Remember when Harvard president Gay, UPenn president Magill, and MIT president Kornbluth were pilloried for being insufficiently outraged about Palestinians on their campuses? They did give pretty tepid and timid answers to questions about campus protests, but I hate to break the news to you about college presidents: that’s their job, being professionally tepid and timid about everything in order to avoid antagonizing politicians and donors. They could have done better, but they never received any training in being forthright.
Then, strangely, everything shifted from being about their responsibilities to all sides on a politically contentious issue to…plagiarism? Not that that isn’t an important matter, but it’s peculiar how we got this abrupt change in focus. What had happened is that certain ideologically motivated people had decided to really get those college presidents, and they’d been doing their best to dig up dirt on them. They didn’t find evidence of anti-Semitism (that would have been a bad tactic, since the dirt diggers tended to be anti-Semitic themselves), but they did find that one nasty little nugget, the horrible secret that plagues a lot of academics who are pressured to churn out lots of papers.*
Well, unsurprisingly, it turns out that neither anti-Semitism or an epidemic of cheating were the actual motivations behind the assault on university presidents, or universities in general. They really, really hate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). This was another anti-woke crusade all along.
Gay’s resignation almost a month after Magill’s had initially redirected the backlash onto Kornbluth, who has largely evaded the brunt of the outrage, kept her job and remained relatively silent amid the calls for her ouster. But as the focus of the online outrage now trains on Business Insider, the calls for the presidents’ firings — once primarily fueled by concerns over antisemitism on campus — are shifting to a broader campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at U.S. colleges and then detouring into seemingly tit-for-tat plagiarism probes. The shift appears to reveal that the initial uproar was never really about protecting Jewish students, scholars told Salon.
“Given how quickly the focus of the people claiming to be concerned about antisemitism on our campuses shifted to academic dishonesty, it certainly appears that the focus was never really about antisemitism and protecting students,” Irene Mulvey, the president of the American Association of University Presidents told Salon. “It’s part of a long-running, well-funded effort to create a false narrative for the public that higher education is broken.”
What’s driving that well-funded effort are conservative billionaires, like Bill Ackman. Ackman’s campaign got briefly short-circuited when it was discovered that his wife, Neri Oxman, had the same plagiarism sins that were used to get Gay fired. Uh-oh. Need to recalibrate. Suddenly, Ackman is babbling about “nuance” and “context.” It would be funny if this weren’t a rich, powerful guy looking for pretexts to get people he doesn’t like fired.
But the act backfired for the financier, whose involvement in the controversy had brought him his fair share of criticism according to Bloomberg, last Thursday after Business Insider released reports accusing Oxman of failing to cite and copying passages from other authors without proper citation in her 2010 MIT dissertation, claims The New Republic notes are similar to those thrown at Gay. While Oxman acknowledged some of the claims and apologized for errors in a post to X, the outlet published a second report the day after alleging at least 15 new instances of plagiarism in her dissertation, including segments claimed to be directly lifted from Wikipedia.
With the ire aimed at his spouse, Ackman’s strong-minded stance against plagiarism in all forms suddenly became more nuanced, with the billionaire arguing in a post to X that charges of plagiarism in academia should be more context-reliant and weigh intentionality. The Business Insider reports prompted Ackman to expand his campaign against higher education to the journalism industry, with the Pershing Square CEO announcing his plans to launch an AI-powered dig for potential plagiarism in the outlet’s work.
What’s this about “intentionality”? I suspect he means plagiarism with intent to lend support to the poor and oppressed is bad, while plagiarism with an intent to enrich billionaires is good.
He just hates DEI. It is the root of all sins.
In the same post in which he detailed a strict stance on plagiarism, Ackman also gave voice to a conservative talking point about DEI, concluding, after meeting with students and faculty at Harvard, that DEI was at the core of the antisemitism cropping up on the campus in the wake of Oct. 7.
I think it would be a stronger point to argue that evangelical Christianity is at the core of that anti-Semitism. Except that conservative evangelical Christians also hate DEI, so he can’t blame them.
You know that DEI initiatives strongly oppose anti-Semitism, along with any racial or ethnic discrimination, right? You can’t be a DEI proponent and also promote bigoted ideas about any group.
This is really all about finding any excuse to cut down anyone who opposes the billionaire agenda.
Is too on the nose?
The main part of the cartoon that isn’t on the nose is the second panel line about “But you’re an expert in finance…” People like Ackman tend to be at least as much ‘lucky at gambling on the market’ as they are ‘good with money’ (Ackman has several significant losses under his belt as well, he just has made more money than he lost.) And, of course, you can’t even get started on that path if you don’t start with plenty of money.
This reminds me a bit of Steve Forbes’ comment when he was asked what accounted for his personal wealth and successful career in finance. “A fortunate choice of parents,” he responded. ;-)
I saw a clip of an interview with a black woman…I don’t know who…talking about her first year at Harvard. She was from Colorado, had done very well in high school and scored really well on the SAT tests, but would not have considered Harvard at all. However, Harvard sent a recruiter to get her to come to Harvard, and so she did. In her first classes white students…probably men…stood up saying she should not be there and was only there because of affirmative action rather than because she was academically qualified.
According to NBC News, 56,260 Iowan Republicans voted for Trump. Disgusting!!!!
Frankly, I’m kind of tired of living in such a fucked up world.
@#3
I have an acquaintance who was one of the first black women to get an MBA from the Harvard business school. She told me that this sort of thing was common the whole time she was there (she had a very successful career in international finance subsequently). As a very white white male I simply have no context to put her experiences into; nothing even remotely comparable has ever happened to me.
I did live in Latin America for a number of years and occasionally had a slightly sarcastic or hostile remark aimed at me, but nothing like what she described.
…concluding, after meeting with students and faculty at Harvard, that DEI was at the core of the antisemitism cropping up on the campus in the wake of Oct. 7.
Yeah, right, DEI just happened to cause lots of antisemitism right after Israel started carpet-bombing civilians in Gaza. Total coincidence! (And as we all know, DEI policies in the US are so dastardly and evil that they cause antisemitism ALL OVER THE WORLD AT THE SAME TIME!)
@5 — Spain expelled the Jews and Pharoah refused to set the Israelites free because of DEI.
Robro “Frankly, I’m kind of tired of living in such a fucked up world.”
I feel the fatigue too.
Look at how hard it is to change the culture in a humanist way when followers of the dark side can more easilly gain power and fight against us.
However, rest then rally and go again. Repeat.
I have to admit I haven’t delved much into what DEI actually is so don’t know if it is a bogey or if there is something about it that tends to generate so much reactance.
Isn’t it faaaaaaaaaaascinating that every one of their targets, at the end of football season, is the head of a university that doesn’t have a (very good) football team? They didn’t call in the presidents of Stanford, or Northwestern, or Duke — all “elite” schools, or at least they classify themselves as elite schools, with Division I football teams that have been to bowl games fairly recently. They didn’t call in the presidents of the universities of Texas, or Michigan, or Washington — all pretty-well-regarded public universities with some programs just as good as those elite schools, and all participants in the football “final four” this year.
Those six schools named in the preceding paragraph have other things in common. They’re all in or near communities with significant Middle Eastern populations (the largest concentration of Palestinians in America is a couple dozen miles from the University of Michigan)… and all have better histories than most of defanging the most violent protests. Far from perfect, but sure as heck better than Penn and Harvard! And all but one of the six I’ve just named is at least as full of pointy-headed liberal elitists as Penn, the home of the Wharton School, or Harvard, the home of the Harvard Business School and Harvard Divinity School. Now throw
CoachSenator Tuberville into the mix.There’s more than one axis of distraction in play here.
