"We've" established no such thing. I've established your reading and comprehension difficulties given the dogshit statement below: — Maw

Does it ever get lonely up there on your pedestal?

That's exactly correct, if I sound like a miserable person it's because I interact with dogshit illiterates, such as yourself, who filter videos of Jews cheering death and destruction after rockets murdered several dozen Palestinians and nearly a dozen children into braindead commentary like: — Maw

We've established it was a misunderstanding. Most people recognize this and move on.

"Dogshit illiterates" aren't to blame either for why you're miserable. You are to blame for why you are miserable. Nobody is forcing you to react in the way that you're reacting. The recovery process begins when you acknowledge this.

Tbh, and this goes beyond philosophy and I'm not trying to be intentionally mean, but you just sound like an honestly miserable person. I've had disagreement with others but I don't get the same sense of vicious bitterness through their writing like I get through yours. Have you considered therapy or medication? I feel zero reason to engage with you if you're going to write like this.

Unless the irony is lost on me, you're playing the racist card I see. That doublespeak is mighty MAGA/QAnon of you, BC. — 180 Proof

You misunderstand me, I am playing the 'both claims have about the same level of absurdity' card.

Don't really know what kind of glue you're sniffing in order to interpret things this way, but it must be pretty strong. — Maw

The reason I responded that way was because you said you felt a tinge of self-disgust when other Jews were acting poorly. I just didn't understand why you felt self-disgust.

Help me win better. I don't follow - I don't understand - your comment. My bad. can you make it clearer? — tim wood

Oh I was just saying his point was so stupid you probably shouldn't even engage it.

Alright then, in any case I think we're both on the same page that people do shitty things then. I'm not going to justify everything that Israeli Jews do.

The apartheid colonialist State of Israel has demonstrated in the last few decades that the ineluctable lesson of history is that people more often than not refuse to learn from – not merely "forget" – their history. To wit: Nazis + "Lebensraum" —> genocide; Zionists + "Promised Land" —> ethnic cleansing. :eyes:
— 180 Proof
Breathe, 180, breathe. That's so far from being a parallel that you even first of all must see it. And with that there's naught else to say. — tim wood

Tim, you "win" by not responding to this. Yes, Zionists + Promise land = ethnic cleansing is true in just the same way that BLM + Police reform = White genocide.

You win by not responding.

Yeah nothing upsetting about Jews waving the Israeli flag, dancing and cheering as a fire breaks out near the third holiest site for Muslims. — Maw

Yeah that does sound kinda shitty. Guess there's shitty people everywhere.

I don't feel any self-disgust though and I don't see why I would. If every time a Jew did something bad it caused me to feel self-disgust I'd just permanently be in a state of grossness.

I'm a pro-Palestine American Jew, and having been conditioned, if not demanded, to support Israel for 30 years, it's hard not to feel a tinge of self-disgust watching Jews dancing and cheering at the Western Wall, waving the Magen David. — Maw

What is upsetting about Jews parading around with the Israeli flag? I get that it can be provocative to Palestinians, but what exactly is wrong with it? I understand that there's far right Jewish Israelis who support a "greater Israel" but I don't think this is what most Jews support. As an American Jew, most of my experience within Jewish communities has indicated to me that most Jews support a two state solution and just want peace.

has lead to the end result of Jewish self-hatred from Jews who support the right of Palestinians. — Maw

I do know a few Jews who are openly pro-Palestinian and while these Jews will likely be ostracized from religious communities if they are vocal in their beliefs, I haven't seen any pro-Palestinian Jews hate their own Jewishness as a result of their position, but I guess it exists on some level.

If you're a Jew who wants to immediately dismantle the state of Israel then you are advocating for a very serious security issue for millions of Jews so you deserve to be ostracized. If you're advocating for a two state solution then you're just a mainstream Jew and religious communities will have no problem with you.

I'm here to discuss the murder of flesh and blood children by an apartheid state. — StreetlightX

Great, and I'm here to discuss the flesh and blood murder of Jews who have not faced this type of hate since Nazi Germany.

Glad we could partake in this productive conversation.

What matters is what counts as such deliberate murder. That's why it's difficult for us to converse.

The difference is that I will not search high and low to come up with excuses for the among the world's most sophisticated military for it's war crimes and deliberate murder of children, while it does everything it can to exacerbate resentment among its subject population. — StreetlightX

Do you see a moral difference between:

a) Firing rockets targeting aggressors who have already fired rockets onto civilian populations with the knowledge that civilians will likely be killed, lets say 100 civilians die.

b) Intentionally targeting residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of murdering civilians and killing 100 civilians.

Do you see a moral difference between these two actions assuming the victim counts are the same?

I don't have 'an' attitude toward miltary action because I'm not so naive to think one can reason one's way to action from first principles. — StreetlightX

Then you don't have an attitude towards the deliberate murder of civilians under the banner of military action. This is why it's difficult for us to converse.

