There is a lesson in that period in that the violence was in some sense less about Israeli actions, which were moving towards peace and statehood, than about intra-Palestinian struggles over peace and spoiling attempts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's this crux that is mistaken, the Oslo Accords was the exact opposite of what you were saying. It was the completion of Israel's control of the Occupied Territories, not intent to give Palestinians their own sovereignty. That changes your whole picture of the motives for the attacks.

"Oslo was not designed to lead to Palestinian statehood or self-determination, in spite of what the P.L.O.’s leaders at the time appear to have believed. Rather, it was intended by Israel to streamline its occupation, with the Palestinian Authority acting as a subcontractor. In Oslo and subsequent accords, the Israelis were careful to exclude provisions that might lead to a Palestinian political entity with actual sovereignty. Palestinian statehood and self-determination are never mentioned in the text, nor were the Palestinians allowed jurisdiction over the entirety of the occupied territories. Israel’s intention is even more clearly visible in the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, which followed the start of the Oslo process. There were fewer than two hundred thousand Israeli colonists in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem when negotiations began. Now, according to the Times, there are about six hundred and fifty thousand of them.

The P.L.O. leadership, for its part, played a weak hand poorly. It failed to capitalize on the expertise that its delegation had accrued in Madrid and Washington in the two years prior, sending to Oslo inexperienced negotiators with little knowledge of the situation in the occupied territories or international law. As a result, Oslo reinforced rather than evened out the political imbalance between Israel, an undeclared nuclear power supported by the world’s sole superpower, and the Palestinians, a stateless people living under occupation or in exile. With the weight of the United States tipping the scales heavily in its favor—diplomatically, militarily, and through pressure on the Arab states—Israel was able to impose its will, entrenching an apartheid system in which millions of Palestinians live under military rule, with no rights or security, while Israel appropriates their land, water, and other resources. The only part of Oslo that was faithfully implemented, in fact, is the protection that the P.A. provides to Israel by policing its own people."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/beyond-abbas-and-oslo

Here's an exposition of the details of the agreement

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/the-price-of-oslo.html#/14

I don't think we're in 100% agreement, you're squinting to see an issue that does not need to be relevant. You're making it relevant by bringing it up in discussion because you were bothered by terminological usage rather than the actual issue. Terminology that is appropriate. The said security concern of being shot at by enhanced fireworks that kill a couple of people would be no longer be an issue with a resolution of the conflict, enhancement of security is not why Israel continues the occupation of over 4 million people.

I would encourage an internationalist approach that covers more issues (including similar ones, like Western Sahara, West Papua, Kashmir that do not get enough attention) But even though it gets a lot of attention, it’s still not resolved, so I don’t understand the gall of people complaining about the attention it receives. It is supported by U.S. policy in a way that can be challenged by its citizens and needs all the attention it can get.

Palestinian territory is illegally occupied by Israel under international law, they're strangling under their boot. That is dictionary definition of oppression. Who cares the fuck about whether the word oppression is flaunted in culture wars, people need to stop being triggered by popular discourse. We’re talking about concrete policies that need to be opposed here.

They just don’t care about people being brutalized and killed, and it hurts their pride for being told that. So they bring every tangent into the discussion to avoid it.

"I’m a post modernist who rejects moralistic approaches to understanding social value systems and political actions. I don’t give excuses because I have never met a side in a political dispute who couldn’t give legitimate s sincere moral justification for their acts and positions. So I don’t defend any side against their opponents. I defend all sides. This doesn’t mean that I dont prefer certain ways of thinking , certain worldviews to others, but I don’t
blame others for falling short of that thinking.
From a philosophical vantage, you could say I am positioned well to the left of you, if you maintain a moralistic politics."

The point of politics to improve the world and end suffering, that's why I bother spending time on it rather than plenty of other more pleasurable activities I'd rather do. The way to alleviate suffering in this case is to end oppression of the Palestinians. That is morality, and you are not to the Left of me for lacking it.

"How is this determined? What would define a country lacking in agency? The United States is the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world, but it seems less able to direct even domestic policy than many other states (e.g. China would seem to have more agency in that regard)."

