ethnic state that administers territory with a substantial alien population? Do they get rid of those people? It's been tried. Do they disenfranchise? Likewise, but incompletely, to the Israelis' credit. But neither can they enfranchise utterly without changing the ethnic nature of the state, and here you have merely another form of what we see in Buchanan and Dobbs and the old right in America: preserve above all the way things used to be. The Israelis, God love them, tried to work a little Ottoman millet system, a few Bedouins here, a few Druze there, but above all, get the Palestinians (of all faiths) out, since they're trouble. And yes, Palestinian identity is new, slightly newer than Israeli. And ironically, like some child exposed on a hillside by royalty, the precise thing intended to erase the indigenous culture fostered it. God, this is a fantastic story--a shame Inky reads only half of it.

But back to my fevered point: sure, the Israelis have rights. And more importantly, they have power. But this right for a group to define itself, a right I believe in, by the way--well, the trouble is that once you get territory, you've got to ask what you'll do with everybody else. Israel (and here I fetishize too, don't I?) still ain't sure what it's going to do, though they've been pushing for an abandonment of some territory in exchange for preserving their democracy and their ethnic character. But the rub is that they don't want to administer the Pal. territories, but they want veto power. Well, that's a state of simply another name. But hey--look at the Arabs! Aren't they ridiculous?; 2:20 PM
erin4iraq said...: States exist - whether by consent or force - deal with it. The concept and practice of humans forming states is not going anywhere because it makes sense for people to band together for common protection and identity. Arguing that people shouldn't be able to do this or that they are living in a dreamworld because they do is an incredible waste of time. And it will not change whether someone someday may arrive at your door to take your "state" away. If you don't care about that, fine, it just makes the job easier for them.; 3:53 PM
Inkberrow said...: Cuneyt:

I almost wish you didn't write as well as you do, so that my disdain for your conformist's sanctimony could be complete. Nevertheless, I'll note for the record that a gratuitous attributer of "He Thinks Arabs Are Ragheads!" and "He Supports Apartheid!" arguably should not be considered to have standing on the subject of "straw men", except perhaps in a chapter entitled, "Don't Let This Happen To You".; 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Ain't Inkberrow the turd who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Fuck the Iroqouis, they didn't produce Mozart!"? Why is anyone paying any attention at all to this dingleberry?; 7:41 PM
Aaron said...: I have been trying to make sense of this paragraph:

[1] Historically speaking, who are the "Palestinians" anyway

Okay, so we start out with this Golda Meir crap. Answer is kinda simple kids. Palestinians are people who lived in the area or are descended from people who lived in the area before the Jewish-gerrymandered government of "Israel" began ruling the area! Interestingly enough, what do you think the word often nationalistically translated as "Jewish" actually means in legal texts of Hellenistic Greece? Answer Judaean! "Jewish" is in its origins exactly equivalent to "Palestinian" So give it the same scare quotes!

[2] Cuneyt---did you read Aaron's (no Zionist, or ally of mine) caution concerning the who, what, and wheres of this Semitic family squabble?

My correction has exactly no bearing on your argument. The point was actually counter to your argument: the I-P conflict has nothing to do with "Semitic family squabbles" despite the fact that the Assyrian is also a so-called "Semitic" language. Israel is not an ancient state. Jews' subjugation of the locals is not some inevitable reenactment of the Bible. It's a brand new problem!

[3] Balfour is long over, for better or worse,

Balfour, by contrast, is not over. It is embedded in the "two state solution."

[4] and the year-by-year reality since then makes Israel more like Lesotho than your turgid comparison to South Africa.

This is highlarious. Israel was established by an apartheid Arab government in order to provide itself with a cheap labor force that it didn't have to give social services to while totally emasculating it politically and fending off international critics who didn't look to closely? Did the Bantustans have nukes?

[5] And the Prophet's Dream Journey remains crucial, because it remains the pretext for their Western apologists to pretend the Middle Eastern Muslims don't want Israel driven into the sea just for the sheer pleasure of it.

This is like parsing the statements of a lunatic. (a) The evidence that Middle Eastern Muslims want to "drive Israel into the sea" for the sheer pleasure of it is, um, thin. Generally, among those who take that hard line, the issue seems pretty obviously to be resource distribution. Second the number of "Western apologists" who are even up to speed on Muhammad's night journey may be limited? Third, what possible use would it be to them as "pretext"? The argument of "apologists" is that the Palestinians were living there. It's not that Muslims have a right to a state (this would be a sort of counter-Zionism) because Muhammad and al-Bulaq took of for heaven from The Rock.

Okay, summing up, the relationship between five points is obscure, how they all related in your mind is a puzzle. Entertaining anyway.; 8:11 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 7:41:

The self-same Turd, yes. If I might suggest a closer paraphrase, it would be this impious, earth-shattering assertion: "A culture with a Mozart and Kant is arguably more complex than a culture with powwow drums and no written language."; 10:57 PM
Inkberrow said...: Aaron:

If you are who I think you are, the most I can hope to do is entertain you. My own puzzle is why you would say that your five points, to the extent they include facts, are nonetheless unrelated to my point concerning the ahistorical basis of all-too many hard-wired viewpoints in this subject area.; 11:02 PM
Cüneyt said...: Inkberrow, you could not have known that flattery is the surest way to bring out in me a conciliatory spirit. I am sorry for the animosity, and let me return your kindness to you; aside from our disagreements, you seem a perfectly enjoyable fellow and actually, I've been impressed by your civility (ooh, how I usually loathe that word).