Can you please answer my question about the Allied bomber? Otherwise I just don't know what your attitude towards military action is.

Answer the question. Is taking arms against an occupying army justifiable? Would you consider doing that if you were a Palestinian? — Baden

Targeting the Israeli army would be a genuine step above what they're doing now which is firing rockets into residential areas intentionally and killing civilians for absolutely no reason. They aren't responding to attacks from these areas.

The best step would be for them to re-enter negotiations.

If you abstract these actions from the context in which they occur you render yourself cognitively incapacitated. And in that context, these actions are the deliberate murder of civilians. The universe doesn't operate on free-floating principles, unembedded in reality. — StreetlightX

Do you have a better idea, then? Is it just that all soldiers are war criminals and that everyone who partakes in war is guilty? Is that really the best you've got? Nazis are the same as Allied soldiers, we're all guilty and disgusting. What is your attitude towards an Allied pilot who bombs a German military base or a factory producing weapons?

So, presumably you believe war against Israel by the Palestinians is justified? Again, in their position, living under a foreign occupation, how would you react? — Baden

No, all I said was in some instances war is justified and in during warfare or military action intention does matter. That's all I was seeking to establish.

Again, cute thought experiment, but there's nothing 'necessary' about Isreali apartheid and settler colonialism. — StreetlightX

This is a different issue and I don't have time right now to engage further. All I was seeking to establish was that intention matters in military actions and that civilian casualties are generally unavoidable during military action, but that this should not be confused with the deliberate murder of civilians.

I agree that war is awful, disgusting business and that it makes monsters out of those who engage in it, but I also believe that sometimes it is necessary. Japan killed thousands in a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor including many civilians... I don't know how else to respond to that if you're leading a country.

Yeah, that's with intention. The intentional targeting of civilians is wrong, as I've been saying.

Yes. — StreetlightX

Well, at least you're following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

I'm curious though, lets say you're in charge of the US or UK during WWII.... are you just not bombing industrial targets? How about military bases? There's plenty of civilians working on military bases, trust me.

You don't get to use the "intention" excuse when civilian casualties are inevitable. Attacking civilian targets is a war crime regardless of your stated intention (as if that should be trusted). — Baden

No, it's not. If that were true then every general or commander would be a war criminal because civilian casualties are inevitable in war. Bombing of German industrial targets? War crime. Bombing on Japan? War crime.

Come on, Baden.

As opposed to what exactly? The extensive tracts of 'non-civilian' land available to - oh wait, there isn't any, because Isreal is an imperialist land grabber which has confined an entire population to a shoebox, which it continues to eat away at, illegally and immorally.

But by all means, continue to defend the murder of children so that such land grabs may continue. — StreetlightX

If you're going to charge me with defending the murder of children then I can charge you defending the murder of the elderly Israeli Jews killed by Hamas rockets a day or two ago. We can go back and forth here and accuse the other of being Hitler.

I've never been to Gaza but there must be places that are less inhabited. In the past, rockets have been launched from hospitals and weapons and troops transported in ambulances, so I don't know what to tell you. Obviously it's awful that Palestinian children have been killed, but this is not intentional. Do you agree that intention matters?

Hamas launches rockets from civilian areas.

You never mentioned the Israeli/Jewish victims of the rocket attacks in your posts, why is that? Elderly Israeli Jews have been killed by Hamas rockets.

Jewish victims don't matter - got it. Israel has no right to defend itself.

It is certain — I believe so that for everyone — that Dostoevsky's philosophy reaches its highest significance with his theological solution, suggested in his mature work and life. Considering this, I return: is it possible to consider dostoevskian philosophy apart from its dogmatism and theological presuppositions? — Bertoldo

Alright it's been like 10 years since I've read Dostoyevsky so bear with me here.

Yes, Dostoyevsky is a fundamentally religious thinker and while we see this in his work, I've never felt that it's right to label his ideas or views "dogmatism" - at least through his work as a writer. For instance, in The Brothers Karamazov he really makes an honest effort to flush out different views, e.g. materialism, rationalism - through different characters in an intellectually honest way. While other writers just construct weak straw men and destroy those, Dostoyevsky never does this.

I won't fault a writer for having his views, but I will fault a writer for shoving them in my face as a reader and weakly mischaracterizing opposing views to the extent where they become comical or just obviously wrong - that, to me, is propaganda and see plenty of it today in TV and movies. Dostoyevsky is never a propagandist.

Namely, financial independence from an employer. It basically means that you have enough saved up or in investments that you don't need to work unless you want to and you're free to spend your time largely how you like - at least free of economic obstacles like needing to receive a paycheck to cover expenses.