Claudine Gay has the unjust handicap of being a dark-skinned woman, but she also made three unforced errors: political, professional, and fashion.
The political error was her incompetent testimony. She didn’t have to sound like ChatGPT; she could have simply said “yes” when asked if calling for genocide is against Harvard’s speech code. She could then have said that calling for intifada is indeed calling for war, but not genocide, as there have been several intifadas in Israel/Palestine, none genocidal so far. She could also have added that “Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea” is a clarion call for ethnic cleansing, not genocide, which is a different crime. That it’s a call for ethnic cleansing can be proven by replacing the word ‘Palestine’ with ‘Israel’, and thus make a slogan worthy of the Kahanists.
The professional error was her plagiarism. I too am amused that the billionaire’s wife was also a plagiarist, but her job is being a billionaire’s wife, not president of Harvard, for which different rules apply. I submit that the very concept of plagiarism is (ahem) “context dependent”. I lean toward a communistic theory of intellectual property; that any word, once spoken, is the common property of all humankind. But I’m in lower academia; I work at a tax-funded community college, not a 60 gigabuck Corporation. I see mimesis as H.Sapiens’ secret sauce; but even a mindless robot like ChatGPT can do control-C and control-V.
The fashion error was her choice of hairstyle and eyewear. Of course this is stupidly superficial, but her main job is to be the face of Harvard Corporation, so in practice superficial standards apply. The president of Harvard should look like a sage, or a grandparent, or the head of a bank. She looks like a performance artist, or a maiden aunt, or a middle manager.
Claudine Gay could have made two of those unforced errors, and kept her job as president of Harvard Corporation. But she made three.
About genocide:
If 20,000 dead Palestinians is genocide, then so is 25,000 dead Palestinians, as occurred in Black September. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
Why were there no worldwide protests against Jordan’s genocide of the fedayeen? The traditional Zionist response is to whinge that Israel is held to a higher standard than their neighbors. But my whinge is that those neighbors are held to a lower standard. That’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. The world doesn’t care when Moslems kill Moslems.
Israel’s tragedy is that it has real enemies. Palestine’s far worse tragedy is that it has no real friends. Not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, not Syria, not Lebanon, not Kuwait, not Iran, and not even Hezbollah or Hamas.
@Nathaniel Hellerstein
What about Jordan? What about whatabouttery? The current situation still exists.
People protesting are friends of Palestinians and/or Palestine. You specifically ignore them and people literally making the genocide charge.
Hamas doesn’t own river and sea references, it’s used in a broad variety of ways by people in Isreal, Palestine, and more. You are specifically ignoring more. I wonder what I’ll find with the rest?
I did the word switch in my head. I don’t perceive it. You’ll need more than that.
I don’t even need genocide, the Palestinians live in Isreal’s concentration camp. They’re trying to do the genocidal metaphorical river to the sea thing now from what I can see. Genocide is a process.
The trouble with DEI is that it’s identity politics, and identity is mostly an imposed illusion. You don’t send the government an identity card; the government sends you an identity card. Identity politics is attachment to illusion, which causes suffering. It is inherently divisive and unjust. Note that the biggest, loudest, best-connected, and best-armed identity-politics faction is the white supremacists.
DEI and related leftist miscalculations are all about racism and sexism, but they do not mention classism. That’s because DEI (and related strategic errors) is funded by the owning class. It is corporate, top-down, and legalistic.
Far more liberatory than identity politics is unity politics. El pueblo unido hamas sera vincido.
I guess we should ignore Israeli identity, and the religious are going to love the suggestion of leaving identity out of politics. “Identity politics” as a label, It’s like the things that inspire political activity should be kept out to me. No. I think it’s kinds of politics and how they relate to kinds identity, and some people want specific identity related politics to go away.
And it’s lazy lazy lazy ignoring political variables like that.
Brony:
Kuwait didn’t need a process to ethnically cleanse its Palestinians. That was 18% of their population, before the Gulf War. The PLO sided with Hussein, and when Hussein lost, the Kuwaitis immediately expelled the Palestinians, no process needed, and to no global protests.
Protests are easy, safe symbolic friendship, but what in hard, risky practice is to be done about Gaza? Note that the West Bank is out of the discussion. Evidently the world has quietly consigned the West Bank to slow ethnic cleansing by Israel to Jordan, despite Black September.
As for Gaza, their Hamas misrulers declared war with their bloody pogrom. They were doomed to lose the resulting war; and what happens to the losers of a war? Three possibilities: exile, slaughter, or subjugation.
Subjugation is the most ‘civilized’ outcome, and in this case would mean re-occupation of Gaza, returning it to the apartheid status of the West Bank. To my dismay, Fox favors this outcome, and thereby are able to sound relatively civilized.
Slaughter, or genocide, is not a matter of numbers, as you prove by your dismissal of Black September. The best definition of genocide that I have been able to find is that it (ahem) “depends on context”, specifically stated intent. Israel has taken care to not officially state such intent, though Israeli popular culture is a different matter. But Hamas did state genocidal intent, in their founding charter, and in their schools and propaganda. So I see no moral high ground there. Maybe your eyes are sharper than mine.
As for exile: your hearing problem re ‘river-to-the-sea’ is your problem, not the Israelis, nor the Gazans. They know what they hear. At the start of the latest round of this forever war, I thought that the best thing would be for the Arab nations to take the Palestinians in. Yes, that would be expensive, and cooperation with ethnic cleansing, but that’s better than looking the other way for genocide. After all, there is an Ummah of the faithful. But I jest: what Ummah?
I have been disabused of my naivete’ by studying the history of the region. The Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Lebanese tried taking in the Palestinians, but they soon learned that Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah are bad guests, bringing civil war wherever they go. That is why Egypt has armed guards at the Rafah gate.
I was even naive enough to suggest the USA as a place for the Palestinians to flee to. After all, this nation has a long glorious history of taking exiles and turning them into free and prosperous citizens. But I have reluctantly abandoned that plan, partly due to the present anti-immigrant sentiment here, and mostly due to the examples I cite in the previous paragraph.
Please note that the billionaire Hamas leaders have personally taken the exile route, and now live in safety and luxury in Qatar. Woe betide a people ruled by incompetents, killers, and crooks!
A real solution would involve peace. But that’s impossible under Netanyahu or Hamas.
Brony:
Please clarify your post #16. It would help to phrase it in complete sentences. Your post #17 does not mention the white-supremacist identity faction, and the implications thereof about the nature of identity factionalism.
My own view is that the human race is one. I am sure that our gracious host will agree, on scientific grounds. Identities like nationality, religion, etc. are artificial divisions, contingent on history. We tolerate them as intermediate levels of humankind’s federal self-governance; but justice is universal in nature. Dr. MLK’s Dream speech places content of character over tint of skin.
Whatabout Kwait?
Whatabout, whatabout…
You typed “no friends”. You are already a liar. Your “not-good enough” dance isn’t good enough. Your overwrought point was dead and your complaints about protests aren’t good enough.
It’s sarcastically nice of someone to offer someone else’s country to prevent something awful.
And if someone actually cares about Gay getting judged for their appearance they would criticize the bigots in question, not pretend to have advice for Gay.
