me: >>As far as I can tell, [David Shemano] interpret[s] people as being crybabies if they either
>>1) disagree with your opinions (or, alternatively, with only your opinions on Israel), or >> 2) follow deviation from from the official Party Line on Israel by actually daring to defend themselves against the shit-storm of criticism that such deviance evokes -- rather than surrendering to the Alan Dershowitzes of the world.<< David Shemano wrote: > Absolutely not. The crybabies are people like Carter and Mearsheimer and > Walt who complain how you can't criticize Israel in the United States, but > are really complaining that you can't criticize Israel in the US without > receiving criticism back. I am making a very specific point, so don't > misinterpet it. < Any politician (Carter) or full-time academic (M&W) has to be ready for "criticism." I think those people were -- but received much more, i.e., mass boycotts, efforts to keep them off the air and off the page, etc. Of course, facts are always subject to interpretation. But I don't think these people received mere "criticism." DS: > I will give you one example. Here is the NY Times article on the controversy of Mearsheimer and Walt's book tour: ... If you read the article, what was the controversy? Some Jewish organizations refused to invite the authors to pitch the books or worse, insisted that the presentations be balanced by an opposing view. Crybabies....< My understanding was that there was much more that. Given the response to Finkelstein, Chomsky, Kovel, and others over the years, I believe I am accurate in my representation of what Carter and M&W received as a "shit-storm." (Look, for example, at the shit that Finkelstein received from Dershowitz, partly with the University of California's help.) Even I have been on the receiving end of this storm: some otherwise rational people have assumed that my criticism of Israel involves equating Israel with Nazi Germany. me: >>How do you know what's reasonable for me to assume? You may share the so-called "libertarian" opinions on Thalidomide sketched above, but it is wrong for me to assume that you do.<< > No, it would not be wrong to do so. [which means "it would be right to do > so"?] If I were to accept the libertarian label, it would be reasonable for > you to make judgments and assumptions. You are a Lefty. Is it unreasonable > for me to assume that you think Fidel Casto is more admirable than George > Bush? < My point is that _any_ mental category has exceptions. Any political category involves variety. For example, some lefties, such as those in the International Socialist Organization, hate Castro. They equate people like Castro to those like Bush, seeing _both_ of them as leading capitalist countries. Even though I reject this view, the ISO folks are still "lefties" (as far as I'm concerned) because they are highly critical of capitalism, support labor's struggles against capitalism, etc. Of course, the issue of "where do you draw the line?" comes up. (Other lefties, who shall remain nameless, might say that the ISO does not consist of lefties.) In the real world, where reality is much messier than in our theories, we always face such questions. DS:> That health-care should be guaranteed by the government and/or provided through a single-payer system? Give me enough time, I could make dozens of predictions about your views and be right on just about every one. And you could probably do the same about me. We both have quirks, but on balance, we would both be pretty accurate about the other.< Sure, but this kind of "on average"/statistical thinking is not conducive to a serious conversation between intellectuals or other people wanting to be at least half-intelligent. For example, someone might apply this kind of "on average"/statistical thinking to jump to the _false_ conclusion that just because someone thinks that Israel represents one of the worst kinds of ethnic nationalism on earth, he thinks that Israel = Nazi Germany. After all, based on "on average"/statistical study, a lot of lefties seem to make this equation (in the researcher's opinion, based on his political assumptions). Of course, that involves more than "on average"/statistical thinking thinking. It also reflects the dominant cultural stereotypes in the US these days. It seems that "we all know" that anti-Zionism is merely a shoddy cover for anti-Semitism. That "we all know" assumption infiltrates its way into all sorts of otherwise reasonable individuals' heads. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