Even a moment's reflection is going to reveal to anyone with half a brain that its our existential lot to be dependent, in ways almost never of our own choosing, to things, people, environments, and systems around us which enbale (as much as constrain) any exercise of freedom. Yet these morons model freedom on a limit-case scenario that is so abstract that it converges, in last analysis, to non-existence as freedom's ultimate expression (if you don't exist, you're totally free!). These people need to go outside and stop modeling existence on Dungeons and Dragons. — StreetlightX

Just curious, and I'm not looking for an argument or a serious discussion here but I am curious: In a capitalist society, is financial independence a morally acceptable goal for an adult in your view? What do you think about an adult striving to go from financial dependence to financial independence?

But can't you opt out of it? What if I voluntarily choose to abandon that because I want to do something else right now? It's my free choice after all.

What would you say about a single parent who was mid-way through feeding their infant and then decided to "opt out" of this arrangement? Are people free to opt in and out of all social relations as they see fit?

...but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence.
— StreetlightX

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice.

Therefore I believe none of these to hold any moral claim to him. — Tzeentch

That's pretty radical; I'd call myself an individualist but I'm not really with you here.

If you have good parents, for instance, who raise you right are you not duty-bound to them? If your parents provided you with a great upbringing and did everything for you are you really going to tell me that you have no moral duty to them unless you voluntarily choose it?

I call myself an individualist because I fundamentally prefer to deal with individuals rather than groups or ideologies. I believe that the individual is the fundamental unit, and that each individual contains multitudes and near infinite complexity. The individual is not to be fundamentally reduced to a member of a class or a race or religion. That's my individualism - it's not the view that everyone is atomistic and has this bird's eye view over society that allows them to pick and choose their moral duties.

It was really the best that I could do with your response.

If that's your observation about humanity, then I'm sorry but the people you're around are just really shitty. Like seriously, someone in your community gets cancer and people just start shunning them because "they don't want trouble." If I ever heard someone saying that I would know immediately that they're a complete moron.

Similarly, if someone's response to virulent racism towards another member of the community is "I don't want trouble" then that person is a coward and deserves zero respect.

If this is how you honestly expect things to go down then people are just basically stupid, cowardly, and useless.

But are we ever confident of that...unless we are the majority? — Pantagruel

I think so. I'm a Jew in a community where liberal Christians are the majority and I'm confident that they would condemn any act of blatant anti-semitism or racism. Half of the houses in my neighborhood have those "black lives matter" or those "no human is illegal" signs.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed). — baker

I don't think you're in trouble in this example though. Yeah, I understand that people can distance themselves from you if you lose your job or fall into financial hardship, but if someone simply says a comment to you I wouldn't classify that as a major life downfall.

It's likely the racist who has gotten him or herself into trouble here, depending on the community.

Call it a town.

All communities have majorities and minorities, it's just a matter of the criteria.

In this example the community doesn't know anything because you're the only one who has heard, but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you.

Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known. — baker

I think that's a reasonable response, and I think a good description of this response would be that you're socially distancing yourself, which I would consider a form of ostracizing. You're emotionally and socially distancing yourself.

Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms. — baker

I wonder whether the girl was Bosnian. That would put the genocide within a generation.

I agree with Tzeentch that most people aren't "tilted" towards evil, but the right situations or circumstances can allow us to see sides of ourselves that we wouldn't normally see. People don't fully know themselves.

For instance, sure, there's you right now behind your computer screen, but there's also a version of you that's tired, hungry, and under a ton of stress.... and if you take those conditions over weeks or months it can reveal a side of you that you never knew you had. Institutions shape people.

Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism? — baker

Lets put you in the neighbor's shoes here.

Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react?

In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty. — NOS4A2

Yeah, we can tolerate it. I'm certainly not saying we should lynch the neighbor or attack the neighbor's house with molotov cocktails in the middle of the night. I'm not even saying we should expel the neighbor through formal legal procedure, although there may be some argument to do so.

The neighbor is really just your problem. The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor?

These are the questions that I'm interested in: What individual or community level actions are happening or should happen?

Oh I support the first amendment entirely - the neighbor certainly has a right to say what he wants to say.

The problem with "hunting" such people is that they rarely will do you the nicety of being so explicit, and the act of the hunt itself,.trying to parse true intentions from either deception or misunderstanding, has its own pitfalls. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

but there comes a point where ostracism is the only step to take, barring physical force. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, I think we gotta ostracize. It's on the community to do so, and I'm not calling for a legal expulsion here as other posters has insinuated. It probably needs to come down to community-level actions or behaviors to treat the cancer.

You can continually challenge their world view and present facts and logical arguments, but when someone doesn't want to listen and takes any disagreement as signs of oppression and reacts with anger, discussion isn't fruitful. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh 100% - it's funny because other posters were saying we should have an honest discussion with the neighbor but that really isn't what we ought to be doing because an actual discussion implies that we'd be open his views when we're really not.