If you can give evidence if they're forced to do this to the Palestinians because of constraints, you should say so. Agency is the absence of constraints, or at least lacking enough to rightfully attribute blame. If they're politically obligated to do so for instance, well, that means the citizens are to blame as well as the state. Israel is one of the few countries where I think there may be truth to that. But the things Israeli state is being criticized for in this thread, why would you suggest they don't have agency?

The U.S. has poor domestic state capacity after suffering from the toxic effects of financialization, but also because it's filled with political elites unwilling to even to try to implement them. But it did have the capacity one time with willing political elites, it was able to implement some successful industrial policy in the 40s

"You say it’s unambiguous and I say it’s ambiguous. How ever are we to get to the bottom of this?"

The point doesn't differ if for instance, you were being sarcastic rather than rhetorical. Since the beginning you've been giving nothing but defensive excuses. Oh they're racist and do bad things, but I have all these things to add to it while you naive guys voice your opposition to what they're doing.

Oh yeah? Wouldn't be surprised if you turn out to defend that current fashion of racist states you think is worth mentioning.

"Actually I learned everything I need to know in kindergarten."

Not a good thing.

There was nothing ambiguous about it, you made your attitude very clear throughout this thread (making excuses) and then wrote in clear English.

"Will you send me a candy bar if you’re wrong?" You clearly haven't evolved past grade school.

"The right in Israel now is unquestionably dominated by racist shitheads, but why should Israel be different from Russia, Hungary, Poland, Germany or the U.S.? It’s today’s fashion."

What Israel is doing isn't different from what other states have done in the past/ongoing, but your attempt to provoke "why should?" really shows which side you are on that question, with the racist shitheads.

Calling them rockets is ridiculous. They're basically enhanced fireworks. They can kill if they hit people directly, but if they were really rockets, they'd level an entire city to rubble. This is incomparable to Israel's advanced military slaughtering people.

There are a couple of things mixed in here. One is the freedom from a boss, working for someone else for a wage. The other is freedom in terms of opportunities for leisure. Everyone prefers these for themselves, the difference is what they advocate. Do you think business owners should demand long working hours on behalf of workers so they can make more money. Or should we implement laws that drastically reduce working hours? Do you think the only way people should pursue the ideals mentions by becoming your own boss through starting a business, which is not a privilege to everyone. Or should we change how the wider economy is structured.

In terms of a personal goal, it’s fine.

What does that mean. If you mean financial independence from family, I see no problem with people living together with their parents, people should try extended families more.

If you mean our relationship to society, there is no sense of financial independence. You pay taxes together with other citizens to build roads and schools that we all use together for our activities and achieve our goals. I don’t know why anyone would want to be independent of that unless they want to become a hermit.

It’s easy to get lost in the exchange, because there is no mention of freedom to do what, or from what. What’s the point of talking about freedom without the context about doing things, how can you talk about what’s desirable? I checked Tzeentch‘s previous posts from page 1 and its repeating the same slogan over and over again about freedom. He’s just obsessed with some arbitrary abstract idea of freedom rather than freedom in the context of worrying about actual problems faced by people.

The Bretton Woods system improved regulation of the global economy, I don't think international governance is as difficult as often alleged.

China and Vietnam share a similar political economy (market developmentalism with a very authoritarian government), and we should understand why did more Capitalist South Korea & Singapore do better than most of Europe (contrary to what you say with respect to infection & death rates, Germany has a lot of deaths, and so does France) The particular features are what we need to understand what's necessary for dealing with future pandemics.

I agree that more collectivist approaches made a difference, but I think the list you made is too simplistic. China bungled in the very beginning but later did exceptionally well, Vietnam is also filled with sweatshops, South Korea is much more neoliberal/Capitalist than Europe economically but responded to the virus better (the difference is in state capacity), Sweden actually just let the virus go rampant, etc.

Individualism here in the Anglo-American world, meaning classical liberalism & Right-Libertarianism, is B.S. and a pathology that destroys everything. You only need to see the reaction to COVID the past year to see the culmination to it. It mostly means pursue wealth at the expense of others.

