US politics - Yes country for old men

[Conflicting Thought]

50 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Israel being an oppressive colonizing force.

Thats just the reallity of the conflict, you can choose to cover your eyes and be a passive expectator of a genocide. You seem to be an a path of your own.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed.  On some occasions you are correct.  Why don’t you give a fuck about Norm Chomsky defending genocide?

Cuz im not talking about what chomsky thinks or doesnt think on any particular subject 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Conflicting Thought said:

So are we aloud now to speak on the genocide taking place in gaza and the west bank?

Your comment is nonsensical. Talk about it all you want, I wasn't stopping you.

Hamas attacking doesn't mean Israel gets to do whatever it wants, and they are committing their own evils. But you guys were trying to lionize this sick fuck who killed himself, and I want to make it clear that he tried to justify Hamas' initial murder of innocents--the inciting incident that ended the cease fire, no less--because of this zealot-minded rhetoric of colonial oppressors, and "there are no civilians."

One evil doesn't wash out the other.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

You seem to be an a path of your own.

Hopefully a path toward more thoughtful discussions...

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

This comment feels like trolling to me.

If you're seriously asking: The earlier support for communist regimes always focused on the exploitation of Western colonial powers. And indeed, that was a huge focus of communist propaganda, their whole rationale for a global communist movement: for the oppressed to rise up against their oppressors and claim power. Even for people who weren't explicitly communist, it was hard not to sympathize with and indulge that moral narrative. (and indeed, as I said, it was rooted in real concerns and real injustices).

With respect to Gaza, I have noticed that the most strident positions, including the sick fuck who killed himself, frame the conflict in terms of Israel being an oppressive colonizing force. That's why I made the connection. And I'm guessing that's why y'all are quick to minimize and paper over this dude's extremism, because you're mostly sympathetic to that moral narrative. Or at least something close to it.

If you have some other opinion on the matter, please share your thoughts. These threads are not well suited for the Socratic technique of interrogation, even when delivered in good faith.

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.  

 

 

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn
*clarity

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

those who think the uprisings are a good thing

A good thing or sometimes a necessary thing?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Cuz im not talking about what chomsky thinks or doesnt think on any particular subject 

Why not?  It is not problematic that he defended a Genocidier?

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Your comment is nonsensical. Talk about it all you want, I wasn't stopping you.

Hamas attacking doesn't mean Israel gets to do whatever it wants, and they are committing their own evils. But you guys were trying to lionize this sick fuck who killed himself, and I want to make it clear that he tried to justify Hamas' initial murder of innocents--the inciting incident that ended the cease fire, no less--because of this zealot-minded rhetoric of colonial oppressors, and "there are no civilians."

One evil doesn't wash out the other.

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. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why not?  It is not problematic that he defended a Genocidier?

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.  

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

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.  

Didn’t he wait years to do that?

Edited March 7 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

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 the that.

I also don't think it's a 1-to-1 causal thing. More like, among those on the left who do go to the dark side, that's how they most often get there. And plenty of others might offer their soft support of extremism for similar reasons. To be clear, I am fully sympathetic with much of the anti-colonial narrative. I stated several times that it's rooted in real concerns and real injustices.

But there is this tendency for people to get blinded by their own righteous outrage.

And then, should their cause prove poisonous, they tend not be very introspective or contrite about it. Because the moral part of what they were clinging too was still true.

Here's Pete Seeger's lame apology for Stalinism, made in 1993: "Today I'll apologize for a number of things, such as thinking that Stalin was simply a 'hard-driver' and not a supremely cruel misleader. I guess anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian should be prepared to apologize for the Inquisition, the burning of heretics by Protestants, the slaughter of Jews and Muslims by Crusaders. White people in the U.S.A. could consider apologizing for stealing land from Native Americans and for enslaving blacks."

Like, really? Sounds more pissed than actually sorry about anything. I mean, his actively coordinating with the USSR and Castro's Cuba made him a lot more complicit than white Americans today living on Native American soil. But to him, his cause was noble, so his blind spots weren't such a big deal. I disagree. Pete Seeger was a great guy, did a lot of great things. But his support of a murderous tyrant to rival Hitler, and a colonial force of its own kind, was not one of them.

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

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. 

I understand what you mean. I imagine those people freaking out are expressing their deep anxiety about our coming election. You have every right to speak out against Biden's policies, and it's good for us to do so. But I do hope you understand that the pushback is coming from valid fears and anxieties, and we all struggle to cope and process with that anxiety, just as people struggle to cope and process what's happening in Gaza, as well as Ukraine. That doesn't mean you should shut up, but hopefully you can sympathize.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

A good thing or sometimes a necessary thing?

