Even a hard core atheist like me sees how stupid it is to hate people due to their religious belief. 

I may disagree,and think they are wrong, but id never hate them for it.

Sat Apr 17 2021 13:41:14 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

I've noticed that anti-semitism is generally a pretty good litmus test for detecting *actual* bigots.

There is a lot to unpack here - 


A lot of people in general support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state - myself being one of them. But there is no doubt that the very NATURE of a "Jewish" state does imply an apartheid type system. Muslim States also have apartheid type systems. Regardless of if the result is "Separate but equal" or "Separate and Superior," when you have a STATE based on some individual personal quality or value - you've created an apartheid type system. Period. There are those who BELONG to the National identity, and those who are OUTSIDE of it. I will state THAT categorically. 

One can hold the position that Israel has a RIGHT to exist as a Jewish State, but still acknowledge that it is inherently an Apartheid type system. The rhetoric of the LEFT deals in absolutes. 

One can sympathize with the position of the Palestinians, of Palestine - and the Arab occupied territories and still acknowledge that a lot of the situation is the result of their own actions going all the way back to the Six Day War - and even earlier. 

The entire thing goes back to WW 1 - and includes Europe. So... yeah, there is a fucking LOT to unpack. 

The below is just straw-manning: 

"And it's just plain wrong for @ParanoidDelusions to categorically state, "when somebody says X, they really mean Y"; that's not how this works. What that person meant is what they meant, and it depends on what they had in mind."

Your entire thought here is turning in on itself in a way that makes it hard to decode. 


"What that person meant is what they meant, and it depends on what they had in mind."

How open to interpretation is that? You're actually saying exactly what I said.

"What the person meant is what they meant, not what you heard, how YOU decoded it, and it depends on what THEY had in mind, not what YOU had in mind when you heard them utter it."

Sure. We'll phrase it THAT way. The problem is - while you just SAID this - it isn't what you meant. What you mean is... 

"What I heard is what the person MEANT, and I KNOW what the person had in mind when they SAID it, regardless of what they later said they had in mind." 


You make yourself sound like you don't even understand what YOU believe on this issue, let alone what OTHER people believe. Your inability to comprehend MY statement certainly makes one wonder about the strength of your thesis that you've correctly interpreted the ORIGINAL statement correctly. 

I don't believe in a shadowy global Zionist conspiracy. 

But, as we were talking in other rooms about stereotypes, some of the stereotypes about Jews are true. 

For example, Jews control Hollywood and media in general, and this coincides with the fact that there is a strong hard Left segment of Jewish society and that goes all the way back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare - which it turns out was not entirely fabricated or inaccurate in the conspiracy it outlined. A lot of the Jews who were *persecuted* in the 50s for being Communist Russian sympathizers - *were* Communist Russian sympathizers. The claim that there was a conspiracy to infiltrate our media and entertainment to promote Leftist ideologies also has a LOT of strong evidence supporting it. Lots of Jews, many of them in media, will admit this privately. It isn't some wide-eyed anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. If it is - there are a lot of wide-eyed anti-Semitic Jews. 

That very media has created an environment where making this claim in public will *immediately* get you labeled an anti-Semite - and if you're important enough - cancelled. 

There is a difference between these things and the kind of hard-line Anti-Semitic rhetoric of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, or Iran calling for Israel to be wiped from the Earth - or even just garden variety, "All Jews are greedy, hook nosed, evil Christ Killing bastards," Archie Bunker style WASP ignorance. 


And you know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. 

 
"So @PD would have us believe "oh, he was only referring to the bad jews, not the majority.""

This is also a strawman. You're invoking vivid, emotional language. I said nothing about the good or the bad of any of it. I said nothing about majorities or minorities of any demographic. 

I said he was clearly talking about a SPECIFIC segment of a particular population - and it is OBVIOUS he fucking WAS. Stop trying to twist what I said. It is the most annoyingly LEFT thing about you. Your eagerness to unpack a person's statements to confirm what YOU want to believe - and to put your OWN biases and beliefs and values into their words to achieve that goal. Whatever personal baggage you have on this issue - keep it to yourself. Don't project it onto me. 

