For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You seem to have inferred that Belinda's comments support your position. Unless it's me who's misinterpreting, they don't. She wrote explicitly that the "policy" that "right wing Israelis" are pursuing is (emphasis added) "dishonest".
That cuts both ways. I have at least given you reasons to change your mind. You've offered me (and those who agree with me) nothing.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:51 pm You are never going to change your mind so what's the point?
Uh. Yeah. That would be a good start.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:52 pm Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?
While I understand now what you mean by gaslighting I do not accept your assertion that I gaslighted you. Because that is so I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out. You have offered no commentary at all on any of the points I did bring out. It stops with the accusation of gaslighting.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:08 amGaslighting involves denying obvious reality to another person so as to exercise power over that person. It often occurs in a context in which the perpetrator presents him/herself as being rational and dispassionate, and his/her target as irrational and emotional. If the target reacts with anger or some other appropriate emotion to the denial of his/her correct perception of reality, and to the portrayal of him/herself as being illogical and merely driven by sentiments, then the perpetrator uses this as further evidence of his/her portrayal of the situation: "See, here's the emotionality that I'm talking about. As for me, I continue to simply rationally and dispassionately tell the truth."Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:17 pm I don’t understand the term gaslighting in this context. What makes you use that term?
Of course, such an exercise in power is itself motivated by sentiments, and that's probably the best way to point out the game being played.
Case in point...Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:17 pm I do not have emotional investments in any ideas that we discuss (on this forum, in this thread). But I notice that something made you (seemingly) angry. What exactly?
(Granted: strictly speaking, I've applied the term "gaslighting" in a much, much milder context than that in which it usually applies, and I'm not accusing you of involvement in those awful situations of domestic abuse. It's just interesting to compare the dynamics).
I think the obsession with Israel is because Israel is an outpost of the US empire. American settlers are appropriating land and water sources from native farmers.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:42 pm Right. Everyone's an 'expert'. What is this obsession with Israel? How is it different from every other country? It's not going to just disappear because of hypocritical wokie armchair 'experts'.
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:59 pmUh. Yeah. That would be a good start.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:52 pm Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?
You need to decide which narrative you support, name that narrative, and as this is a philosophy forum, you need to say why (according to which criteria) you support that narrative.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:19 pmWhile I understand now what you mean by gaslighting I do not accept your assertion that I gaslighted you. Because that is so I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out. You have offered no commentary at all on any of the points I did bring out. It stops with the accusation of gaslighting.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:08 amGaslighting involves denying obvious reality to another person so as to exercise power over that person. It often occurs in a context in which the perpetrator presents him/herself as being rational and dispassionate, and his/her target as irrational and emotional. If the target reacts with anger or some other appropriate emotion to the denial of his/her correct perception of reality, and to the portrayal of him/herself as being illogical and merely driven by sentiments, then the perpetrator uses this as further evidence of his/her portrayal of the situation: "See, here's the emotionality that I'm talking about. As for me, I continue to simply rationally and dispassionately tell the truth."Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:17 pm I don’t understand the term gaslighting in this context. What makes you use that term?
Of course, such an exercise in power is itself motivated by sentiments, and that's probably the best way to point out the game being played.
Case in point...Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:17 pm I do not have emotional investments in any ideas that we discuss (on this forum, in this thread). But I notice that something made you (seemingly) angry. What exactly?
(Granted: strictly speaking, I've applied the term "gaslighting" in a much, much milder context than that in which it usually applies, and I'm not accusing you of involvement in those awful situations of domestic abuse. It's just interesting to compare the dynamics).
My impression is, and certainly has been (when in other conversations we’ve touched on issues of social justice and my views about *straight power-principles*) that you have often become upset. When someone gets upset in conversations of this sort involving discussions of ideas in a philosophical context and where political and social ideological positions are challenged it adds a whole other emotionalized dimension that complicates the discussion. Since I have no interest at all in making you upset, and making you upset serves no purpose, the conversation has to end. Or, and here is the real downside, it must devolve into the sort of bickering that goes on in this thread continually.
To recap: I regard the South African situation as distinct and different from either Israel or the conquest of North America by the English colonists. Difference does not mean incomparability it simply means that the differences have to be seen and understood. I regard the activism against South Africa that I mentioned in reference to my parent’s views and also to the global anti-Apartheid movement as being, let’s say, badly informed and also hyper-emotionalized. Meaning that it was established by those who controlled and directed the narrative that South Africans supportive of the state could only be seen as ‘bad’ and ‘evil’.
I will cite that particular friend of my family who repeated “Whitey got t’ go”. His statement, and what I remember of his position, equated the South African situation with that of the American South, as if they were equatable. What he seemed to do was then to *project* all of his views and feelings about the American situation onto that of the South African situation. Do you suppose that I condemn him for this? No, that is not my point. However there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that the ‘lenses’ that we apply when we view different situations, especially contentious ones, involve projections of stuff into those situations. If you were to say “But you have your own lenses that you apply” I would answer that yes, I do, but I can also detach myself from them and recognize, and talk about, my own *interests*. And with the introduction of that word *interest* I also introduce the notion of *ownership interest*. It is a very important term in my own lexicon. The more ownership interest, the more to be protected. And when one is in a mode of protection one will, inevitably, color and *spin* one’s discourse — rationalize it I suppose.
