Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[Simulist]

Throw the question open - do you see no difference in what is happening to each of these people Atzmon and Finklestein?

If Finkelstein had made outrageous, hateful remarks as Atzmon has ("I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act," for one example...), I would condemn him, too.

[Searcher08]

Willow, I appreciate what you said.

To me, there is a large amount of conflict, name calling, insensitivity, lack of communication, mind games, ignored logic, logical fails, miscommunication, power play, sneering, bafflement, diversions, humour, WTF?, enlightenment, intentional hurt, unintentional hurt, incomprehension, blind spots , lack of reflection, entitlement, aggression, courtesy, inspiration, unveiling and hiding in this thread.

But we are still going.... reminds me of this old song

[slimmouse]

Throw the question open - do you see no difference in what is happening to each of these people Atzmon and Finklestein?

If Finkelstein had made outrageous, hateful remarks as Atzmon has ("I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act," for one example...), I would condemn him, too.

Well, I would say its wrong simulist.

But in a world where the label is king, why is this not a rational question ? Atzmon clearly neither agrees nor disagrees with the pretext. Id love to read more about the context given that were defining terms within this world of labels. I strongly suspect that his definition of this as a "rational act" has been hidden from us in your quote. Or am I being facetious ?

Can you expand ?

[Simulist]

Or maybe you can expand on when you think it might be appropriate to "burn down a synagogue." Or when you think that might be a "rational act."

Because I really can't think of one.

[slimmouse]

Or maybe you can expand on when you think it might be appropriate to "burn down a synagogue." Or when you think that might be a "rational act."

Because I really can't think of one.

Oh I dont know. Maybe because hes a "so and so" and Im a So and so", and maybe because the burning down of the synagogue had something to do with the destruction of a mosque or a village or whatever.

Like I said, the context is important , given that we're talking about humans who have been forever preconditioned by the importance to them of their label.

PS , since im getting no response from AD, perhaps you can explain the fundamental thinking behind the ongoing expulsion and of the Palestinians from their lands. Labels have anything to do with it ?

[Simulist]

I can think of NO CONTEXT where that would be an appropriate remark.

[Searcher08]

Or maybe you can expand on when you think it might be appropriate to "burn down a synagogue." Or when you think that might be a "rational act."

Because I really can't think of one.

Let's up the ante.

If I said
"I can see it is a rational act for a Provo to pack a bomb full of nails and place it in a Belfast cafe and maim dozens of people" does this imply personally I support it?
"If I can see it is a rational act to bulldoze Palestinian homes and go in and shoot kids" does it mean I personally support it?

Absolutely profoundly certainly completely NO.

I am saying these are action consistent with a 'map of the world' that person is acting from. It is not some 'madness', it doesn't occur in isolation. It would have been done by a person in a context. It is an action that makes sense in terms of what they perceive as actions are open to them, they believe, feel they are capable of, their identity.

I prefer the expression 'logic bubble' - the idea is that a person always takes action within the 'bubble of perceptions' that surround them and make sense to them.

[slimmouse]

I can think of NO CONTEXT where that would be an appropriate remark.

Well being an ordinary emotional human being, I can think of a few. A failing of my own human-ness I suppose.

Funnily enough last night, I had some money stolen from me. I said that if they tried it again, Id kill them. Horrible reaction, but there you go. Im human I guess. Just probing around the idea of superhuman and not doing too well at it right now.

And my other question ?

[Simulist]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.

And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.

That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

[Simulist]

I can think of NO CONTEXT where that would be an appropriate remark.

Well being an ordinary emotional human being, I can think of a few. A failing of my own human-ness I suppose.

Funnily enough last night, I had some money stolen from me. I said that if they tried it again, Id kill them. Horrible reaction, but there you go. Im human I guess. Just probing around the idea of superhuman and not doing too well at it right now.

And my other question ?

Most people — after they've said hateful things — are horrified.

And they try not to have repeat performances.

[Searcher08]

I can think of NO CONTEXT where that would be an appropriate remark.

From this I am hearing you say that no matter what situation YOU would be in, these would never be actions YOU would undertake? Likewise myself.
My reading of what was said is that for the Provo, Arsonist, Israeli soldier, it isn't whether the act is rational from OUR framework, but from WITHIN THEIRS. Which is why is is vital to unpack and understand mental models.

Like in the film there was a really switched on, obviously very smart guy that Finkelstein debated. I thought he was really fun AND really scary. Rather than rail against what he was doing, it left me wanting to understand him, the film made me want to question and understand where he was coming from. NOT because I agreed with what he said, if that makes sense...

[Simulist]

I can think of NO CONTEXT where that would be an appropriate remark.

From this I am hearing you say that no matter what situation YOU would be in, these would never be actions YOU would undertake? Likewise myself.
My reading of what was said is that for the Provo, Arsonist, Israeli soldier, it isn't whether the act is rational from OUR framework, but from WITHIN THEIRS. Which is why is is vital to unpack and understand mental models.

No. The notion of burning down a synagogue is not a rational act — in ANY framework. It's hateful. I don't need to try to be "understanding" of such hateful and stupid remarks — I need to oppose them, simply that.

And the fact that Aztmon's supporters seem less inclined to do just that — going so far as even to defend him for such ludicrous spewings forth — marginalizes them.

[Project Willow]

While it's perfectly valid, even necessary, to proclaim, rather forcefully, when someone's views are unacceptable, abhorrent even, where were those proclamations 5, 6 years ago? Am I missing something?

It feels rather like people are trying to destroy what little sense of community is left on this board, with a helping of distrust and projection, coming from all sides.

I lost patience and made one obviously out-of-bounds post. And I'm not seeking to minimize or excuse that, at all. So please feel free to read me out for it to whatever degree you think is merited, if you want. But if you've seen any other instances of unfair fighting on my part, I'd be much, much more grateful to you for condemning (or whatever) them.

I want to know about them, if there are any. In short.

I have no interest whatsoever in combing through 1000's of entries in order to call out individual instances, so consider this a formal retraction of everything I said above, as it's just more sniping and unhelpful to a process that's already a sinkhole.

Forgive me, I lost patience.

Forget I posted. Carry on.

[Searcher08]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.

And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.

That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

Not sure if that was for me^^ - if it was, I meant to be clear that outside this thread Atzmon and Finkelstein ARE being treated with entirely similar accusations and behaviours and processes.

I found the film was really moving BTW. I was left thinking who is speaking up for HIM?

[barracuda]

Because for you and Cuda to claim Atzmon has freedom of speech, is like the guy in the Finklestein doc who said "Finklestein has freedom of speech - look at all the books he's published!"

I have never made such a claim. What I've said is that I believe his right of free speech does not exceed the right of others to speak against him or to not listen to him at all.

The JDO are seen as far right thugs, but Greenstein gets a free pass?

Seriously, we've gone so far into la-la land that gun-toting militant zionist radicals are being equated with Tony Greenstein? From what I've read, Greenstein's opinions on Israel are, at bottom, quite similar to Atzmon's, the main difference being that he hates Atzmon, a feeling Atzmon reciprocates. It's almost a personal beef. Whereas the JDO would just as soon shoot either one of them as look at them. The JDO doesn't do nuance.