You've now extrapolated what I said you were doing to him and his statements to me and to MY statements. It is why the Left sees Nazis, Misogynists, Racists and Oppressors around *every* corner and in every shadow. It is why every conflict will be "America's Next Vietnam" and why every Republican President is "The Next Hitler". 

And it is a huge social problem.  

To me, it feels like most antisemitism these days isn't really religion-based, although definitely a chunk of it is.

It suffices to demonize them for their perceived secular actions.



The "apartheid" straw-man plays into that, big time.

And yes, people like this Varnish guy usually deserve a charitable reading of their statements where possible. The benefit of the doubt. The problem with that is, where does it end? The guy literally said hate is "justified", and his phrasing simply applied to all Jews, as a group. And it's just plain wrong for @ParanoidDelusions to categorically state, "when somebody says X, they really mean Y"; that's not how this works. What that person meant is what they meant, and it depends on what they had in mind.

So @PD would have us believe "oh, he was only referring to the bad jews, not the majority."

There's a lot to unpack here and I don't really have the time for all of it, but every time I've seen an opinion poll the result has been surprisingly unified. It's not just a supermajority of Jews, it's actually nearly unanimous among Jews to support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Opinion polls tend to run in the high 90% range. That *matters.* And the Varnish guy's literal phrasing *matters.*

For these woke leftist types, *if* they buy into the logic that "no right of return equals apartheid" (which for the record I do not), then they feel like they have license to hate anyone who disagrees with them on what they feel is a fundamental ethical point.

I've seen these guys resort to the worst kind of verbal abuse and profanity when they decide they're arguing with an evil Zionist. And similar themes have been acutely obvious during the whole debate around the UK Labour party and Corbyn's election loss in 2019. You see hardcore Socialist-wing Labour activists tweeting things like, "nobody will miss them [if they flee the country for Israel]; they're all a bunch of Tories anyway." To a UK hard-left activist, there is no greater insult than "Tory."

All of this is a little less obvious if you only follow US politics, the UK is a bit different. I would say that this type of thinking also exists on the US far-left, particularly within the DSA, but it's still a little less overt and a little less glaringly obvious than it was in the UK when you had a far-left candidate, Corbyn, actually become the nominee of the major opposition party.

I expected the ad hominems to follow the strawmen, with you, LoanShark - it is always the predictable next play when someone on your side is losing the argument - again. You absolutely took what I said, reworded it to make it easier to try and tear down, and then focused on your strawman version. Maybe a JC course on logic would help you get a better grip on how logical fallacies work. 

The "closest thing to a liberal, western-style Democracy" could be Iran or UAE or any of a handful of other regional nations, if not for Israel. That would no more make those nations "liberal, western-style Democracies" than Israel is. Israel is a nation founded on an ethnic/religious identity. If you're not of that identity, you're by definition a second class citizen.  

As for your obvious fixation with the size of my cock and balls - pretty sure this reveals more about your insecurities, overcompensation and fragility than it says anything about mine. 

You would be more interesting if you didn't so frequently tip your own hand. Now go hide somewhere in fear of all the boogeymen you see in the world, you doormouse. 

Look at that, even fewer lines. It doesn't generally take very many to kick the legs out from under your positions. You have pretty shallow arguments. They don't require a lot of effort to tear down. 

Sun Apr 18 2021 10:17:18 EDT from LoanShark

2021-04-18 07:42 from ParanoidDelusions
There is a lot to unpack here - 


A lot of people in general support the right of Israel to exist as a
Jewish state - myself being one of them. But there is no doubt that
the very NATURE of a "Jewish" state does imply an apartheid type

Nah, it's not apartheid. That's really not a fair comparison--even under Bibi, Israel is the closest thing to a liberal, western-style democracy that exists in the Middle east. Arab citizens have full rights.

The occupation and right of return are separate and unfortunate, but the view of many is that those who were abroad at the time of the country's 1948 creation do not automatically get citizenship rights.

Also--your message is 120 lines, not including the quote. It's long and it's ranty and I only skimmed it. That said, I didn't "twist" what you said, I simply disagreed with it. And you, of course, flew off the handle because you are incapable of handling that in a respectful or level-headeed manner.

Grow up and grow a pair, PD--stop acting like you're overcompensating for your small penis.