But those disagreements, Inkberrow. It is not even so much in where we end up, but how we get there. But let's take things one at a time.

I'll apologize again for the "raghead" comment. It was quick, and it was easy. Was it easier than your conflation of Palestinians and Arabs? Was it quicker than your kneejerk answer of criticism of Israel with your off-the-mark anecdote about Muhammad's fever dream? You're talking to a gavur here. My criticism of Israel is made despite my respect for its (mostly vestigial) tradition of secularism. My offense at the Gaza siege was held along with my deep offense at the odious Hamas party (incidentally, another matter for which we can thank Israel, though not exclusively, I grant). And even if your invocation of the prophet (peace be upon him!) was fair, here's the thing that really irked me: no-one here used that as a justification. And that's why I accused you of pushing boilerplate and rhetoric. I wonder how much of this you're actually reading. And sure, we all skim or skip entirely stuff like Erin, but come on, stop phoning it in.

And likewise, you haven't advocated South African apartheid here. I'm sorry if I inadvertently suggested as much, but the fact is I never said that. I said that your ideological brethren defended it, and they did. Maybe that's unfair. I should have treated you as an individual. Instead I lumped you in, and I'm sorry for that. But my argument stands, sir. The same arguments for Israel were made for South Africa. I repeat: the virtues of Western civilization (and you've made clear your belief that genocide in defense of high technology is no vice) being superior to indigenous rot, the creeping evil (Islam in the case of Palestinians, history be damned; and the Soviet Union), and crocodile tears for the indigenous resisters but an emphasis on the wrongness of their tactics. And heck, you've got the Israeli nuclear program as your operational link. Again, what a delightful story this all makes; all the angles are perfect!

And one last note, Inkberrow, because I am intemperate and cannot avoid joining you and Anon in digging up the past. On the American natives, there was absolutely no "arguably" about it. I was arguing that in social development, as in linguistics, the natives might have equaled the complexities of European societies. You were certain, as I recall, regarding European primacy. And, there as here, you took our criticisms of one position as endorsement of another.; 11:28 PM
Anonymous said...: The self-same Turd, yes. If I might suggest a closer paraphrase, it would be this impious, earth-shattering assertion: "A culture with a Mozart and Kant is arguably more complex than a culture with powwow drums and no written language."

At least I could dance to the powwow drums. That Mozart shit is for fags.; 12:10 PM
cb said...: You guys haven't figured out inkberrow's shtick yet? What, did you get on the internet yesterday?

It's a classic technique. He does not make positive arguments or claims, only insinuations and innuendo. So, to engage with him, you have to first construct his argument for him -- in the process wading through an unpleasant muddle of poor thinking, inapt analogies, clumsy sarcasm and the standard-issue ressentiment -- and then point on why his "argument" is invalid. At which point he is shocked, shocked that you would misrepresent his argument in such a heinous way, and rather than clarifying what his argument actually was, he makes it even vaguer, to the point of pretending that he is arguing the same thing you are arguing. Rinse, repeat. He's like a store-brand Jonah Goldberg.

And cuneyt -- you're really too defensive about the 'raghead' thing. There's a certain type of commenter who loves to trumpet loud and long the supremacy of white culture and the inferiority of other races and peoples, but then starts in with the pearl-clutching when anyone imputes to them any sort of racist belief. You apologized, which was nice, but you've gotta realize he's just using it to avoid your point -- namely, that he's a fucking moron if he thinks the Palestinians' primary claim to the Holy Land is Mohammed's dream vision. And honestly, unless you're going to mock him in a creative and fun manner, he really ain't worth responding to. I mean, I feel like giving him a banana sticker for being able to spell words and use punctuation, but other than that, he's dumb right-wing troll v1.0.; 1:42 PM
Inkberrow said...: cb---

I agree with you there was no reason whatsoever for Cuneyt to apologize to me under these circumstances. Possibly that's more customary on your side of the aisle, where subjectivized offense and emotion-based moralizing holds more sway, at least where questions of race are involved. Regardless, I wasn't personally offended---I focused on "raghead" as the epitome of too many progressives' rush-to-caricature method of ad hominem avoidance which you yourself resort to far more readily and far less effectively than Cuneyt (We agree conservatives are not above employing group/ad hominem stereotypes---it's just that you folks are ostensibly supposed to be dead against that sort of thing).

Your lengthy post is short on points worth responding to. On the one hand, I rely on "only insinuations and innuendo" while nonetheless managing to "trumpet" white "supremacy", and assert that the Palestinian's "primary claim" in the Holy Land is Muhammad's dream journey. Surely most observers of whatever political stripe would consider the foregoing to easily meet the definition of "positive claims", whether or not they are additional hyperbolic stupidities of your own imagining. Never mind if I'm wrong, cb---the point is that I'm Dumb, eh?; 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Have we learned nothing people? The Palestinians have no claim either. Claims are abstract! Islamic Republic of France for the win.; 4:42 PM
Cüneyt said...: Yeah! Take that, Charles Martel!

Well, in any case, I was trying to be gracious, only up to the point of abandoning my point, which I did not. I've got nothing else to say. If I am unfair, I apologize. Or try to. Unless it's erin or something.; 9:04 AM

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

A Distant Episode

45 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive