Politics

@Cassiodorus1 said in #16:
> Feh. You knew full what the author of this "questionable diction" was saying.
Truth be told, I thought he was just an attention-seeking troll. Glad I was wrong.

@pawnedge said in #14:
> On a more (im)pertinent note:
>
> I have it on good authority — i.e., that of several 19th-century historians and travelers, including the illustrious Mark Twain — that Palestine never actually existed. Before the 20th century, visitors to the “Holy Land” found only a barren wasteland, without a single living soul in it, apart from themselves. I have diligently searched for a pre-20th-century source supporting the existence of a thriving Arab civilization in that part of the world, but have yet to find even one. The concensus seems to be that it’s a myth, concocted by anti Semites. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
>
> Please, don’t hate the messenger! If you have a source supporting the existence of Palestine before the 20th century, kindly share it with us here. I would love to peruse it, for my own edification. (And no offense intended to anyone who currently identifies as Palestinian. This is, again, not my personal theory, but just what I have read. Twain in particular has been known to exaggerate, so I’d be happy if he was mistaken.)
>
> Cheers from the lost city of Atlantis
Read your history text book better, read about the Belfort pact, originally their plans were to invade Brazil, however they did not find an excuse in front of people so they chose the Palestinian land and invented the stupidest excuse ever thar is that it is their promised land
Imagine if I tell you that Russia has all rights to invade Ukraine because it was a part of it and Ukraine did not exist till after the soviet union, what would be your reaction
Also read about Salah Eddine elayouby, and you will know how Palestine existed along time before
And if you support the imaginary country give them a piece of your land
And finally, how do you explain the arms that are used against defenseless Palestine children,
I still have a lot of arguments but I am tired of writing and I think this should be enough

re clousems:

as you admit in your own post, you don't understand, nor do you seek to understand, anything about this topic. my posts are generally for people who *do* seek to understand more. so, for those people, i provided a good documentary that goes into the subject. from what i recall, it includes many interviews with palestinians, including members of the press and medics.

you make some interesting points, such as 'maybe this other source, an interview of the worst person you could ever trust on the subject, hosted by a widely-known laughingstock, is better than a documentary made by a journalist literally reporting from palestine.' interesting judgement, thank you for weighing in.

@clousems said in #20:

> After a bit of research, though, this Peterson guy seems fairly well informed

Here was a book review I put out a couple of years ago:

cassiodorusblog.wordpress.com/2021/09/20/book-review-jordan-b-peterson-12-rules-for-life/

Here's the key phrase:

"Peterson’s modus operandi is to write a lot of innocuous-sounding prose, which goes on for some pages until he comes out and says things which really make you wonder about him."

In other words, Jordan B. Peterson's BEST quality is that most of what he says (if we go by word count) is innocuous. As for wisdom? Yeah, I would definitely go to someone else.

And as for Benjamin Netanyahu, well, it's not as if you go to Benjamin Netanyahu as an authority on Mideast history because you looked long and hard and couldn't find anyone else.

@s2numbuq35i said in #13:
> [...]
>
>
> Not everything you fail to understand is obscurantism.
>
> [edit:] An interesting on-topic argument could be that both Palestine and Israel are simulacra. I mean this in the sense that while people may argue they are artificial, there is no real to go back to either.

I didn't say I failed to understand it, which makes your reply quite ironic :P

@lilyhollow said in #23:
> re clousems:
>
> as you admit in your own post, you don't understand, nor do you seek to understand, anything about this topic. my posts are generally for people who *do* seek to understand more. so, for those people, i provided a good documentary that goes into the subject. from what i recall, it includes many interviews with palestinians, including members of the press and medics.
>
> you make some interesting points, such as 'maybe this other source, an interview of the worst person you could ever trust on the subject, hosted by a widely-known laughingstock, is better than a documentary made by a journalist literally reporting from palestine.' interesting judgement, thank you for weighing in.

What a bunch of insulting nonsense. Of course I seek to learn! Why else would I review sources and view a documentary and interview?

I straight up admitted that Netanyahu was a biased source. Your filmmaker, however, was a 9/11 revisionist and noted for her fringe journalism during her time working for a Russian sponsored news agency, among other things. I can’t bring myself to trust people like that on sensitive political issues.

