I am in my 70s. How old are you? — Bitter Crank

50s.

Don't understand it, but you don't ask for an explanation. Well... there you have it.

Today's NYTimes profile of Breitbart News:

To scroll through Breitbart headlines is to come upon a parallel universe where black people do nothing but commit crimes, immigrants rape native-born daughters, and feminists want to castrate all men. Here’s a sample:

“Hoist It High and Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims a Glorious Heritage” (This headline ran two weeks after a white supremacist massacred nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C.)

“Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy”

“Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield”

If you don’t find the headlines alarming, check the reader comments. Or take a look at who’s rejoicing over Mr. Bannon’s selection. The white nationalist Richard Spencer said on Twitter that Mr. Bannon was in “the best possible position” to influence policy, since he would “not get lost in the weeds” of establishment Washington. The chairman of the American Nazi Party said the pick showed that Mr. Trump might be “for ‘real.’” David Duke, former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, called the choice “excellent” and said Mr. Bannon was “basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going.

Drain the swamp? How about, stock it with crocodiles, jackals, weasels, and flesh-eating bacteria?

Is my lack of asking preventing you from providing one? Don't be coy with me.

Dude. I don't know you. How am I supposed to know if you want an explanation or not?

How about we do a Thorongil interview?

Israel has always adopted an aggressive self-defense identity which, considering their place in the region, makes perfect sense. Yet at the same time, "self-defense" has become the catch-all appeal Israel now employs in order to justify human rights abuses and their undeniably belligerent border policing. There's really nothing to be particularly proud of in Israel besides its physical history and a portion of its population who, like me, find Israeli government policy to be largely imperialistic, regardless of to what degree it in practice asserts itself.

And for whatever reason, most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state based almost solely upon its ethnic cultural identity. However, nobody gives two cents toward the Kurds, Abkhazians, or lest we forget, the Romani who were unfortunate enough not to get a nice little country within a country, as Israel did. Truly, Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based, else the world community has no legs to stand on if they want to keep particular ethnic cultures from becoming sovereign states themselves.

Perhaps if Israel keeps up its slow cultural genocide of Palestinians that the world community will then respond like it did 70 years ago when Jews and Armenians were en masse murdered and thusly rewarded two different nation states out of nothing - that the world community will award Palestine with a fully autonomous sovereign state. Either that, or we stick with the model most seem to prefer where we cherry pick, liking small republics semi-autonomously cooperating underneath a more culturally diverse nation, like we see in Iraq, Georgia, Turkey, etc.

You're an odd one, and this conversation is going nowhere at a breakneck pace. I'm out.

Yet at the same time, "self-defense" has become the catch-all appeal Israel now employs in order to justify human rights abuses and their undeniably belligerent border policing. — Heister Eggcart

You're just kicking the can down the road a bit further. What human rights abuses? As for border policing, this is surely very necessary, considering the sheer number of terrorist groups and even nation states nearby who would love to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jewish people.

There's really nothing to be particularly proud of in Israel besides its physical history — Heister Eggcart

Complete nonsense. It's the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East. Its military is a necessary bulwark against rogue states like Iran. It also has some of the best archaeologists, classically trained musicians, and scientists in the world.

most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state based almost solely upon its ethnic cultural identity. However, nobody gives two cents toward the Kurds, Abkhazians, or lest we forget, the Romani — Heister Eggcart

This is not an argument against Israel as a state. I'm in favor of the Kurds and so on to be granted their own states (which they partially do in northern Iraq).

Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based — Heister Eggcart

I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. We see in Europe the complete and utter failure of multiculturalism, as even its most ardent proponents now admit. Iraq has been a colossal failure from the beginning. Simply put, you cannot expect people from different ethnic and opposing religious and cultural backgrounds to get along, which is to recognize that human beings are flawed creatures predisposed to tribalism. It can be overcome, yes, and I would count the US as possibly the only exception in this regard, but the US overcame it to the extent that it has through economic growth and a strong belief in its founding documents, which not all nations can boast of.