All that overwrought language, and nothing of substance to connect it to. All humans are one? Except the Palestinians, or we’re syncytial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytium
@Nathaniel Hellerstein
So I didn’t mention a thing in 16 or 17? You came here. You defend your stuff. I’m just going to pick at you if you don’t have actual quotes about my comments. And it doesn’t matter if I don’t reciprocate, you care about this, right?
Jaws 9:
Your comment about the football factor is insightful. I usually consider football to be barbarous and gladiatorial, but in this case it serves the cause of civilization. I stand corrected.
Brony:
Yes, the Palestinians have no friends. Or, to be precise, only fair-weather friends, abstract distant friends, and worst of all, false friends with agendas. Iran, for instance, which funds and arms Hamas, and ordered them to this suicidal war, in order to put the Israel/Saudi rapprochement on hold.
I did propose my own country, the USA, as a refuge, as it has served in the past. All four of my grandparents were exiles. Probably much the same is true of you.
Pick at my comments all you want, and I will reciprocate, for CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.
The human race is biologically and ecologically one. Science says so, and sometimes religion does too. Note Galatians 3:28. Religions often start as rebellions against the oppression of identity; but alas, they tend to congeal into oppressive identities themselves.
As for Gay being judged by appearance, yes of course that’s unfair, but that’s how corporate culture works. Male heads of corporations usually wear suits and ties, not T-shirts and jeans. The exceptions are a flex by the super-duper rich. The next time you go to a job interview, or to testify in court or before Congress, I recommend that you wear your most expensive and least comfortable clothes.
Liars aren’t trustworthy. Protest counts. Liars just want people to stop criticizing Isreal.
Nothing but non-literal bullshit, the weather now.
The liar ignores the part about them criticizing the bigots who judge based on appearance. They want others to stop changing things. I don’t give a shit for corporate or any culture in general. Bigot parts have to go.
I don’t accept anything but direct citations and descriptions/explanations about concrete things from the liar now. Down to the object, subject and predicate. Because “no friends” here is like “no one cares” in a comment section full of people caring.
Weak, and bigoted. Pressuring others to do something different instead of deal with the bigots. They don’t have to criticize the bigots, and I can be harsh.
Nothing about my criticism of “identity politics” that I can see even. No reciprocity, deserves nothing but harsh so far.
I’m the sort of person who recognizes that corporate culture wants money first. They can respond to public pressure like has always been the case. Get rid of the bigotries corporations, go do the money making thing. Be predatory with each other, I’d love it if we got more predatory bigotry here. That’s a behavior, not a whole person.
Make that “predatory with bigotry here.”
Brony:
Your grammar is unique. “The weather now”? Is English not your native language, or are you in a passionate hurry? By the way, it’s spelled “Israel”, with the a before the e.
You are right about the avaricious nature of corporate culture. For them, responding to public pressure is Job 2, not 1. I am baffled by your advocacy of “predatory with bigotry here”. I doubt that is consistent with our gracious host’s value system.
Call me a liar all you want. This sentence is false! But please be specific in your accusations, the better to chastise me, and maybe even correct me. CITOKATE.
Protest means nothing unless it protests for a coherent and workable program. Comment-section caring and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Last November I attended two rallies. First I went to a pro-Palestinian rally – or to be precise, a pro-Hamas rally. It was loud and noisy; I had to scream to talk to with anyone there. The rally expressed anger, shame, and despair. The signs held there contradicted each other; in particular, one sign called for a cease-fire, but the banner on the stage rudely rejected a cease-fire. It took up a block of street and was watched by a squad of police.
One week later I went to my union’s rally. It was loud but not noisy. I could talk with the people there; we shared jokes. A band played music. The rally expressed hope, strength, fun, and determination. The union organizers gave out signs; I picked one up (“Education is an Investment”; how bourgeois of me) and I walked around in a big circle with the others. The rally was in a parking lot; it did not block the street. When cars drove past, they honked in support.
Since then the administration gave in. We got a raise, and a clawback of previous concessions. Now that’s a leftism that’s useful.
The difference is that the Hamas rally was about identity and struggle. The union rally was about money and success.
@Nathaniel Hellerstein
You have irrelevant feelings about how I type.
Israel gets criticism. Your feelings about protest noise are noise because it’s nothing to do about Isreal’s concentration camp.
Your feelings about what a #1 or #2 job for corporations don’t change my shaming about bigotry and people like you who just let it be, and corporations that allow it. It will quickly become the corporations desire to change things with boycotts and such.
Otherwise why should I care about a few centuries old social structure riddled with social abuse? I’m happy to disparage it into making this a concern.
Please forgive me for the “to talk to with” grammatical error in my previous post. You see, I wrote and re-wrote that post, and forgot to delete the “with”. My bad.
@Nathaniel Hellerstein
Also criticism designed to make a behavior stop is predatory in my opinion. I see you doing it to of you wouldn’t be here. Socially predatory towards bad behavior. Criticism.
You can contact PZ anytime.
Brony:
How you type is not irrelevant. Nor is spelling, nor noise, nor loud despair, nor hairstyle, nor eyewear, nor clothing. The world watches these details, and judges, for they are fitness signals. Ask our gracious host about the biology of fitness signals. It seems foolish, but long ago I made peace with the folly of the world and myself. Since then I have become much happier and effective. I recommend this to you.
What specifically do you propose to do about Israel’s concentration camp? At the Hamas rally I asked some of the people there (or really, I screamed it, for that was the only way to be audible): “How do you free people from an open-air prison?” None had an answer, so I gave one: “By moving them to somewhere else.” They vehemently rejected this answer, and they were right, for then I was still naively ignorant of how much the Islamic world despises the Palestinians, and why.
Peace would work. Peace would be fine. But neither Netanyahu nor Hamas wants peace, for peace would doom them.
As for shaming corporations, good luck with that. The most successful boycott I’ve seen lately was Ackman’s fund-withdrawal threat, which got Gay out of the presidency. (But she kept her 900,000 $/year salary. Nice work if you can get it!)
Brony:
Nobody trusts a predator, however virtuous they think themselves. If you would critique to improve, then do so with sincere good intent in your heart. People can sense predatory intent, by ancient instinct.
You appear to believe Hezbollah are Palestinians; they are in fact Lebanese Shiites. That you could make such an elementary error rather undermines your claims of having learned the truth about the Palestinians and their relationships with Arab states and thus changed your mind.
Either you’re pretending to knowledge you don’t have, or you’re a confidant of either the Iranian or the Hamas leadership, since there’s no other way you could know such a thing.
Most of the inhabitants of Gaza, or their recent ancestors, have already been forced from their homes once. Most are unlikely to be willing to move again, particularly as this would reward their oppressor for oppressing them. But it’s clear enough you don’t give a shit about that oppression or what they might want: whataboutery is practically always a dishonest attempt to distract attention andor justify the unjustifiable.
@Nathaniel Hellerstein
No one trusts a liar. I can be trusted to be predatory towards bad behavior. And since I classified that as criticism you can sputter all you want.
You don’t give a shit about Isreal. I can tell by how you go on about my typing and can’t take criticism if it’s defined as a kind of predatory behavior meant to make other behavior go away. Humans hunt. I hunt bad behavior.
I literally have this as a view to encompass bigotry, a kind of predatory behavior involving irrational group biases. I have no problem with rational predator behavior pointed bad behavior. Seems consistent to me and I’ll keep pointing it at you liar.