Speaking of the global anti-Apartheid movement, in this sense then an emotionalized position overcame a more rational and nuanced one. And I recall a conversation with a man (an American) I met on a bus heading to New Orleans who had lived in South Africa and when I voiced my simplistic analysis (borne of anti-Apartheid sentiments received but not worked for) he simply pointed out that the real situation was far more complex than that. And he seemed quite clear-headed to me and sincere as well.
It is my opinion, though you have called what I attempt here ‘gaslighting’ which implies an underhanded and unethical manoeuvre on my part, I am not acting underhandedly. My view is that when emotionalism enters in that emotionalism then dominates and distorts. That is certainly very true in the world around us. It happens all the time. But here in this context we (supposedly!) have agreed to the terms of calm conversation.
In the larger context (of political and social discourse) I do not have any doubt at all that the Progressive/Left faction always seems to assert that their cause is ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ and they always resort to the traditional and typical accusations and assignment of labels. So by seeming to *defend* the former South African state or regime I will be seen as defending unutterable evils. Racist, colonialist, Nazi, fascist and every other trope-term that are used in political and social battles today.
I did say, and I am committed to my view, that modern Leftist and Progressives are carrying forward a sort of emotional-religious imperative that arises from within the Christian moral and ethical context. To note that this is so it not, not necessarily, to see it as ‘wrong’. It is merely to note it and to then be able to talk about it.
What I try to do in these conversations is to *locate* the arguments and viewpoints that people have within a context, certainly, but also as a product of causation within the realm of ideas. So by referring as I do to the structure of argument of Left-Progressives and noticing their employment of moral guilt-slinging (the accusation of immorality underlies all their arguments) I do not think I am doing something wrong. Yet it is seen as such.
And you did imply that I was not coming out and saying *what I really meant* which, obviously, means making the sort of statements you imagine I am making that you (I gather) see as racist, colonialist and morally regressive. You then commented on your own assertions saying this was ‘sad’.
You didn't present any issues. You only vaguely alluded to them. I challenged you to present your views explicitly. You ignored my challenge. It still stands.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:19 pm I see your responses as tactics to avoid examining the actual issues that I brought out.
Huh. How curious. I'm... uh, I mean... uh, I'm surely mistaken, but I... I... I hate to say it, but... well, there doesn't seem to be any reference to God in all of that. I'm obviously just being a total dumbarse, 'cos you of course remember that your claim as to God's involvement was the one which I challenged, and so, you of course have backed it up explicitly but...attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:28 pmHarry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:59 pmUh. Yeah. That would be a good start.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:52 pm Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?
Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes
(of course it kind of gets shitter the further from the origin)
So.
Harry, right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?
tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:57 amThat is you calling me a liar again.
Again, you convert a statement about what you did, to a statement about what you are.The Jewish self-narrative (if you will accept my invented term) is that Jews are first and foremost world-molders and as ethical agents in this world of ours. Read any substantive Jewish history and you will see that to be a Jew is to define oneself in very unique and very unusual ways. This difference, this separation from *the ways of the Nations* is a fundamental and central element within Jewish belief. It is ensconced within religious views and, in Orthodox circles, it is explained in metaphysical terms. The purpose of Jews, and the purpose of Jewish tribulations, and the purpose of god who stands behind his selection and favor of Jews, is expressive of a larger world-scale project: converting the world essentially. Reining in the rebellious will of those of the Nations. Establishing a rulership that will proceed from Jerusalem. What must be understood is that these are not Gentile projections onto Judaism but rather the core tenets of Judaism.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:26 pmI think the obsession with Israel is because Israel is an outpost of the US empire. American settlers are appropriating land and water sources from native farmers.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:42 pm Right. Everyone's an 'expert'. What is this obsession with Israel? How is it different from every other country? It's not going to just disappear because of hypocritical wokie armchair 'experts'.
No, actually I don’t need to do that. It doesn’t serve my purposes. While I sometimes think I understand some things, and sometimes think I have a defensible position that I can articulate, more often than not I do not have a clear understanding of what *narrative* (ideology, viewpoint, woerldview) to fully adopt as an existential commitment.
Dude. Quit while you're way, way behind, to avoid digging yourself even deeper into a hole of your own making.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:59 pm
Then you take umbrage, allege slander, and try to claim the high ground.
Nope, no good. Too transparent.
This is tactic on your part. If you wish to thwart any developing conversation you certainly have the power to do so. My policy is not to stop someone when they take such a tack. The refusal to allow an examination of the issues, in a very heated and controversial area, is your prerogative. To continue, and you do not wish to continue, you will have to go back to the first post I made on the topic and start over. Drop the gaslighting accusation and work, as you certainly are capable, point by point through what I fairly and squarely presented. I took the floor and presented an opening statement then. There is not need for me to do it again.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:53 pmYou didn't present any issues. You only vaguely alluded to them. I challenged you to present your views explicitly. You ignored my challenge. It still stands.
Harry, I am a Pantheist/Panentheist - God has EVERYTHING to do with the spreading of good intention, ethics and democracy (via the British system).Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:58 pm Huh. How curious. I'm... uh, I mean... uh, I'm surely mistaken, but I... I... I hate to say it, but... well, there doesn't seem to be any reference to God in all of that. I'm obviously just being a total dumbarse, 'cos you of course remember that your claim as to God's involvement was the one which I challenged, and so, you of course have backed it up explicitly but...
...huh, for some reason, God just doesn't seem to appear in your response.