Comments

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Have we not being addressing the topic for 155 pages? But please just spell out the new and incisive contribution Maher has made here and of course we can debate it.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    The bit about Ireland is completely and utterly wrong, but whatever, it's light entertainment, so I don't expect him to know anything about that or bother finding out. It's not the point of the show. Ditto with the Middle East and the context there. He might get something right or not randomly. But most people, I presume, watch his show just to relax and have a laugh not to fact check it. Which is fine.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    American audiences on mainstream TV are odd and seem to laugh when they think they're supposed to, regardless of content. I remember watching a Letterman episode where the actor who plays Kramer in Seinfeld came on to apologise for calling members of his audience the N word. The audience at the show couldn't get around the fact they were not watching comedy and thought they were supposed to laugh and kept doing so until they were literally told to stop. Odd.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Did I read somewhere its a socio-survival technique?Daniel Duffy

    Sounds right.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Stupid and superficial. There's nothing of substance there. There's no sharp satire or ... well, anything. Of course Hamas is not taking over Tel Aviv. Is that it?

    Where are the great points?

    As for this:

    "The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
    1:14
    but the British were starting an Empire,
    1:16
    and well, the Irish lost their tip."

    It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened.

    Anyway, I guarantee you @ssu who is an intelligent commentator will not find this impressive either.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    I am familiar on a daily basis with these two feelingsDaniel Duffy

    :lol:

    this would make the use of 'je ne ce quoi' and other French phrases more about portraying a certain image of oneself rather than whatever the object is you are talking about.Daniel Duffy

    Yes, and that becomes automatic. Relatedly, from a very young age we can "code switch" between and within a language depending on who we're talking to and I think we do that as adults too as a form of social flexibility and image generation. We sadly tend to want to be liked and fit in more than almost anything regardless of whatever narrative we paste over that.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    I very much doubt he does, but to highlight how much I dislike listening to popular American mainstream comedians who I find the absolute dullest and untalented people on earth (Letterman was maybe somewhat of an exception but he's gone now), I would much rather even read a post of yours rehashing some of those "great points", so feel free to steal his material.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Don't know why you're tagging me. I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. Maher is boring, conventional, and not too sharp. The comedians I like are mostly dead, unfortunately.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    OK, well could hardly be clearer (even though I originally thought I was reading satire).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    @NOS4A2 The "poisoning" was done by the Democrats according to Trump as you pointed out, but the poison is the illegal immigrants. Trump is saying that the act of allowing the immigrants (poison) into America is an act of poisoning the blood of the country. If it were not the case that he meant that illegal immigrants were the "poison" then letting them in would not be an act of "poisoning" as there would be no poison. So, if you support that comment, you cannot escape the fact that you are referring to that group of humans as poison. If you contest this, and you claim Trump did not mean the immigrants were poison, you need to specify with what the Democrats are poisoning the blood of the country. What else could the poison be? And you would really have to stretch reality on that one.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point?Daniel Duffy

    Interesting question. I think you'll find the relative frequency varies according to language community. So, they can become a marker of being a member of a certain class or group. In that case, it would be more about being accustomed to it (and reinforcing your position within a group) than actually anything to do with better conveying meaning. So, I'm not convinced that saying "It has a certain "je ne sais quoi"" conveys the relevant idea better than "it has a certain something". The difference is more in the mood or resonance, which would pertain to the interpersonal (feeling) rather than the experiential (factual) side. There is an absolute ton of research done on this type of thing in Applied Linguistics anyhow as it's a major part of the field. And if we're talking French, there's an interesting historical story to that.

    Some borrowed words I think are more efficient at conveying meaning, mostly because they kind of condense an idea in English into one concept. The German word "Heimat" (the feeling of being at home) is one and the Czech word "litost" (the feeling of coming face to face with your own misery) is another. You'll note though that as we can define them we have those ideas in English, they just take longer to say. That is, it's not like we're learning a new feeling we couldn't feel before or anything like that (as linguistic determinism might suggest).
  • Are some languages better than others?
    I think this article might be a useful reference point;

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism#:~:text=Linguistic%20determinism%20is%20the%20concept,categorization%2C%20memory%2C%20and%20perception.

