In response to Jim Devine: You really seem insulted simply because I read your post to make an Israel-Germany comparison. You also seem to think my interpretation was not simply wrong, but irrational. You appear to reach that conclusion because you believe a reader should never make any assumptions about the author's intention, even though the assumption may be statistically sensible. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [email protected] From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 9/12/2007 3:43PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ethnic nationalism >> 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. >> >> >>