Go dance for me capitalist, do something useful to make money. You clearly don’t give a shit about lives, Israeli, Palestinian, or anyone else for that matter but you. I can tell how you’re into stopping others from complaining and leaving the bigotry alone, at best.
KG:
Thank you for the correction about Hezbollah and Palestine. They have worked with and for Hamas, though they are not officially affiliated. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
<<
Although Hezbollah and Hamas are not organizationally linked, Hezbollah provides military training as well as financial and moral support to the Sunni Palestinian group.[352] Furthermore, Hezbollah was a strong supporter of the second Intifada.[48]
So Hezbollah is not a group for Gaza or the West Bank. They have on occasion worked for those there; but always at Iran’s behest. Thanks for the correction. CITOKATE: criticism is the only antidote to error.
But please inform me: who runs the Palestinian mini-state within failed Lebanon?
As for who moved Hamas into bloodily provoking its suicidal war, I agree that Iran is a speculation. I base my guess on the Roman saying, “Qui bono?”, meaning “who benefits?” Israel and Saudi Arabia were nearing rapprochement via the Abrahamic Accords; Iran is Saudi Arabia’s regional rival; so it makes sense for Iran to interfere by provoking war. I know of no other regional actor who benefits by this war. Maybe crooked Netanyahu has a personal interest in being a war leader, for he would be in legal trouble otherwise. Maybe fanatical Hamas also needs war. Those too are speculation. I grant that Iran has distanced itself from the war, and Hezbollah has stayed out of action; so maybe this was Hamas’s own idea. I can only guess. Fog of war.
And as for the grief of fleeing from harm’s way, I am descended from folk who had to sail across the sea, whether or not it was difficult, or it gratified the people kicking them out. They endured those hardships, and I, their descendant, am grateful. Most Americans are descendants of exiles, for whom standing their ground would have been a mistake. A live dog is better off than a dead lion. So arguing to an American audience that fleeing oppression would be hard and humiliating is a non-starter.
But that is all beside the point. No Arab or Islamic nation will take the Palestinians in, despite their phony claims of sympathy. That is understandable, given how badly the PLO and Hamas have acted as guests. I was naively considering letting the Palestinians immigrate to my own land, the USA, but I have reluctantly abandoned that do-gooder idea.
How will the present war end? Like all wars; with the losers slaughtered or subjugated or exiled. Or with a negotiated peace. Exile is ruled out by Islamic hypocrisy and Palestinian leadership’s incompetence. Slaughter is too much for even a snake like Netanyahu to stomach. I hope. I may be wrong; slaughter is very Middle-Eastern. Subjugation would mean re-occupation; a step backwards for the Palestinian cause. My guess is that the outcome will be re-occupation; a complete and total failure of Hamas leadership.
As for peace, negotiating it would require other than corrupt Netanyahu and nihilist Hamas in charge. I still hope it is possible. Gaza has economic potential; it has offshore oil and gas, and a location suitable as a lucrative free port. But that would require leadership more interested in money and success than in identity and struggle.
That would be the Saudis. They have offered Israel to restart the Abrahamic Accords, conditional upon ceasefire and a path to Palestinian statehood.
But why do I bother to predict the course of anything as perverse as fanaticism and corruption? Riddle me this: how do you make God laugh? Tell Him your plans. And how do you make God guffaw? Prophesize!
Nathaniel:
So has Israel.
(cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html )
I see. They should concede every single bit of stolen Palestinian land, and become a tiny enclave subject to Israeli hegemoni, and then everything would be fine.
(Try telling that to the Ukranians, much the same thing)
I mean, you do get this is not a new conflict, right?
It did not begin on October 7 last year, it’s been happening since 1948.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567)
O Predator of Bigotry, consider this fable:
The Feline Mirror Test
Once upon a time a cat prowled past a mirror. It saw a predator in the mirror; a cat that it had never seen before. It jumped back; it arched its back; it bared its fangs and claws; it hissed; and it batted at the mirror. Startled by the hard glass, it ran away.
Elsewhere another cat strolled past another mirror. The little predator stared at its image and slowly blinked at itself. It groomed itself in front of itself. It twisted and turned to look at itself from curious angles. Then it rubbed its scent on the glass and strolled away, tail high.
And the moral of the story, O Predator of Bigotry, is:
Do as you would be done by.
Morales:
41.
Netanyahu underestimated Hamas. For this at least, his career is in jeopardy.
As for lousy deals: Little is better than nothing.
The Israelis can’t occupy past the shoreline; but the Russian expansionism to prior borders has a way to go past Ukraine. Therefore NATO is concerned, to Ukraine’s advantage.
42.
Yes, it’s been this way a long time. Nina Paley gives us this black-humor historical review:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mnet-001&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mnet¶m1=796¶m2=84469&p=nina+paley+this+land+is+mine&type=type9043493-spa-796-84469#id=1&vid=bbe8f995a76c6654adc088f79752e592&action=click
[meta]
Bad luck if a suicidal masochist practices that on you, no?
(’tis a silly moral)
[think I’m joking? Alas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes ]
Nathaniel @44, thing is, you are conceding the substance of #41 and of #42.
To your credit.
Sure, you’re explaining why and how as you understand it.
—
A tiny clarification: “The Israelis can’t occupy past the shoreline”
That is factually wrong, unless by “occupy” you mean displace populations and build settlements, as they have done in so much of formerly Palestinian territory.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Buffer_zone
Here:
“On 25 February 2013, pursuant to a November 2012 ceasefire, Israel declared a buffer zone of 100 meters on land and 6 nautical miles offshore. In the following month, the zone was changed to 300 meters and 3 nautical miles. The 1994 Gaza Jericho Agreement allows 20 nautical miles, and the 2002 Bertini Commitment allows 12 nautical miles.”
Morales 45:
“Do as you would be done by” is just the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is as much as description as a prescription. Suicidal masochists do in fact do as they would be done by. That’s instinctual with us social apes.
Call the moral silly if you wish. So were the cats. The second cat grokked human mirror wizardry, and passed the test. Not the first.
The fable, too, is a mirror.
Nathaniel:
Yah. I know. Which is why I know it’s silly.
See, people are not the same. Some people like things others don’t. Fact of life.
In case my explicit adduced example was too obscure for you, it’s silly because there exist people who want to suffer, so that were they follow that rule then inflicting suffering unto others is the thing to do.
Me, I’ve always preferred the Silver Rule.
More of a privative definition, a prescription rather than a proscription — might not increase good deeds, but it surely decreases bad ones.
Here, for you: “Do not treat others the way you would not like them to treat you.”
The supposed moral, you mean.
Is it not obvious to you that I already did that, and clearly I didn’t need your approval, never mind permission? ;)
(Horses, stable doors)
Sorry, no stupidity on my part to mirror. Obs works on you, but.
Ironically, I am following the Golden Rule right this very moment.
Treating you as I would be treated.
(How are you enjoying the experience?)
—
Again: [think I’m joking? Alas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes ]
See, the silver rule would work fine, the golden rule is fucked in those circumstances.
(Come on! Have a go. Don’t just ignore it)
—
Anyway.
Perhaps make an effort and consider the matter; after all, perhaps you might come up with an example where the Golden Rule is actually superior.
Too many people think in slogans, without considering the implications.
[bah, reversed terms during editing. ‘Nuff said]
[can’t resist belabouring]
“Suicidal masochists do in fact do as they would be done by.”
So. They torture people to death.
(You truly think this is a fact? How do you then explain my adduced Wikipedia link?)
