Larry of the Lawn

Why don't you tell me? What did Chomsky say that was apologia for Pol Pot and when did he say it, and when did he change his mind? Again, I think it's pretty interesting that we're targeting the claims of people who have zero to very little actual political power, and so incredibly reticent to criticize the people who actually make decisions.

It can be! It certainly was in the Balkans. With southeast asia I think saying "he defended a genocide" is on par with saying the you and me are defending a genocide when we vote for Joe Biden this fall. Chomsky questioned whether or not the initial reports of atrocities were being created or exaggerated by the US government. As more information came out from other sources he walked that back. I think given the US's track record his initial skepticism was well warranted.

I don't think anyone was trying to lionize this guy. I'm certainly not. I think the focus on his darkest thoughts instead of what he was trying to draw attention to is pretty weird.

I too am not a fan of the more aggressive use of the Socratic method, but I think I was pretty clear in my questioning and didn't make any assumptions or ascribe any intent to your statement. I was asking because I'm not sure there's a linear progression from anti-colonialism to supporting shitty groups, or questioning how bad the groups fighting colonial powers really are. I think for people who are skeptical about the intentions of governments and corporations that anti-colonialism and doubting government propaganda are two natural positions, but I don't think that anti-colonialism causes people to cling to shitty causes. I think it's easy to assume (wrongly so) that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so there might be something to the connection you're making, I just question the nature of that link. I don't think there's zero connection. I also think that it's absolutely idiotic to uncritically believe anything that comes front he US government related to international affairs. So as an individual person, I am going to be extremely skeptical hearing that so and so is a terrorist, or this group is committing war crimes without some other kind of confirmation or at least information. There is too long of a track record of the US government fucking with democratically elected governments. Now, with that as a prior, I suppose I can see how if someone gets lazy with that they could start just grabbing at any straw that supports that mentality. In the case of the self-immolation, yeah, I think he made some statements (if they were actually his) that are pretty bad. And I have no issue admitting that I am sympathetic and in full agreement with a lot of the other stuff he said. I think the reason that people are seeing pushback in this front from the left is that there is a ridiculous and obvious power differential at work that so many ignore. We had people who were so quick to point out that the act was "violent", as of the situation he was calling attention to isn't violent? What sense is there in that? I think there's also an obvious degree of complicity by the guy in the actions he's so disturbed by. Ignoring the undercurrent of guilt there is bizarre to me. (Not saying you did that, but look at how people pounced on Simon). What I think is really weird though (and I want to be clear this is not directed at you personally) that there is such a rush to point to a couple of troubling and gross views that could be reasonably interpreted from one guy who lit himself on fire to call attention to a genocide, while simultaneously arguing that anything but unwavering support for the US president who's continuing to fund and support that genocide is somehow an abhorrent or foolish thing to do. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "to live outside the law you must be honest". I think that's good advice for people living inside it too. In that vein, it's a good thing not to uncritically jump to conclusions that support your initial inclinations or priors. Personally, I think the implication that anti-colonialism is some kind of pipeline to violent extremism is bonkers. It's a response to massive violence on international scale. I'd be shocked if a little violence didn't slip out once in awhile, and you can call it whataboutism, but I'm not worried about the worst thoughts that one guy might have had, im worried about the larger conflict and larger violence.* Not zeroing in on the worst thoughts of one guy. Especially when I'm the end he burned himself alive. I'm more concerned with the ongoing violence how that gets stopped.

How is it a path? How do you know that anti-colonialism is the culprit? Eta: also, might be helpful to name some names. There are plenty of artists and writers and intellectuals who had staunch anti-colonial views and managed to not do that.

The nuance is what gets obscured. There's nothing nuanced about hearing A, which is two logical leaps away from B, and upon hearing A crying "that's B apologia!" It actually frustrates the ability to have a discussion about how they are different. Particularly when B is something pretty bad. Particularly when it's done in the format of leading questions that ascribe B to someone you're trying to have discussion with.