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures, so if fewer nations adopt Western values, or the West itself decides to reject them, as is increasingly the case, then civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights will have taken significant blows. Culture matters, and it matters much, much more than people think. The light of past civilizations was not put out so much by military defeat as by cultural devolution and decay.

cultural genocide — Heister Eggcart

If that's what you think it's doing, then I submit that this is a good thing. Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. Notice that this does not mean Israelis are superior to Palestinians.

self-defense — Heister Eggcart

human rights abuses — Heister Eggcart

belligerent border policing — Heister Eggcart

nothing to be particularly proud of in Israel — Heister Eggcart

• Is it not the case that Israel has has been existentially opposed by several Arab/Islamic states since its founding? Of course they are defensive.
• If there are human rights abuses in Israel, they certainly didn't just begin recently. The creation of Israel no doubt seemed like one big civil rights abuse by the resident Palestinians.
• Good fences make for fewer terrorist attacks within Israel.
• Oh come now, most people are proud of their country. Israel won it's existence, it is militarily strong, it has a lively cultural and economic life, and so on. What's not to be proud of if one is an Israeli?

most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state — Heister Eggcart

Israel owes it's creation to at least 3 major factors:

The first is that a vision of a modern state of Israel had been circulating in Jewish circles for decades before WWII.
The second is that the Holocaust was so awful, something compensatory had to be done.
The third thing is that while the territory was lived in by Palestinians, it's status was soft -- that is, it was part of the deceased Ottoman Empire, which had come under British and French control. Palestine wasn't an independent nation.

Now that it is exists as a power in the region, many nations think it prudent that it stay that way.

A solution to the displaced Palestinians should certainly have been deployed at the time of Israel's creation. Their status was allowed to remain indefinite. The original residents of the refugee camps now have grandchildren in the "camps". Israel clearly plans to occupy all the West Bank eventually, and has chosen for an independent Palestine a death by a thousand tiny cuts, rather than just getting it over with all at once.

Israel isn't going to go away. The Palestinians are going to go away. The US (and others) like having Israel where and what it is. That doesn't leave many options for future progress...

Palestine wasn't an independent nation. — Bitter Crank

A good point. Most people also seem to forget that Palestinians are Arabs. Their displacement isn't the same as, say, the displacement of the Kurds from their ethnic homelands. There are plenty of Arab states all around Israel for them to go to, but these same Arab states like the Palestinians where they are, simply because they provide good propaganda against Israel.

Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based — Heister Eggcart

I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. — Thorongil

The more ethnically and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. We see in Europe the complete and utter failure of multiculturalism, — Thorongil

Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. — Thorongil

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures — Thorongil

Pssst. No so loud, Thorongil. The thought police are going to be on your case for uttering such heresies as "Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture". You'll be in the stocks by morning with a sign around your neck "racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, elitist, imperialist, cultural hegemonist, genocidal oppressor", and worse, possibly.

And to actually write "Western culture is superior to many other cultures" -- that's just going to send the PC Brain Washers into a frenzy.

You might want to decamp to Breitbart for a week or two, till the furor dies down.

What human rights abuses? — Thorongil

Take a gander at how Israel treats refugees and migrants, especially from African countries. It's a complete breakdown of Israel's supposedly "democratic" justice system.

It's the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East. — Thorongil

Israel is the only one? Hit up google maps, perhaps a country or three will remind you how silly your claim reads.

Its military is a necessary bulwark against rogue states like Iran — Thorongil

Rogue states like Iran? What does that even mean? The only part of the Israeli military that concerns itself with Iran directly is information and investigation. If by Israel's "military bulwark" you mean "we have nukes, sit down" then sure, I guess. You must, of course, admit this intimidation is one reason why Iran has become so worrisome for those in the West (who have nuclear weapons), because Iran wants them too.

I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. — Thorongil

Oh noes! :o

The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. — Thorongil

One could argue an outlier like North Korea embodies a purely homogeneous ethnic, (non)religious, and cultural nation state, yet I wouldn't see very many people say that NK is working as intended.

Simply put, you cannot expect people from different ethnic and opposing religious and cultural backgrounds to get along, which is to recognize that human beings are flawed creatures predisposed to tribalism. — Thorongil

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the more homogeneous a community is, there lessens then the possibility for division within said community. I don't think that follows very well.

It can be overcome, yes, and I would count the US as possibly the only exception in this regard, but the US overcame it to the extent that it has through economic growth and a strong belief in its founding documents, which not all nations can boast of. — Thorongil

This seems a tad vague. I wouldn't see the US as overcoming its divisions particularly well, now or in the past. The country's predominately white European Christian heritage with a respect for traditional American colonial values didn't matter all that much in 1861. One could even stretch my point back to the American War for Independence, although I only just thought of this, so I won't venture any further.

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures, so if fewer nations adopt Western values, or the West itself decides to reject them, as is increasingly the case, then civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights will have taken significant blows. — Thorongil

If it's a Western value to tear down instead of build up, then perhaps this is why the West is so in love with Israel.