Is the Silver Rule: do unto others as they have done unto you? I suppose that fits a mirror. How about: thou shalt do unto others as they have done unto you?
Pure golden kindness is exploitable; pure silver reciprocity can get caught in a meaningless battle. A mix of the two may work.
The second cat passed the mirror test by recognizing itself.
Nathaniel:
…
Wow.
No.
Again, but with due emphasis:
“Here, for you:
“Do not treat others the way you would not like them to treat you.”I honestly thought I’d clarified my mistake when mixing https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescriptiveness and its converse. The antonym type of thing. Editing error by trying to simplify for the less gifted.
Ah well, clearly not, which shows I am not so good at estimating clueyness. Too generous, it’s a failing of mine.
Basically, the one says “do what you like” and the other says “don’t subject others to what you don’t like”.
So, one says “do this” and the other says “don’t do that”.
(I honestly can’t think of a way to simplify that even more)
(sigh)
That’s truly fabulous. Very nice, that.
Anyway, in case you were not aware of this: I very (very!) much like to contend with people, and to argue stuff. You have pleasured me hitherto, and I very much hope you shall likewise pleasure me henceforth.
I love to argue, and so I shall not stint in my disputation with you. Golden Rule, you should be happy!
So. Again: [think I’m joking? Alas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes ]
You think people can’t notice how very hard you attempt to evade the significance of that link?
So. Be happy. Don’t worry!
For you, I will most certainly apply the Golden Rule: I shall do unto you as I wish others would do unto me.
(And, hey, the odd one here and there has tried, for varying periods. Kudos to them, though it never lasts)
Golden rule~wise I like what Linus Pauling noted here :
Source : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/602941-do-unto-others-20-better-than-you-would-expect-them
Think and be kind.
Ah, quietude. Happens a lot to me.
Fair enough.
Still, just to appease your desire (placate your desire) for people to adopt the Golden Rule, I venture this alternate take. Unless I am mistaken, and you don’t actually advocate that.\
I mean, I would not have ventured this comment, but I respect you enough to try to essay the Golden Rule.
Therefore:
That is the Iron Rule.
(Want a hyperlink, Nathaniel? I can do that, if you need it)
—
Anyway, I see you still refrain from confronting the significance of my link regarding perversity, as others see it. You know, what the Golden Rule advocates.
Have you no courage?
Do your convictions matter so little to you?
Ah well. Let it not be said of me that I did not apply the Golden Rule to you.
How does it feel to have others do unto you as they would like done unto themselves? ;)
I guess I shall never know your opinion, because that’s the vibe I’m getting.
(It’s OK, others are even more cowardly)
—
Anyway. I’ll leave it here, just noting you tacitly conceded my #41 and #42.
And, never forget, this is me adopting the Golden Rule.
(If I haven’t yet made my point, I can elaborate. Really!)
Oh dear, StevoR.
See, the Golden Rule is supposedly this:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Now, a simpleton might imagine that’s much the same as this:
“Do unto others what you would expect them to do unto you”.
It really ain’t. That’s entirely different.
Well, I am kind, by being honest.
(cruel reality, I reveal)
A bit like the response to Rawls veil of ignorance :
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance#:~:text=Philosopher%20John%20Rawls%20suggests%20that,consider%20how%20societies%20should%20operate.
Where it was suggested by someone whose name I’ve forgotten and my google-fu has failed in finding so far that instead we should always assume in that veil thought experiment that we will be the worst off in that societry and then choose and act accordingly so that even the worst off in the social contract of that society are adequately cared off and well treated?
(Yeah, I did a philosophy subject or two at uni a very, ve-ery long time ago.)
I wonder how many of the anti-philosopher repugs have ever heard of Rawls :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls
at all?
Oh and whether these puritanical wilfully ignorant douches want to ban the Classic Monty Python’s philosophers song hyperlinked here too?
Nothing like that, StevoR.
Golden Rule is what Nathaniel advocates, and its problematic nature is what I describe.
Nothing to do with either that or the Iron Rule. Or with your misapprehension.
See, that’s basically a civic guideline, as opposed to a personal guideline.
No.
(Care to try to prove my well-justified assertion wrong? Go for it; try to practice the Golden Rule for once!)
I like to do unto others what they implicitly give me licence to do unto them. So when someone so callous as to claim people getting slaughtered have no friends when they clearly do in the very comment section they are in, dismissing the support without actually interacting with it, I can utterly dismiss them and every little thing they come with. I can shove it all metaphorically back in their faces.
A kind of fellow human I would only piss out if they were in fire.That’s the limit of my basic human concern. Their text is trash, their person just black lines on a white background.
Spits
There’s only one recourse for lying bigots here. Shut the fuck up.
You can go on a out your life not calling out the bigotry or others and the genocide of others. You can do that. But when you choose to put social pressure on people trying to deal with the bigotry instead of the bigots that results in a net advantage to the bigots. So I stop being polite.
Don’t want withering criticism? Shut the fuck up and go back to your life of neglect of others
I keep coming back to that lie because the depth of it is revealing. This is a person willing to lie about the people around them, people who act as friends to Palestinians as they can and do. They know it’s not true, but they do it anyway.
How many times has their next step been to try to force the people they just lied about to defend their support instead of actually interacting with the support that is there? No.
It’s too late. I can’t trust any of their words if they have to be forced to actually describe reality as it is. They’ll have to be pressured the whole way and then you still have to deal with non-literal bullshit. “Fair wether friends”. That’s the sunny day part your brain, not something useful to another human being during a slaughter.
No politeness or assumption of honesty required here.
Nathaniel would do it to me.
Morales:
I too enjoy a good argument, if it’s done honestly. Whereas self-holy thought predators can go hiss and spit at a mirror.
About Golden, Silver, and Iron rules: these all are mentioned in the game theory of the prisoner’s dilemma, in which I am sure that our gracious host is well-versed. See Axelrod’s “The Evolution Of Cooperation” for details. There Axelrod gives the Gold Rule name to “always be nice”. He gives the Iron Rule name to “always be mean”. And he gives the Silver Rule name to “always reciprocate previous play”. He finds that a combination of Gold and Silver tends to do best in dilemma-game tournaments. “Tit-for-Tat”: First play default to nice, and reciprocate from then on.
“Do as you’d be done by” and “Don’t do as you wouldn’t be done by” are positive and negative versions of the Golden Rule. The first was enunciated by Jesus, the second by his contemporary Hillel. In terms of logic they are equivalent, but they feel different. The first sounds like a do-gooding tree-hugger hippy; the second sounds like a dour standoffish libertarian.
The Silver Rule, “do unto others as they have done unto you” is how societies define themselves. It’s mimesis for we, the sheeple. Mock such conformity if you wish, but it thrives for good reason, if seasoned with a little golden-rule, positive or negative. But Iron plus Silver just leads to endless incrimination.
I’ve heard the Iron Rule snarkily stated as “do unto others, then split”.
The ‘tastes differ’ objection to positive or negative golden rules has merit. Therefore the golden rule requires insight and empathy for correct application. Linus Pauling’s “add 20%” addendum to the rule scientifically corrects for error. It’s like a variant of Tit-for-Tat: Tit-for-two-Tats, which retaliates meanly if the other player is mean two times in a row. This adds extra gold to silver, as a merciful guardrail against random recrimination.
As for your Mieves objection to the golden rule: yuck! It’s a combination of assisted suicide, insanity, and cannibalism. Taking these separately:
Cannibalism is neither halal, kosher, nor sanitary. It spreads kuru and other diseases. So the government forbids it for good reason.