I do want to add to the rest of opinions though, that I came from a Korean family and conservative Asian structures are extreme in the other way around in which the individual is under-valued, what the individual desires for their own path in life and not just conform to the others' expectations. Anyone who observed how these cultures operate would know it's extremely unpleasant.. So I think there is something to individualism of a certain more restricted kind, if you would call it that. You need a balance between it and a focus on collective interests (the left-wing Anarchist tradition is an example that emphasizes both), and it's obviously swung way too much in one direction here.

86 - Asato Asato
Reflections on Socialism in the Twenty-First Century - Claes Brundenius

Well I get your impression, but there's garbage all across these fields. Like with economics, you have a handful of scholars who shift through the pile and present what we need to know. We haven't done so from the Left in this area. At least that's what I think from my digging.

Well every scholarly field related to politics that I know that uses a rigorous interdisciplinary approach integrates the field of psychology (social sciences are really about human beings interacting with institutions and the environment), so I have no idea what this is all about unless the word psychology has a radically different usage than I'm aware of. Criticizing the downplaying of larger structural causal explanations for certain issues is a different matter than dismissing psychology. It's trading one absurdity for another by buying into the Right-Wing assumptions you're arguing against. Kind of like how some liberals responded to the Right's assertion they "support small government" that "no, big government is good". It isn't necessary.

What you're reacting to seems more like armchair guessing of people's motives (yeah that is B.S.) than the field called political psychology. My friend got his PHD in political psychology and he does economic analysis detailing how corporate media affects public opinion, drawing on empirically based social psychology and political economy of media. I think it's very useful research.

I saw that other thread. I personally don't put much energy concerning how liberals abuse folk psychology. I'm more interested in understanding all the small components of how the world works.

In what sense, for an example, would you dismiss Mencius, Xunzi, and Mozi as not doing philosophy? A lot of the issues they argued about would be recognized in Western philosophy.

I think death is bad because it restricts our freedom to pursue our goals and interests. Perhaps we would have wanted to live more decades enjoying time with our friends and family, read the next sequel to our favorite novel, be there to witness scientific discoveries. That's why we mourn the death of the youth more than those at old age, because the former is seen as being robbed of opportunities they could have had.

I'm 27 and I doubt I'll see the Telomerase Revolution in my lifetime to extend my age.

I thought Dennett & Pigliucci both had a pretty good response to Chomsky's mysterian argument here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8&t=5010s

Looking at the exchange, I am quite confused at what the thread is about. Are you posing skepticism of resolution of philosophical quandaries (progress in the field of philosophy) because there is less social consensus on these issues in a similar way as done in the sciences/mathematics?

I'm more simple, I just want to go to bed after having a fun day and the next morning just happens to be the time I no longer wake up.

I didn't mean to suggest the topic was too broad, but rather that the starting point of examination was to focus on which features of the concept are controversial, so it's better to replace the term free will with some thing else.

Yeah Bartricks' definition is technically correct, but for the compatibilist accounts proposed by Dennett and cogni sci folks, they are a kind of "limited free will" in terms of the scientific parameters they’re trying to set right?

What bothers me about many popular discussions of the topic is people start off assuming it as a given what the controversy is about and whether it's legitimate inquiry, and then all you have to do is give a yes or no answer to the framing "do we have free will" and then continue arguing from your chosen position. I think it's more productive to get to the roots, like what are we exactly interested in? Why did people pose this question in this first place, like what features of human action in the world befuddles them.

The term "free will" sounds a bit too loaded with metaphysical connotations for me personally. I prefer terms like Agency, volition, moral responsibility, they're less cluttered terms to examine.

Questions like why something such as X exists seem reasonable based on phenomenon we observe around us. Like we know from experience that it makes sense to ask why does this table exist. We can describe economic phenomenon, or the scientific components of the table, that resulted in this table. From these kinds of experiences, we formulated a vocabulary that helps describe things. The history of science in turn has given us insights into what kind of questions can be formulated correctly and how they can be confirmed when it comes to more complicated phenomenon. Not every formulated question is a good one, bad questions don't reciprocate actual answers. That really depends on how things in the world actually works, and we just have to take it as it is.

So far from what we can tell, there isn't any reason to believe that this vocabulary can be used to describe why does "anything at all" exists. Like what standard (what collection of experiences that inform judgment) can be used to differentiate between one state of affairs where the world that we know of is the way it is, and where none of this applies. There is no way to formulate and apply such standards, in the way we can use science and economics to explain tables. And if we don't have the set of experiences where we can make the necessary judgments, there isn't any reason to suppose the question itself is a meaningful one.