Sure, she has testimonials. These testimonials convince me that life in Palestine sucks hard. They do not convince me of much more than that.

The point of all this being—if you’re going to start dismissing sources as unreliable, make sure your own sources are reliable.

On an unrelated note, I continue to notice your recurrent condescension towards me. I went over your posts to confirm a theory, and it seems that you habitually respond to anything I say by mocking me without responding to any criticism I raise, instead acting as though I’m a moron for not seeing things your way. To me, it makes you appear ignorant, as though you can’t justify your own points and must resort to ad hominem to distract others from this fact. And I am much less receptive to the ideas of those who are insulting me rather than defending their argument.

We are lucky enough to be witnessing a thread with two of the best writers on this site (Cassio and pawnedge) debating an issue. Compare what you’re doing with what Cassio is doing. He is providing reasons that the source you questioned is, well, questionable. He’s not calling me (or pawnedge, the person he's actually debating) a moron to distract from a seeming lack of substance in his ideas.

if someone wrote a post citing johnny bravo from the johnny bravo cartoon as a source, i would point out that that's silly too. it's the same thing really. if that makes me condescending then i'm fine with that, i like to be open and honest about that anyway.

i seem to remember that you spent many posts making nonstop condescending comments and jokes about a 14-year-old who had thoughts on climate change. seems you were happy to engage in open condescension yourself... when you knew that the target of your condescension was literally a child. with me, it's true, you take the opposite strategy. you act extremely polite and like a kind gentle soul as you defend people who say that palestinians don't exist or whatever. i'm not so interested in your strategies though, i'm more interested in giving people good sources from which they can learn actual things about the topic if they choose to, such as the documentary i posted

also bear in mind that you initiated by replying to me here, not the other way around. if there's anyone i was condescending towards, it was jordan peterson, a full-blown charlatan. then you came in, i think even admitted you didnt know who that is, but defended him as a source anyway? *then* you admitted that you dont know anything about the subject, and also dont watch documentaries on political subjects. and you are upset that i have pointed out what you have simply admitted on your own, which is that you do not actually intend to learn more about this subject. instead youre talking to me about, like, being polite and having a good sporting debate. i dont do debates, i just try to provide good information and if someone tries to spread absolute nonsense, i point that out.

think about if this were flipped around. if you recommended a book on a political topic written by someone with literal in-person experience on the subject, and i said 'heh, i dont think so. i dont read books on political topics. too biased. but i think sonic the hedgehog might be a great source on this topic instead,' how would you react to this? youre telling me you would be polite and kind about this and want to 'engage in debate' with me over this? i would hope not! i'd hope that you would be incredulous and basically explode me out of the sky for saying something so silly.

like im sorry that i'm communicating this to you in a direct and like, harsh way, but at some point youve gotta look in a mirror with this. you cant get upset when someone points out what you yourself willingly admitted.

your given reason for not watching the documentary is 'bias,' i guess you only learn from unbiased sources, aka ones that are more in line with your preexisting beliefs. unfortunately this is consistent with my expectations for you; it is sad that literal interviews with people in palestine is 'biased' and 'sensational' to you though. if im being honest, the idea that that's even possible actually scares me

@lilyhollow
Let's investigate our interaction so we can spot the problems together:
-------------------------------------------------------------
a. You take issue with the speakers in a video posted by pawnedge. To wit:
> well, rather than pay attention to jordan peterson and benjamin netanyahu, two of the worst sources you could ever trust on any subject, here is a good documentary from which some things can actually be learned:
(post 19)
All well and good up to this point-- you are certainly entitled to distrust anyone for any reason. However, you commit a classic ad hominem logical fallacy by implying that the claims made in the video must be wrong because of the speakers. Further, you attach a video made by a journalist with a less than spectacular record for unbiased information. Again, you are free to view whatever media you wish.
-----------------------------------------------
b. In response to the combination of your source and rejection of pawnedge's source, I conduct a bit of research on my own, being an uninformed onlooker. As a result of my research, I can find no obvious reason to dismiss Petersen (he appears to rub people the wrong way with his opinions on certain issues, but I didn't discover a history of intentional deceit). I can find reasons to discount Netanyahu (inherent bias) and Martin (history of sensationalism and promoting false narratives). This is not the same as me claiming anyone is "wrong". It just seems odd to discount these voices arbitrarily.