Insanity does indeed mess up social arrangements. That’s not an argument against those arrangements; it’s a critique of insanity. Suicide is bad for everyone around the suicide. Fanaticism is evil because it exploits the suicidal impulses of others for its own non-suicidal gain.
But as for assisted suicide, now that’s a tough problem. Give the cancer patient a morphine overdose, if the patient demands one? I don’t want to have to make that choice. And to that add the silver rule. Shall the humane killer be humanely killed? What happened to Mieves?
You’re still missing the point.
Neither he nor Bernd Brandes practiced the Golden Rule, rather they each did as they wished to do.
Trouble with these “rules” is they try to over-generalise and be universal.
(Cats don’t have such problems, but they are indeed predators)
The trouble with DEI is that it’s identity politics, and identity is mostly an imposed illusion.
First, please give us an exact definition of “identity politics,” and explain why it’s bad. And second, what “illusion” are you talking about? People being treated differently because of who they are, or who/what they’re perceived to be, is certainly not an “illusion.”
You don’t send the government an identity card; the government sends you an identity card.
Actually, neither of those things happen in real life. Governments issue ID cards, but they don’t define anyone’s “identity.”
Identity politics is attachment to illusion, which causes suffering.
Again, which “illusion” are you talking about?
It is inherently divisive and unjust.
How so? Without a definition of your terms, your assertions are vacuous.
Note that the biggest, loudest, best-connected, and best-armed identity-politics faction is the white supremacists.
They’re not practicing “identity politics,” they’re engaging in unjust and often very violent discriminatory actions against other groups of people they don’t like. And the people they target are the ones being accused of “identity politics” — by ignorant assholes like you — when they try to fight back and get any sort of remedy for those injustices. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about, and when you explicitly compare ALL “identity politics” to violent white racists, you come off as a victim-basher as well.
DEI and related leftist miscalculations are all about racism and sexism, but they do not mention classism. That’s because DEI (and related strategic errors) is funded by the owning class. It is corporate, top-down, and legalistic.
Pure vague gibberish.
Far more liberatory than identity politics is unity politics.
Please define “unity politics.”
I too enjoy a good argument, if it’s done honestly.
Go ahead, Nate, you can start being honest anytime you want.
Whereas self-holy thought predators…
WTF is a “thought predator?” Someone who preys on you in his thoughts? Someone who pounces on you and eats your thoughts?
Sorry, I need to re-word a paragraph in my comment #65 to read as follows:
“Actually, neither of those things happen in real life. Governments issue ID cards, but that’s not where ‘identity politics’ comes from.”
A thought has to become a behavior that harms others before I try to prey on it. Nathaniel’s awful thoughts are quite safe while in their head. If one comes out an affects others things may be different.
I have no problem preying on the lie that Palestine has no friends in a comment section with people who are friends as they can be. Lie about me and others and I’ll prey on it. Of course I want such lies to go away. Thoughts in general are safe.
Weird, people are unifying based on identity to pursue common politics.
Brony: Actually, Nathaniel’s thoughts aren’t just in his head, they’re part of what passes for public discourse in the USA, and have been for decades. Nate’s just repeating old blither-points, and not even sounding convinced, let alone convincing. So prey away, dude, ‘cuz that shit needs to be pounced on every chance we get.
No, he can’t start being honest any time.
He can’t ever be honest.
Nathaniel Hellerstein is a lying troll.
Identity politics are everywhere in the USA and always have been.
The GOP doesn’t play identity politics. They are all identity politics all the time.
They are racists who represent the white majority that sees its majority and dominance of the USA fading along with their fall in the percent of the US population.
This is a lie.
DEI is a bottom up mass movement by the groups that have been discriminated against by the white majority ruling class for as long as the US has existed. That would be nonwhites, women, nonxians, LGBTQIT, etc..
It is sometimes supported by the ruling classes because a Diverse, Equity, and Inclusive society is in their interest.
There is nothing either new or wrong with DEI. It is in fact, part of the current laws in the USA. We are a Diverse society with laws against discrimination based on race, religion, and sex among others. Some of those laws date back and are in the US constitution.
@Raging Bee
That is true.
But I have to outline it in simple terms for Nathaniel since they’re used to pressuring other people and misrepresenting them as political behavior. They’re already a social predator. There’s no other way I can see a lie like that so I’ll grab my own predatory behavior in return and pressure them.
I wonder how much is corporate culture and how much is other things? I don’t have a read on the kind of misogyny directed at Gay, just that Nathaniel doesn’t give a fuck about it and prefers others to shut up about it.
Thoughts become behavior. I wanted to emphasize predation in social behavior as a concept anyway. I’m thinking about that part of the amygdala.
Identity politics have always been central in the USA.
The ancient inhabitants of North America were Asiatic derived Indians.
The successful invaders were all white Europeans.
The white Europeans won.
The Civil War was all about identity politics after all.
The Black people were defined in the Constitution as 3/5s of a white person for census purposes.
The slaves were all Black.
Black people had all sorts of discriminatory laws directed at them such as the fugitive slave law and free Black people couldn’t vote in most states most of the time.
Trying to pretend that Identity Politics don’t exist is delusional and extremely dishonest.
The best you can do is try to channel them into positive outcomes for all the groups in our society.
As a white person (actually I’m pinkish tan but whatever), I don’t benefit from oppressing the Black, Latino, Asian, etc.. people in our society.
By attempting to oppress other groups, you change coexistence into conflict.
Identity Politics are everywhere in the USA and always have been.
It is all the GOP has these days.
Their last major attack, last year and this year was…Trans people. The cis hets of the GOP passed dozens of laws to try and erase Trans people. Mainly because they are a very small minority at 0.6% of the population and unable to fight back very well.
Their perennial targets are the usual. Nonwhites, nonxians, gays, women, children, Scientists. During the pandemic, they added health care workers to their To Hate lists.
Here is one article stating the obvious that we all live with every single day.
All you can do is try to channel Identity Politics into positive directions.
That is what DEI is all about.
And, if you are on the GOP/fundie xian To Hate list, defend yourself any way you can.
More from that article I just posted.
It is from those commies at abc news.
It is a long article so I just posted a few paragraphs.
The link is there for anyone to read.
It makes the point that DEI isn’t a problem.
It is the solution to a problem.
It is also more or less part of the current laws in the USA.
Raging Bee 66:
“Self-holy thought predator” referred to a poster on this thread, self-identified as “predatory with bigotry here.” That phrase is unconsciously ambiguous. Preying on bigotry or by means of it? Certainly the predator-with-bigotry makes a lot of passionate, hasty, lasting and over-wrought pre-judgements. That saves time; but pre-judgement = prejudice.
As for what identity politics is, and why it’s the oligarchy’s best friend, that’s a long discussion. Ultimately it’s tribalism, which is instinctual in our species. However we also have universalistic instincts, so civilization is possible. Tribalism in moderation has its virtues, as a bulwark against isolation and centralized tyranny; but excessive tribal division is a classic tool of oligarchy to set poor against poor.
By ‘universality’ politics I mean all-for-one-and-one-for-all; which happens when a nation with functional politics meets a common threat. Wars, for instance. I’d love to add ‘plagues’, but unfortunately it turned out that this nation has a large faction, called ‘anti-vax’ but in practice pro-virus. (To our gracious host’s disgust.)