No that's not all you said. You said this: That what's people are responding to. Some of us don't think that "putting their lives in the line" is anything special, or at least nothing to romanticize. And some of us just use the word "apologia" any chance we can get. By the way, great thread title

Stephen Pacey is, imo, about as good as it gets for audiobook narration. I think TBI is the weakest First Law book, so it only gets better from here. Enjoy.

You'd have a difficult time finding two bigger shitbags than Cruz and Scott, and while they both won with barely 50% in 2018, that was a huge Dem turnout midterm year.

I hope you're right but it's a pretty shit year for flipping seats.

I think eventually the moon is going to be too far away to fully eclipse the sun, so those tourists better hurry the fuck up (relatively speaking).

I don't think it's really a new criticism, it's just maybe more common now. Ross was mentioned by my highschool English teacher when we read Merchant of Venice of being a contemporary example of a stereotype. The college I went to in the early 2000s had a student body that was about 40% Jewish students. Friends leaning hard on a Jewish stereotype was definitely something that came up in conversation every once in a while, including in a literature class on comedy. Whether it is or isn't, it was certainly something being mentioned and discussed at the time the show was on. Well i guess it couldn't have been from Dan Flashes.

I'm driving up to a friend's in Burlington VT to watch it. Hopefully we get some clear skies. Going to keep a close watch on the Doppler and hope for the best. Have some eclipse glasses that I ordered just after the 2017 one. The astronomical events that I missed (out of total ignorance) that I really, really, wish I'd observed were the transits of Venus. Oh well, maybe there will be some crazy life extending technology that will allow me catch the next one (2117).

You don't think it could be described as "legally or morally wrong causing public outrage"? Ok. Let's do our weekly fun with definitions exercise. What's a scandal? Edit: in the other thread there's a link to a common dreams article, shows a link to Erin Overbey's Twitter account (New Yorker archive editor) where she refers to it as a scandal. I'd assume someone in the industry with a position like that using the word at least puts it normal usage. Far from a "weird comment."

My gf asked me to watch Love is Blind with her so we watched some episodes yesterday. Watching that show does little to dispel the notion that there will be gameshows in which losing contestants are executed within the next 50 years.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that it would increase the chance of avoiding a constitutional crisis having a legal decision before the election. Even if Trump was never tried for anything we know that there's a dangerous blindspot in the system when no one is sure if a former (or current) President can be prosecuted. It's a pretty big oversight that we didn't do more for legal clarity on this since Ol' Tricky Dick

Just of curiosity, is it radical or extremist to wish that there was a candidate for US president who isn't going to continue funding the war in Gaza? Is there some kind of toxic moral certainty involved in voting "uncommitted" in a democratic primary, or for telling the president you don't support genocide? I think it's ok to think about things carefully and determine that one thing is good and another is bad. The existence of shitty opinions and ideological zealots doesn't eclipse the ability* of people to say "I'm pretty sure this a bad fucking idea".

Good. I was worried.

Do you think it's a good idea for people to murder their whole family and everyone they know for the hell of it?

I had a dream I had a pet pig named Bug Bite and if i got stuck in an annoying conversation he'd start eating the annoying person's shoes until they fucked off. Would pay good money for a pig like that in real life. He looked like a piebald version of Babe.

Man, have I got the thread for you

Time is a flat circle.

Well you're probably right but I hope your wrong.

Yeah, post 9/11 was the first time I witnessed it on a societal level instead of just reading about it, but it is striking how quickly it's rearing it's head again. Hopefully it's much more limited and fleeting here and now.

Regardless of what someone does or doesn't know about politics, everyone gets the same vote. I hope your superior education and information brings you satisfaction. Re: ceasefire, ok, my mistake - I should have said asking for a ceasefire. Biden asking for a ceasefire (not a resolution to ask for one at some point when it makes sense, which iirc was the last proposal) wouldn't depend on anything Hamas does or doesn't do. It's not like Biden's Gaza response is some binary of full support of Israel vs sanction them. Just show the bulk of voters, who support a ceasefire, that he's doing more than giving Israel carte blanche.