If that's what you think it's doing, then I submit that this is a good thing. Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. Notice that this does not mean Israelis are superior to Palestinians.

As I perhaps too thinly alluded to just above, your comment here strikes me as being a bit obtuse. Even if I agreed with you that Palestinian culture is indeed inferior to Israeli culture ( I do), what then should the world's intentions be with regard to helping mature the deficiencies in Palestinian culture? Slowly shove them deeper into the desert, thus making them even madder, just as Israel is doing right now? Say such things as you just did in boastful demeanor to the faces of common Palestinians, or any Arab in general? I just don't see this sort of rhetoric as being particularly helpful or productive in bringing about "civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights" when both tone and the reality of current politics is one of snubbed noses and pointed guns.

I suppose to clarify my first assertion here in this thread - I'm as anti-Israel as I am anti-Palestine. In the Middle-east, I think it's in the US's best interests to be more neutral. This isn't to say less active, but that our dealings with countries in the Levant shouldn't be so cookie cutter, because at present, our approach is often inconsistent and hypocritical, thus failing the values we like to think we espouse.

Alright, you next! :)

Is it not the case that Israel has has been existentially opposed by several Arab/Islamic states since its founding? Of course they are defensive. — Bitter Crank

Well, with regard to Palestine, when the West made Israel a fully sovereign state, and not Palestine, can you be at all surprised when "Arabs" are even more distraught by this blatant unfairness? I mean, Israel has a figurative dick in its geography that's been slowing ramming itself into previously and currently inhabited Palestinian communities, so I'm at a loss why anyone would indeed be shocked that, on a practical level, people are taking offense to Israel's aggressiveness.

If there are human rights abuses in Israel, they certainly didn't just begin recently. The creation of Israel no doubt seemed like one big civil rights abuse by the resident Palestinians. — Bitter Crank

If? >:O

Good fences make for fewer terrorist attacks within Israel. — Bitter Crank

This must be Trump's logic.

Oh come now, most people are proud of their country. Israel won it's existence, — Bitter Crank

Israel won its existence? Dubious framing of terms right there.

it is militarily strong, it has a lively cultural and economic life, and so on. What's not to be proud of if one is an Israeli?

Other countries in the region can say the same, yet somehow Israel is held to be vastly different.

Israel isn't going to go away. The Palestinians are going to go away. — Bitter Crank

Neither should necessarily go away. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll just sit here and wait on Iraq's development. I want to see how a country like Iraq can cope with so many ethnic cultural minorities now that it has a burgeoning democratic government and a military that's logistically coherent and tactically smart. I have a feeling it will end poorly, but who knows. If the goal is to get a United States' like division and strife, then it's better that we support Palestine and Israel so that both can work together.

Their displacement isn't the same as, say, the displacement of the Kurds from their ethnic homelands. There are plenty of Arab states all around Israel for them to go to — Thorongil

You have to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a more practical, day-to-day way sometimes. Quite basically, Israel's introduction into the region, then and now, has fragmented communities that were already there to begin with, simply because they're "Arab." And I don't think it's very prudent or compassionate to expect people to pack up and move simply because there are some Arabs "over there." Yet again, there's this talk of Western values and the protection of rights, but fuck you if you get in the West's way - that's when your rights can go stick themselves head first in the sand. You will move, because Israel is here to stay, I guess, and because Israel's culture is superior, therefore it can dictate people's lives - where they live and how they live. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be partial to this sentiment, because it's hypocritical and divisive, and doesn't, in my eyes, serve the West's intentions best. If "we" can't serve as an example of our own values, then we dun fucked up from the get-go. And although we're not severely fucking up, we're still failing on a great many things, such things I find us to be coy over and unwilling to call bullshit on, to reference Benkei from another thread. This frankness extends to Palestine and anyone else's actions, or lack thereof, as well. Nobody gets a free pass for being unwilling to move forward.



Yep. I don't suck Israel's cock, so this must mean I'm a brain washed PC nutjob.

It really is shocking how many people, no matter who they are, embrace the compartmentalized way of understanding people and their ideas. "Oop, this person says this one thing which these fuckheads over here also seem to say - ha, this means he's a fuckhead, too!" To quote Mongrel...how boring.

Anyhoo, there goes my evening free time spent :-d

Israel isn't going to go away. The Palestinians are going to go away. — Bitter Crank

The second sentence should read "the Palestinians are NOT going to go away."