Maybe it's an inevitable thing. But there's way too much info on the history of revolution to expect anything rosy. Even framing it as necessary seems naive to me. Like, maybe it's bound to happen, but it almost certainly will go to shit.

[Conflicting Thought]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why not?  It is not problematic that he defended a Genocidier?

Sure, i just think your questions are leading and not in good faith. Time and time again you do this and to tell you the truh im a little tiered of it. Like with the chomsky thing, as larry told you, chomski questioned and then came to the conclution that it was in fact a genocide. And i for sure dont think that whatever conclusion chomsky  (or anyone else)got to, has something to do with anti colonialist thought going into some kind of dark path or some such nonsense

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Sure, i just think your questions are leading and not in good faith. Time and time again you do this and to tell you the truh im a little tiered of it. Like with the chomsky thing, as larry told you, chomski questioned and then came to the conclution that it was in fact a genocide. And i for sure dont think that whatever conclusion chomsky  (or anyone else)got to, has something to do with anti colonialist thought going into some kind of dark path or some such nonsense

Okay.  

[Phylum of Alexandria]

25 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

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 think all in all, Chomsky was fairly sensible, if maybe a bit naive about Pol Pot in the early days. But he was focusing on the injustices that the revolutionaries were raging against, which makes sense. At least he changed his position. People like Sartre and Foucault were much more reluctant to change given new evidence.

My main disappointment with Chomsky is his recent turn to anti-anti-Putinism.

[kissdbyfire]

59 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe it's an inevitable thing. But there's way too much info on the history of revolution to expect anything rosy. Even framing it as necessary seems naive to me. Like, maybe it's bound to happen, but it almost certainly will go to shit.

I said necessary, not inevitable. There’s a difference. 
Wasn’t the American Revolutionary War an uprising against the tyranny of a king/monarchy? 
People can debate whereas it was necessary but it certainly wasn’t inevitable.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I said necessary, not inevitable. There’s a difference. 

I know, that was my point of disagreement. I can understand inevitable (arguably, in some instances), but necessary sounds naive.

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wasn’t the American Revolutionary War an uprising against the tyranny of a king/monarchy? 

That war was really unique among most instances of uprisings. Obviously the rebels felt oppressed, but the reality is that they constituted the remote arm of a colonial power. They wished to annex themselves into an independent nation. That's quite different from most revolutions, and probably why it's one of the few that unfolded succesfully.

The most successful internal revolution was possibly France. And even that required a half century of fits and starts and new revolutions. Not to mention they benefitted from the plunder and power of imperial expansion (as did the US).

Most revolutions are doomed to collapse into new tyrannies. It's just a sad fact.

Edited March 7 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Didn’t he wait years to do that?

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.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I know, that was my point of disagreement. I can understand inevitable (arguably, in some instances), but necessary sounds naive.

That war was really unique among most instances of uprisings. Obviously the rebels felt oppressed, but the reality is that they constituted the remote arm of a colonial power. They wished to annex themselves into an independent nation. That's quite different from most revolutions, and probably why it's one of the few that unfolded succesfully.

The most successful internal revolution was possibly France. And even that required a half century of fits and starts and new revolutions. Not to mention they benefitted from the plunder and power of imperial expansion (as did the US).

Most revolutions are doomed to collapse into new tyrannies. It's just a sad fact.

Certainly the case with US.  

[Bironic]

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The most successful internal revolution was possibly France. And even that required a half century of fits and starts and new revolutions. Not to mention they benefitted from the plunder and power of imperial expansion (as did the US).

Most revolutions are doomed to collapse into new tyrannies. It's just a sad fact.

I don't know what your measure is for success, but the French revolution would actually fall into your category of "failed" revolutions because it went from Bourbon rule into revolution into Napoleonic rule and then back to Bourbon rule... and even that "half" a century of revolutions were in the end mostly failures, the revolution of 1848 leading to Napoleon III and the Paris commune of 1871 most notably amongst them... But in the really long term the revolution prevailed and from 1871 on France remained a liberal republic for almost all the time...

But no not all revolutions lead to tyranny, a large part might but not most of them (and even in cases were in the short or midterm it does, in the long term it's hard to put the genie back into the box, look at France 1754-1871)... the revolutions happening first in the mediterranean: Portugal, greece, Spain(1974-1986) then Latin america (from Argentina to Chile, 1983-1990), eastern asia (Philippines, Taiwan, South korea, 1985-1989) the revolutions of 1989-1991 (Eastern Block), the colour revolutions and euromaidan (2000-2014) were all at least partially successful... With some noteable exceptions such as Russia, Belarus, PRChina... and at least in the first two cases there was a period of relative freedom and only later on they backslided into tyranny...