As a result, I ask why we should dismiss Peterson ("Any particular reason you are dismissing him?"), and why your source is more reliable than pawnedge's ("I am just questioning your dismissal of pawnedge's video, which appears (to me) to be a double standard. Perhaps I'm missing something?").
--------------------------------------------------------
c. You respond with some... interesting allegations. To wit:

> as you admit in your own post, you don't understand, nor do you seek to understand, anything about this topic. my posts are generally for people who *do* seek to understand more. so, for those people, i provided a good documentary that goes into the subject. from what i recall, it includes many interviews with palestinians, including members of the press and medics.

That's a flat out false statement. While I do admit that I have little understanding of the situation, I am obviously seeking to understand it. Why else would I ask you the questions that I asked you? You address none of my questions (why should we discount some sources and not others? In particular, is there a reason to discount Peterson, as opposed to Martin?). You then attach this gem of an epilogue:
> you make some interesting points, such as 'maybe this other source, an interview of the worst person you could ever trust on the subject, hosted by a widely-known laughingstock, is better than a documentary made by a journalist literally reporting from palestine.' interesting judgement, thank you for weighing in.

I actually never made that point. I did make the point that I was not making that point:

> I am not saying that pawnedge is correct in his interpretation of events (he himself has requested evidence to disprove his claim), nor that you are incorrect in yours (in fact, you never actually provided an interpretation). I am just questioning your dismissal of pawnedge's video, which appears (to me) to be a double standard. Perhaps I'm missing something? Again, this is not an area in which I am particularly knowledgeable.

There was no response to my questions in your post.

In summary, your response to my asking you about ideas (ideas in which you seemed quite confident) was a couple of strawmans.
-------------------------------------------------
d. I repeated a point I made earlier, that you ignored-- that you have yet to explain what makes your video the one I should consider accurate, as opposed to pawnedge's. In other word's: I tried part b again.

Proud as I am, I also addressed your confrontational "response", which follows an emerging trend of you sealioning me by asking seemingly relevant questions, ignoring my responses, and accusing me of philosophical fanaticism:

lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/voices-of-public-education-how-inadequate-school-funding-has-affected-both-students-and-teachers?page=4#36

lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/elon-musk-said-more-commitment-would-be-required?page=10#92

To quote an old saying, "one's an accident, two's a coincidence, three's a pattern".

Finally, I attempted to be constructive in my post by suggesting you look at claims made by two other posters to see how a discussion works.
------------------------------
e. You make a comparison between the hosts in the video provided by pawnedge and a cartoon character, and you stand by your right to hold this claim. Good for you!
Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevant. I asked you why you dismissed Peterson and not Martin. I then asked you again. At this point we can be fairly certain you knew I was asking you what I was asking you (you seem fairly adept at understanding the English language, after all).

You then make an interesting claim:
> i seem to remember that you spent many posts making nonstop condescending comments and jokes about a 14-year-old who had thoughts on climate change

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I do not recall doing this, and I do not appreciate the accusation. I do recall a certain climate change crusader who recently was quite active on this site (a few weeks ago). As I recall, we had a conversation about the change in standard of living over time, I questioned his research concerning ways to reduce climate change, and once, when he was on a bit of a spampage, I compared him to a David Schwimmer character on 30 Rock who raised similar points. I certainly did not intend to be condescending to him, and he never appeared to be offended by my tone.

The rest of your post continues:
> with me, it's true, you take the opposite strategy. you act extremely polite and like a kind gentle soul
(side note-- I tend to be more polite in conversations when people raise valid points. I really am not trying to appear particularly gentle. Sometimes, I just find it hard to work swears into my sentences, goddamit!)

> ... as you defend people who say that palestinians don't exist or whatever...

You don't seem to grasp the fact that I never defended anyone, unless you consider my brief mention that Peterson "seems fairly well informed" a defense. I'm not sure what else you want me to say (or rather, NOT say).

> ... i'm not so interested in your strategies though, i'm more interested in giving people good sources from which they can learn actual things about the topic if they choose to, such as the documentary i posted

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4

> The burden is on you to tell us why we should discount the voices in pawnedge's video, and not the voices in yours.