Truly 100% universal politics is rare, mostly because unity solves the problems too quickly for institutions to form. However some politics reach close to 100%. During the “Occupy Wall Street” protests, a construction worker was photographed holding a sign reading “99 to 1, I like those odds.” Me too. Why didn’t we go that route?
The illusory nature of identity is preached at length in Buddhism. Christianity agrees, in Galatians 3:28. (That’s as woke a verse as ever did exist.) Other religious and philosophical traditions concur.
Wow, this thread goes on and on. Bringing up Israel/Palestine tends to do that to a comments thread: extends its life past its natural bounds, like what the One Ring did to Smeagol.
This post returns to a root of this thread: namely Claudine Gay’s incompetent testimony. When asked if calling for genocide is within Harvard’s code of conduct, she gave a robotic ‘it depends on context’ non-answer. She did so because she and Stefanik agreed that “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free” is a call for genocide.
But now that snake Netanyahu (who’s as crooked as a corkscrew and might have been in jail by now if Hamas hadn’t rescued him) has also spoken the words “from the river to the sea”, only with “Palestine” replaced by “Israel”. Those are nearly the same words, so they mean about the same thing, unless you have a problem with hearing or prejudice. So Netanyahu and Hamas agree; but on what?
I think that Gay and Stefanik are both wrong: what the slogan calls for isn’t genocide, it’s ethnic cleansing. That’s a lesser crime against humanity.
So Gay threw away her presidency without need. It was an unforced error. It’s true that, as a black woman she had to outdo any white man. Fortunately that isn’t difficult. Unfortunately she didn’t reach that low bar.
I think that Gay’s mistake was being soft on being obnoxious about other nation’s crimes and wars. Harvard students and faculty have often spoken up about this nation’s crimes and wars; sometimes against them, and sometimes for them. But traditionally, Harvard is not in the business of meddling loudly in other nations. American tradition demands that any meddling be done quietly, after a student graduates from Harvard, and joins the CIA.
Nathaniel, you do amuse.
Heh. “Buddhism”?
That’s not a thing — it is many things ranging from theistic to atheistic, from spiritual to secular.
Lots of schools, some still here, some gone.
So, yeah — the illusory nature of Buddhism is apparent.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFzIKKIC0I)
“Christianity” is even more fragmented and stupid than Buddhism.
(Also, you clearly don’t understand the concept of “woke”)
<smirk>
I’ll spare you my thoughts about religious and philosophical traditions, but be aware this is an atheistic blog.
Basically, you are saying shitty ideas are a thing; can’t dispute that, but why would you endorse them?
(How are you liking the Golden Rule being applied? I am happy to oblige, it is fun)
Aww,
You are funny. So, you contend that Harvard meddles; it is a meddling institution, traditionally.
(I thought it was a profit-seeking institution, as is the true tradition in America — by which I mean the USA, just as you do. But then, there is no such thing as identity, which is an illusion, so obs “American” can’t be an identity)
—
Quick question: how many countries are there in America? ;)
One more, because GR:
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
I’ll spare you my opinion regarding how to outdo any white man is not that difficult, but be aware you are intimating she is a failure as a Black woman. Not that I’m personally insulted by that slight, but I do notice.
As for what identity politics is, and why it’s the oligarchy’s best friend, that’s a long discussion…
To which your apparent inability to define your terms adds nothing.
Ultimately it’s tribalism…
WRONG. Most of the things currently being condemned as “identity politics” are specific policies/practices aimed at correcting or compensating for certain injustices or unjust circumstances suffered by certain groups of people. While it may make sense to criticize such policies on their specific merits, it is flat-out dishonest cowardly gaslighting to slap a nondescriptive label on all of them and then pretend they’re all “divisive” or “tribalism” based on that label alone. Your fake outrage about “identity politics” is nothing bug gaslighting bullshit, and we’ve heard it all before.
Oops, correction: “…nothing BUT gaslighting bullshit, and we’ve heard it all before.” Sorry.
Tribalism in moderation has its virtues, as a bulwark against isolation and centralized tyranny…
So now you’re admitting that what you call “identity politics” isn’t always bad. And having admitted that, maybe you should also admit that the label you’re using is a gross over-generalization that does more harm than good to honest public debate.
Gossiped about by Nathaniel who gossips about professional women and Palestinians. It fits.
Raging Bee:
Tribalism has political benefits if believed in moderation, even though it’s delusive. Likewise, alcohol has psychological benefits if consumed in moderation, even though it’s toxic. People are complicated. But if someone approaches you, reeking with identity and like a brewery, then it’s best to skeptical about what they say.
Morales:
Well yes, she did fail. She’s no longer President of Harvard. In her place I nominate Dr. Carole Swain, whom she plagiarized.
You say that the Golden Rule is stupid and Buddhism is non-existent. Obviously you are a very clever edge-lord, so dark-bright and half-wise that a Zen Master would agree with you. He would say, “Of course Buddhism doesn’t exist! Nor do I, or you, or this stick in my hand!” Then he’d whack you hard with that stick, and when you object, he’d ask “Who is complaining? And about what?”
Some parts of Buddhism are as atheistic as you are. But that is not the same atheism as mine, or our gracious host’s. You and Buddhism are athe-istic; he and I are a-theistic. Athe-ism is the positive assertion (-ism) that there is no god (athe-). A-theism is the negative doubt (a-) in the belief that there is any god (-theism). The former is religious faith, the latter is philosophical doubt. I prefer to refer to these two very different things by two different words; atheism for you and Buddhism, agnosticism for me and our gracious host. It’s a matter of semantics.
To the tune of “Both Sides Now”:
The primal cause, the cosmic mind
Whom seekers seek and finders find
Supremely strong and wise and kind
I’ve looked at God that way
But now he’s just another lie
That profits when fanatics die
And don’t you bother asking why
He’s just what people say
I’ve looked at God from both sides now
As math and myth, yet still somehow
It’s God’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know God at all.
So…first you compare “tribalism” to alcohol consumption, then you call atheism a “religious faith.” It’s perfectly obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about, and are spouting vague useless over-generalizations and tired old word-games as a substitute for actual understanding of real-world events — just like too many other phony-ass reactionary trolls I’ve been hearing from since about 2003.
If you ask any tribe (ethnic, racial, national, religious, political, ideological, etc.) about any other tribe, then they will insist that those other tribes are drunk on their tribalism. And all of them are right, about each other.
As for atheism, that’s an ambiguous word. Partly it means a positive religious belief in no-god, as some sects of Buddhism preach; but partly it means a negative philosophical skepticism about any god, as our host teaches. I prefer to separate those into ‘atheism’ and ‘agnosticism’. It’s a matter of semantics.
As for atheism, that’s an ambiguous word. Partly it means a positive religious belief in no-god…
Bullshit. Atheism is nothing more than the DISMISSAL (for lack of evidence among other reasons) of positive claims of the existence of any gods. That’s not a “positive” belief or claim, just like “there’s no evidence of a giant teapot orbiting Mars” is not a “positive” claim. Your word-game is just another PRATT we’ve all heard before.
That’s the philosophical definition: non-belief in gods. That is distinct from the religious definition: belief in no-gods. Every religion is religiously atheistic about all other religion’s gods.
Nathaniel:
You wrote “as a black woman she had to outdo any white man [and she failed at that]”.
Different thing, failing as President and failing as a Black woman, and it was the latter I quoted, but the former you now use to retort. Tsk.