Yup. That is what I meant. Learned something new today. See... I'm not *always* right... and when someone gets me dead-to-rights, I don't argue the point. ;) 

Sun Apr 18 2021 12:51:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

in the world, you doormouse. 

There is no such thing as a doormouse. You may be thinking of a dormouse, a rodent from the gliridae family. One such rodent was a narcoleptic character in Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland".

You guys all live on the East Coast. One of you hook us up with Don King - and we'll have a modem-nerd showdown at Trump Casino in Las Vegas! 

Sun Apr 18 2021 13:19:28 EDT from darknetuser

I think you two guys should just agree to disagree, or if not, at least make it interesting by arranging a proper duel at noon with rapiers and witnesses who wear ridiculous 19th century wigs.

And LoanShark, not only do I mostly ignore you - but when we do interact, I pull my punches - because Ig has telegraphed that he doesn't like the disruption it creates on the BBS when we clash. Judging by your reaction here - Ig is probably right.  

YouTube live stream.

Sun Apr 18 2021 13:19:28 EDT from darknetuser

I think you two guys should just agree to disagree, or if not, at least make it interesting by arranging a proper duel at noon with rapiers and witnesses who wear ridiculous 19th century wigs.

I'm going to take a few moments to address this claim: 


"This bullshit from ParanoidDelusions is so transparently hyocritical, and so obviously aimed personally at me.

Take a look at the context here: he just got finished arguing that people's words should be interpreted charitably.

But that doesn't apply to me: if my phrasing differs in a minor way from his, he doesn't even try to think about the meaning of it all, he just accuses me of strawmanning...

I feel personally singled and attacked.

This is unacceptable and it has to stop. Because ParanoidDelusions' behavior towards me has been bigoted."

And here is my ORIGINAL comment: 

See... I don't think it is *transparently antisemitic*. 

It may be a badly constructed thought - but I can decipher the gist of what he is trying to convey - and it isn't that ALL JEWS suck. 

This is the problem with wokeness. It becomes super-sensitive to people using imprecise language like, "You people"... or "those people" and trying to make statements that include those kind of statements have "consequences". 

And once it gets started, it doesn't start until they start eating their own for using clumsy and/or lazy language. So people end up getting crucified, and having their careers ruined, not for the INTENT of what they said or the reality of how they live their lives (Roseanne Barr being a good example of this in action...) but instead, for something CARELESS they said that hyper-sensitive people misinterpreted, and any attempt to EXPLAIN only digs your hole deeper. 

Ig is RIGHT - when we say, "Those people," regardless of if we're talking about the State of Israel, or inner city poor brown youth between 13 and 35, or white trash living in a mobile home park, or the super affluent shopping in Harrods in London buying $10,000 clutches and flying to Paris later that evening for a quick bite to eat on their G5... 

We know who we mean. 

I see nothing inherently wrong with what Kamp has said - but then again I'm among the growing minority able to decipher a broad generalization in context to assume correctly what the author means. 


Certainly Saul Rubenstein, cart peanut vendor in New York city who lives in a flat in Brooklyn isn't the "Jews" he means are responsible for Apartheid. 

----------------------------------------------------

I addressed the CLAIM, directly. I made NO statements about Loanshark's position on it. I addressed the phenomenon *broadly* of someone saying something, and the CONTEXT of it being deciphered differently depending on your PERSONAL biases on the issue. I wasn't actually addressing Loanshark or his statements at all, directly or indirectly. I was joining the discussion in general and stating MY position on statements of the nature of "X is *transparently antisemitic*..."

This is something Scott Addams calls out all the time - that people project a lot of their own personal bias on everything they witness. 

So a response as ham-fisted as: 

""So @PD would have us believe "oh, he was only referring to the bad jews, not the majority."



Which is a GROSS oversimplification of what I said on a very sensitive subject. 

This is certain to have escalated the conversation towards conflict. I don't single you out, LoanShark. You bring it on yourself. I'm *being* charitable to you right this minute. If you've misspoke, if I've misinterpreted what you said, then stand down, admit it, own that you dragged me into a direct conflict with you rather than a general discussion about the nature of cancel culture and wokeness - and I'd be more than willing to be gracious enough to let this ride. Online communication is fraught with miscommunication and misunderstanding. 

Otherwise... ignoring me? You're doing it wrong. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

:(