    Linguistic determinism is pretty much refuted but there's some evidence for the weaker form of that idea, linguistic relativism, i.e. that distinctions between language can influence certain cognitive processes. For example, if you have more colour distinction words (and languages vary fairly widely on this) you might be quicker at picking out different colours. The differences are not very dramatic or important though and I've never had any wow moments reading about this stuff.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    Confusion about grammar?I like sushi

    Yes, you seem to be confused about tense and future reference. You don't need the former for the latter and the latter is what's important functionally. Or if you knew that, I don't know why you think tense would matter in the context you gave.
  • Are some languages better than others?
    . If you lack use of tenses (like Sicilians) then you are less likely to plan ahead.I like sushi

    This would represent both a strong form of linguistic determinism for which there is no evidence and a confusion about grammar. You don't need tenses to represent the future. English, by some definitions, only has two tenses (present and past) and uses modal verbs to express the rest. Some languages, like Chinese, don't have tenses at all. Does this mean the Chinese are deficient in planning ahead. No, it doesn't, any more than if I use "I am doing it on Saturday" (present continuous tense) to represent the future or I use "I am going to do it on Saturday" (modal auxiliary) makes me less likely to be planning ahead than if I use what we call the future tense "I will do it on Saturday" (but is actually a modal, oh no!)
  • Are some languages better than others?


    Well, I was going to say something... Anyhow, fwiw, from a linguistic perspective, the question is somewhat analagous to asking a biologist if salmon are better than cod. Languages evolve to fill sociocultural spaces as animals evolve to fill environmental niches. It's the nature of human language that when a sociocultural gap or function becomes available, it will fill it. So, in their own context, languages can't really be said to be better than one another. Also, humans can both easily handle their own language and several more at the same time once we receive sufficient early exposure, so there's not really an issue of unwieldiness either. You might get some traction on the idea if you focus on writing systems though.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    By the way, I've read enough to confirm to myself that Hamas did rape and sexually abuse Israeli women, quite possibly in a planned and systematic way. I've already said I wouldn't object to every member of the group being killed. In fact, if it would have ended the war at the outset, it would have been a far preferable outcome to what we have now as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what I could add to that. Probably that if anyone has had direct experience of someone who suffered that horror, they may understandably be immune to ideas of restraint or compromise.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    I appreciate that perspective, but what are they reading? And how do we separate out the day-to-day reality of who people are from what is selectively presented to us? My direct exposure to Palestinians is limited but having had, often through teaching online, students from all over the world, I've noted thst commonalities tend to trump differences and that's maybe why I tend to have a relatively positive view of the average person that may not take account of highly objectionable attitudes or beliefs they don't reveal to me. I'm willing to learn more on this, but again, qualitative studies, long form interviews is what I'm after. Anyhow, I agree completely war does degrade people and the cycle of degradation seems to have gotten completely out of control here. I don't think that was an inevitability if there had been different leadership on both sides.
  • Post Removed


    It looks OK. There is an answer to the question from a linguistic perspective too. I might get involved.
  • Post Removed
    Discussion or post? And what was it about? Then I'll go check.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured.BitconnectCarlos

    I would like to know the context for that but remember the way the attacks are presented is just as skewed on the Palestinian side. I would like to know what it is these people actually support. I doubt all 75% would say they support the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians any more than Israelis would say that. Instead, they are likely to simply deny that's happened and claim to be supporting a justifiable military operation. But there's just not enough information there. A qualitative study is likely to be more revealing.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Firstly:

    "Hamas's fighters did not behead Israeli babies, was the conclusion of an investigation conducted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz"

    https://www.palestinechronicle.com/did-hamas-fightersdecapitate-israeli-babies-israeli-newspaper-answers/

    Secondly, regardless of that argument, you are not against killing babies or civilians as long as they are Palestinians. You continually justify it. In fact, it's hard to understand how you think you have any credibility when, with a simple change of label, you could be a Hamas spokesman justifying their killings. You are that person for whom the enemy, including its civilians, are nothing. That's your burden of confusion and moral emptiness to live with and I pity you.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Of course, Israel could be more brutal. It could nuke Gaza or just completely level it, but we ought not to give credit to them for not being as brutal as possible if we also want to claim they are civilized. because we are entitled to have certain expectations of civilized countries even in war. I acknowledge, for example, that if Hamas was granted Israel's military capability, they would likely be more brutal than Israel is being now, but it is of no credit to anyone just to be better than Hamas. The bar has to be higher. And what disturbs me here is when I get the impression from some that it's not.