Well, with regard to Palestine — Heister Eggcart

The point I was making is that the creation of Israel (first by Zionist settlers early on, then by British and UN action later) was the beginning of Palestinian's dislocation. Nothing can top that, from the Palestinian point of view.

Good fences make for fewer terrorist attacks within Israel. — Bitter Crank

This must be Trump's logic. — Heister Eggcart

Nothing to do with Trump. Israel has controlled suicide and conventional terrorist bombing and other kinds of attacks by securing its big ugly concrete border. Yes, it is a heavy burden on Palestinians who do or want to work in Israel--the daily security gate checks, and so on. But it also enables Israelis and Palestinian citizens of Israel to live together amicably

Israel won its existence? — Heister Eggcart

Sure it did. It was attacked from the getgo by Arabs who wanted Israel to disappear. Like Israel or loathe it, it has won its existence.

Other countries in the region can say the same, yet somehow Israel is held to be vastly different. — Heister Eggcart

Arab countries (like Syria before its civil war), Egypt, Iran (which is Persian) or Turkey (which isn't Arab either) all have cultural, scientific, government, military, commercial elites; Israel has a bigger elite per capita. That's the main difference.

Regarding multiculturalism: Take the former Yugoslavia, made up of Croats, Gypsies, Serbs, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Communists, fascists, and more. How did they all live together if multiculturalism doesn't work?

Because Tito's communist regime would not tolerate inter-ethnic squabbling. One would end up in very deep doo doo with the Party if you made ethnic or religious political trouble. Before Tito there were other controllers: the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs. After Tito's regime came to an end around the end of the 1980s, with the post-communist up-heavals all over Europe, all sides deserted multiculturalism with a vengeance.

I would guess that most multicultural regimes have been enforced, rather than embraced by enlightened peasants who just naturally love every conflicting customs they come across.

The US is enforcing multiculturalism now as it has in the past. It uses a variety of strategies to keep a lid on conflicts. The strategies of inter-ethnic control sometimes become issues in themselves, as segregation of blacks did. In the 19th century the immigration gates were opened and all sorts of people came in until WWI. Open borders is enforced multiculturalism.

The State Department decides which populations overseas are going to be granted entry. It might be Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Indians, Somalians, West Africans... whoever. They arrive, usually with the discretely contracted help of local service providers (Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, etc.) No one is asked if they want the latest batch, they just arrive, and the local population is, in effect, told to get used to it.

Some people opt for extremely mixed multicultural settings. Most people don't.

As if I didn't read what you wrote. You could try to be more patronizing in your next reply to me, though. Maybe you'd succeed.

What part of what I wrote don't you agree with? You weren't saying that he's racist?

Here's a definition of guilt by association: "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."

Do you think that definition is confused? Because that's what I was referring to. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I will be patronising because for some reason old people like you think they don't need to pay attention. I've never said he was a racist (I said it's likely he has a problem with Jews) but even if I had it wasn't going to be because of guilt by association but because he actively manages a media outlet that he set out to create to give voices to racists, mysogynists and anti-Semites. Those are his own actions after all. Surely we can all agree that if Hitler had never been vocal about his hatred of Jews (but Goebbels was), the existence of concentration camps might have been a clue! THEREFORE (in capitals in hopes you'll be paying attention), Bannon running Breitbart is a pretty good indication even if not conclusive on its own.

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures — Thorongil
Pssst. No so loud, Thorongil. The thought police are going to be on your case for uttering such heresies as "Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture". You'll be in the stocks by morning with a sign around your neck "racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, elitist, imperialist, cultural hegemonist, genocidal oppressor", and worse, possibly.

And to actually write "Western culture is superior to many other cultures" -- that's just going to send the PC Brain Washers into a frenzy. — Bitter Crank

It's only natural that a Westerner will claim Western culture is superior because the values by which this is measured are Western. Since we're not sharing the same paradigm with other cultures (to the extent these are monolithic structures, which they aren't), the statement is therefore inane. On the basis of US culture, US is superior to Europe. On the basis of Dutch culture, US culture ranks somewhere slightly above a dictatorship. New Yorkers probably feel superior to hillbillies. That really doesn't get us anywhere and that's the reason to just facepalm whenever somebody claims superiority based on culture. :-*

For the rest, pretty much agree with Meister Eckhart.