(I’m not attributing malicious intent to you for writing that, I’m clarifying what you actually wrote)
You do like to paraphrase improperly, apparently. I said it was silly. What would be stupid is to apply it without restraint — I mean, I would not want to meet someone who wants their penis chomped and decided to do unto me by his predilection. Would you?
Nor would some grieving granny (to use a trite example) weeping over the death of her grandson be comforted by me telling her there is no Hell nor Heaven, and that he’s just dead.
And it is you who claimed “The illusory nature of identity is preached at length in Buddhism”, and Buddhism (being a belief) can only be part of someone’s supposedly illusory identity (that’s the claim at hand).
After all, Buddhism is not a thing that exists by itself, is it?
Obviously that would not be much of a Zen master, since (are they always a ‘he’?) he would be the one who claimed neither he nor I exist; accordingly, he should instead whack himself and I would of course not object. I suppose he could whack Buddhism, if he could find it.
Yes, I know. I wrote as much.
Wow, that is such a tortured bit of bullshit reasoning!
I mean, for starters, the semantics of the word are the same, it being the same word.
Your ad hoc folk-etymology “there is no god (athe-)” is just a bit of warm bullshit; there is only atheism, which yes is the privative-a and theism — that is, not a theist. Or goddist, as I call it, because the transliterated English term lacks the shine of generations of calling goddists theists and thus its mystique to the average speaker.
And of course there are no gods, but that depends on how a god is defined.
I mean, if one holds beetles are gods, then gods do exist. That’s where the semantics would come in.
The Abrahamic (monotheistic, omni-this omni-that) god clearly does not (and can not) exist since its supposed attributes are incoherent. And holding that belief is plain old rationality, not religion.
Now, agnosticism is the weak person’s nod to not being an actual worshipping type of goddist, but since atheism just means not indulging in theism, they too are atheists. It’s quite the cowardly stance.
Look: either you do believe in a god, or you do not. Prevaricating by claiming that maybe such a thing actually exists or maybe it doesn’t, but you are open to believeing it exists if only sufficient proof is adduced is a type of intellectual cowardice, to which you admit. I know you mean well, but it’s a bit insulting to attribute that particular weakness to PZ. He’s pretty staunch in his disbelief, no less than I.
Not a tune with which I am familiar, so wasted effort.
But your doggerel is mildly amusing, and rather revealing.
For example, it presumes God exists and the capitalisation makes it clear your concept of god is monotheist.
Also, evidently ignorant:
Here, for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith
(Things like Omnism and pantheism aren’t specific religions, but same type of thing)
Morales:
Ah, youngling, your education is incomplete. Let me help.
Both Sides Now, Judy Collins cover:
A brave and wise song. First she confesses her doubts about clouds, then about love, then about life. That escalated quickly. But somehow she’s triumphant.
Good catch about the Bahai’s. They are exceptional. So almost all religions are religiously atheistic about all other religion’s gods.
A non-goddist is one who does not believe in a god. A no-goddist is one who believes in no-god. It’s a subtle difference, but it matters. It depends on if the a- applies to theo or to ism.
It’s like “anti-voter fraud group”. Is that an “anti-voter-fraud group”, a group that’s against voter fraud, or is it an “anti-voter fraud-group”, a fraud group that’s against voters?
Or consider “anti-sex harassment force”. Is that an “anti-sex-harassment force”, a force that’s against sex harassment, or an “anti-sex harassment-force”, an harassment force that’s against sex?
Where the second dash goes matters. Likewise for what the a- is denying.
Nathaniel, repeating yourself is pointless. You are still bullshitting.
Nah. Playing around with nomenclature does not change the semantics.
Pigs with lipstick are still pigs.
The relevant consideration is whether a no-goddist (to use your term) believes in a god?.
Because if not, they are a non-goddist. And if yes, they are a goddist.
So it’s an irrelevance to the category under consideration.
Or, to belabour the point, is the no-god that someone supposedly believes in a god or not?
(There is no such third category as agnosticism in relation to that, as I noted above, that’s just a cowardly evasion)
Wow.
Nope, again. You might think it does, but it really doesn’t.
That’s just something you made up.
It’s a privative-a, and there are no dashes.
I’ve never encountered anyone who writes ‘athe-ist’ other than you, or tries to make some sort of bullshit distinction between that term and ‘atheist’.
It’s not a thing, and since it’s kinda silly, it ain’t gonna become one.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_privative
Again: atheist is nothing other than not a theist. That’s it.
There are other borrowed ways of expressing that in English, such as non- or in- or i-, etc.
And, of course, one can be both an atheist and a religious person and a spiritual person.
One can be an atheist and believe in anima and in spirits and ghosties and ghoulies and in reincarnation and in souls and all that sort of woo. Or a no-god, whatever that may be in your ontology.
But one definitionally can’t be an atheist and believe in a god. That’s to what the term refers.
(Mind you, in another thread I just adduced a Pew Research article about the not-insignificant portion of USA respondents who consider themselves atheists and believe in god, which is very very ignorant of them but expected)
—
Oh, right the song. It’s fine, schmaltzy but cute. A product of its time. Very nice. Good singer.
(Obs, once I determined what it was, I didn’t bother to finish with it. Not my style)
It’s a subtle difference, but it matters.
Only to religious apologists trying to shift all burden of proof away from themselves.
Where the second dash goes matters. Likewise for what the a- is denying.
The words “atheist” and “atheism” in common usage have no hyphen at all anywhere. That’s just you and other wankers trying to pretend you understand something you clearly don’t.
Really, Nate? You’re falling back on calling someone a “youngling” AFTER he’s refuted your bullshit? I don’t know how old John is (70% certain he’s not a “youngling” though), but I’m over 60 and it’s perfectly obvious to me that, in this argument at least, John knows what he’s talking about and you don’t. Are you a Christian apologist? ‘Cuz talking down to people and pretending all atheists are just immature children is something Christian apologists routinely do — often AFTER said atheists have debunked their apologist rubbish.
Also, “Alpha_privative?” That sounds like a rank in a wolf-pack hierarchy. Like, maybe an “alpha dog” who also happens to be shy or an introvert?
RB, since this thread is rotting and only the worms are active, might as well smile along with you.
Yeah, I always knew it as the ‘privative a”, but that’s where Wikipedia landed after a redirect.
Also, totally off topic of course, but regarding the “alpha male” thingy,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-alpha-wolf-idea-a-myth/
Of course, we monkeys have many varieties, and we are the homos — part of the ape family; whether or not misunderstood, trying to applying wolf dynamics to humans is about as useful as applying lobster dynamics.
—
FWIW, I was born in Madrid, Spain in 1960.
BTW, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that “youngling” quip was not attempted as an insult — it was a peer-to-peer joke, friendly enough in intent, and quite appropriate to the comment.
Yes, a touch snarky, a touch baited, but it’s just proper form.
I do it myself, I can hardly complain when others do it to me.
(Probably a rule about that)
It fits because of the Zen reference, which itself follows from the parable, and thus establishes his adopted posture as Socratic.
Not in a serious manner, and not really condescending since it’s obvious what’s going on.
Ah well, one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, so:
It is evident to me that Nathaniel is most certainly not a Christian apologist; I flatter myself that would be able to tell by now were it so. And I also think he’s a genuine commenter, though perhaps not entirely open about his beliefs. Which is fine by me, I just contend with contentions, this business of addressing the person is only incidental.
In fact, I respect his attitude towards commenting, and how he copes with my disputation.
(Not everyone can manage to keep their cool when doing that)