    I have had (online) students from Gaza. The last one I spoke to was trying to get out, on a scholarship to America, far as I remember. He didn't hate the West. He wasn't a fanatic. And he wasn't inferior to any of my other students either. He was an earnest, polite, and respectful guy looking for a better life and that is my base presumption of who people in Israel and Gaza, despite their shitty governments, are. It's also my base presumption that if any of us here had to bear direct witness to the killing there, we would not be so quick to gloss over the details of how this operation is being conducted, regardless of whether we thought some kind of operation needed to be undertaken. What's frustrated me on this thread is the unwillingness to look at the reality of what's going on head on. That requires at the very least humanizing, not generalizing.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    And I'm sure you know by now that in Gaza the line between civilian and military is essentially nil. Hamas does not wear uniforms.BitconnectCarlos

    No, it's not. Civilians are civilians and militants are miltiants regardless of their fashion choices. You have to consider the logic of the alternative. If the line is really literally nil for you and you also support eliminating the military then you would be saying you support elimintaing 1.5 million people, only roughly 40,000 (less than 3%) of whom are actual militants, 50% of whom are children. I don't believe you do, but again, words have consequences and this idea that everyone in Gaza is Hamas is used to justify killing civilians and should not be so used. It's that simple. Talk about being civilized. The first rule should be "protect the innocent", no? Incidentally, Hamas have used a similar argument, that Israeli civilians are indistinguishable from the military due to their compulsory military service. This is again just an excuse to dehumanize innocent civilians so they may be attacked with impunity.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Here's where nuance comes in, for me at least. There's a difference, for example, between a targeted missile strike on an apartment that kills an enemy militant and also an innocent civilian from the apartment next door and simply bombing the apartment block and killing 100 innocent civilians and the militant. Every option in between could also be explored ethically but the former shows some respect for civilian life and the latter doesn't. This idea of respecting and protecting civilian life is expressed in the Geneva conventions as follows:

    "In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects in the war-zone; the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.[6] Although ratified by 173 countries, the only countries that are currently not signatories to Protocol I are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty#:~:text=International%20law,-Following%20the%20Second&text=In%201977%2C%20Protocol%20I%20was,and%20civilian%20objects%20as%20possible.

    It's expressed there because it reflects the appropriate, in my view, moral intuition that civilians should not be indiscriminately or unnecessarily punished during war. It's telling that the U.S. and Israel are two of only six countries that haven't signed up to this (although others have signed and simply ignore it).
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It confuses me that it's so fucking stupid. Superior in every way possible would include e.g. intelligence, which would make you a racist. So you ought to get busy, stop fucking around, and withdraw or clarify.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I did say it because I meant it. There is a moral superiority of the West to others. What's shocking is that you can't admit it.Hanover

    Your claim was not limited to morality. Your claim as it is written is that the West is superior to the non-West in every possible way. Are you saying now you didn't mean that? Feel free to clarify.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    This is the quote under scrutiny:

    The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible.Hanover

    The sweeping nature of which makes it obviously false. But I still want it admitted so and withdrawn without any BS attempts to pretend he never said that.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Lol. You know what you wrote is amazingly stupid at best and now you're just going to try to babble it away. Withdraw the comment and get it over with. Or be held to the utterly moronic idea that Western societies are superior "in every way possible"--your words--to non-Western societies.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I'm just going to keep doing this until you both realize how amazing (ly stupid) you are being and withdraw the comment / endorsement thereof. And no that doesn't mean I don't believe Sweden isn't (in most senses) better than Saudi Arabia. It means you're going to get held to those words until they burn you so bad in shame and embarrassment that you can't stand it any longer.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It's amazingly amazing for example how superior and more civilized American politics is to, say, Japanese politics. Trump is probably the best example of this. Americans also live longer and are more intelligent than the Japanese. Yes, indeedie. Superior in every possible way...
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    All societies are not created equalRogueAI

    No one said they were. Have fun with your irrelevant comments before looking at the words you actually endorsed.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It must feel amazing to feel superior in every way to every one who's not Western, morally and in every way possible all the time every day, like I guess in your choice of ice cream and how you move your fat privileged butt down the street. Yes, amazing. Ly stupid. Expect to be mocked incessantly from now on as you deserve.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    I don't expect anything of you but I think one day Hanover is going to wake up and have a serious D'Oh! moment over that comment.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that.schopenhauer1

    Ok, we do agree on something at least. :up:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank


    Just take the UN off the table :lol: . The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. But let's just take that off the table because the whole world wants Israel to stop committing war crimes. No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say.

    Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously:schopenhauer1

    Of course it was legitimate. Germany had probably the most powerful military in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me.schopenhauer1

    What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I anywhere suggest those were the only two options? Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    To be clear, in case I'm misinterpreted again. I think certain cultures are better than others. I think Swedish culture is better than Saudi Arabian culture, Thai culture is better than North Korean culture etc. But I don't accept a sweeping Western superiority and I definitely don't accept a sweeping Western superiority as a cover for war crimes.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples?schopenhauer1

    The IRA blew up pubs full of off-duty soldiers and civilians, killed old folks at a remembrance parade and bombed the entire British cabinet in a Brighton hotel. There is no "fundamental" difference in intensity between that and what Hamas does with suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or the massacre of innocent concert goers. But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic.

    So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. @Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy.

    Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?schopenhauer1

    Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reasons. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it.