[Israel] the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East.
~ Thorongil

Israel is the only one? Hit up google maps, perhaps a country or three will remind you how silly your claim reads. — Heister Eggcart

Adjoining countries are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Arab countries (like Syria before its civil war), Egypt, Iran (which is Persian) or Turkey (which isn't Arab either) all have cultural, scientific, government, military, commercial elites — BitterCrank

But aside from Turkey, I don't think any are truly democratic (and Turkey is looking shaky); Iran has elections, but it is a theocracy; Egypt.....well we saw what happened there; I think I read somewhere that there are more Arab representatives in Israel's parliament than in any other parliament in the region (although I could be mistaken).

Which is both saying that he's racist--the comment speculating what his opinion of Jews would be is pretty explicit about that, and it's positing guilt by association, because you're taking the comments of associates of his to count as evidence of his own views.

I would easily allow the content that's on Breitbart if I were running Breitbart, too. For one, I'm a free speech absolutist, I have a problem with people being offended by speech rather than a problem with offensive speech, and the sort of content in question is part of what has made Breitbart as successful as it has been.

You might figure that I'm racist, sexist, etc. because of that. You'd be wrong.

Do you have dyslexia?

Those are his own actions after all. Surely we can all agree that if Hitler had never been vocal about his hatred of Jews (but Goebbels was), the existence of concentration camps might have been a clue! — Benkei

True. When the US government starts building concentration camps, we'll take out the president and whoever else we need to. If we don't do that... if we just go ahead and have a Holocaust, trust me.. it won't be because of Trump, Bannon, or whoever else. It will be because we lost our minds.

And there won't be anything you can do about it.. so why worry?

See, we knew you could be more patronizing, haha.

Election Result Data Map from the New York Times

Clinton's America



Trump's America

Which is both saying that he's racist--the comment speculating what his opinion of Jews would be is pretty explicit about that, and it's positing guilt by association, because you're taking the comments of associates of his to count as evidence of his own views.

I would easily allow the content that's on Breitbart if I were running Breitbart, too. For one, I'm a free speech absolutist, I have a problem with people being offended by speech rather than a problem with offensive speech, and the sort of content in question is part of what has made Breitbart as successful as it has been.

You might figure that I'm racist, sexist, etc. because of that. You'd be wrong. — Terrapin Station

What exactly is the relevant difference between managing and promoting an organization noted as a platform for racist, (as well as sexist, and xenophobic) material--and "being" a racist?

Just the "small" difference that in the one case you're a racist and in the other you're not (at least not necessarily; we'd need explicit statements that you are).

Being a racist means having beliefs about inherent properties of races where you feel that those properties amount to or result in that race, as a whole, being inferior or superior to other races, and it typically involves discrimination based on that belief.

Managing and promoting an organization with members who have those views (and this is assuming that's a reasonable characterization of Breitbart), doesn't imply that you have those views.

Pragmatically and politically, the difference between being a racist and being a paid, professional enabler of racism is close enough.

Pragmatically and politically, the difference between being a racist and being a paid, professional enabler of racism is close enough. — Brainglitch

I know it's close enough for a lot of people who can't be bother to think about things with any clarity, but that's why it's ridiculous. Is that what we should be encouraging as philosophers?

The political fact of the matter is that the public cares little about the difference between whether a high official was a racist or just a paid, professional who knowingly enabled racism. Politically, the technical logical difference is irrelevant pedantic nonsense.

The political fact of the matter is that the public cares little about the difference between whether a high official was a racist or just a paid, professional who knowingly enabled racism. — Brainglitch

Lots of folks are all too happy to make all sorts of ridiculous conflations, yes. People are all too ready to apply "racist," "sexist," etc. to all sorts of ridiculous things. There's a witch hunt mentality to a lot of it.

The relevant political difference is pedantic nonsense. — Brainglitch

I'm not sure what "political" adds there, really. What's the difference between a political difference re whether someone is a racist and just a simple difference re whether someone is a racist?

I'm not sure what "political" adds there, really. What's the difference between a political difference re whether someone is a racist and just a simple difference re whether someone is a racist? — Terrapin Station

Yeah, you responded before I edited to convey what I was actually trying to say.

Sorry--checking back now. Oh, so you're just reiterating that re people making decisions about politics, they see making a clear distinction as "irrelevant nonsense." Again, I can see that, but we should try to rectify that, no? It's kind of like noting that the difference between one black person who committed a crime and another black person who didn't commit a crime is "pedantic, irrelevant nonsense" to someone racist against black people. That very well may be true, but shouldn't we try to coax them out of that sort of intellectual laziness?