My own guess is further insight into cosmological questions will dramatically alter our notions of causality and temporality, so progress on judging the meaningfulness of the question can be shaved down without experimentation indirectly from tuning our vocabulary.

Apologies for leading the thread on a tangent, I’ve become enraged due to the recent anti-Asian shootings.

Like the other comments, I generally encourage Epictetus’ maxim quoted to temper your emotions regarding what you can’t control and focus what you can control. Stoicism takes learning and training however so I’m not sure it is helpful to quote these lines to your step-son, that would be insensitive. It’s better to break it down into a plausible message.

The Stoic teaching for instance does not imply you can’t have righteous indignation against injustice. The Stoic teaching is about shifting attention towards productive thoughts, it isn’t about deadening your emotions. One has to acknowledge that they were hurt by racism, and the best way to respond to it is to channel that into something else rather than remaining in continuous agony. It’s similar to what’s taught to alleviate anxiety in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. One can’t control the immediate fact others in the community have racist thoughts and are acting in a discriminatory way, but you can join in solidarity with anti-racist activists who are bringing the issue to public attention. I personally found out that sharing my pain among those who feel similarly prevents me from going insane. There's something about the nature of social interaction and empathy that helps lift the emotional burden a bit. And that this is a collective problem to be solved rather than individual circumstance to be endured.

Why are you making it about Biden in general? I’m talking about this area where he’s causing harm and criticizing it.

It was only last year when Biden made a jingoistic advertisement about “the Chinese” when saber rattling about competition with China.

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-ad-china-trump-coronavirus-racist-xenophobic-2020-4

FBI directors are allowed to be fired despite tenure.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/12/02/report-biden-will-keep-chris-wray-as-fbi-director---if-trump-doesnt-fire-him-first/

I mentioned maintaining the racist FBI director and then provided sources. If you think it’s unconvincing, then say so. “I’m not obligated to” to my request to address the argument is trolling and you’re an asshole.

I gave an argument with an example. If you’re not going to dispute it, you’re talking to yourself. That’ll be all.

You didn't address the example I mentioned, the McCarthyist targeting of Chinese students.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-13/the-u-s-is-purging-chinese-americans-from-top-cancer-research

https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/01/21/959271490/biden-to-keep-wray-on-as-fbi-director

As for foreign policy, I don't agree with it at all. We don't need more militarism to maintain U.S. dominance in Asia when we're at the precipice for climate change and in need for cooperation on shared goals.

https://rosalux.nyc/us-china-progressive-internationalist-strategy/

https://newrepublic.com/article/160992/biden-china-climate-yellen-blinken-austin?fbclid=IwAR3IemQQTD4lsQvyJwS8YQERBj9xp9RsP2AkcvZlu1e5BguwxE2x6pJqL4U

https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/bull-in-a-china-shop

My memory is that all the candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden after he did very well in West Virginia, and then support peaked with the media coverage. Warren had grudges and didn't do the same for Bernie, criticizing him on MSNBC instead. Biden's dangers were underestimated because all the critical fire was on Bloomberg at the time.

Asian women have especially been targeted because of the way they've been fetishized in American imagination. It's a travesty of multiple perversions. Biden also hasn't helped with his anti-China policies (despite condemning the racist violence on the streets, institutionally he maintain Trump's FBI director targeting Chinese students) so there's a nationalistic angle to it also.

[The research released by reporting forum Stop AAPI Hate on Tuesday revealed nearly 3,800 incidents were reported over the course of roughly a year during the pandemic. It’s a significantly higher number than last year's count of about 2,800 hate incidents nationwide over the span of five months. Women made up a far higher share of the reports, at 68 percent, compared to men, who made up 29 percent of respondents. The nonprofit does not report incidents to police.

Russell Jeung, professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University and the forum’s founder, told NBC Asian America that the coalescence of racism and sexism, including the stereotype that Asian women are meek and subservient, likely factors into this disparity.

“There is an intersectional dynamic going on that others may perceive both Asians and women and Asian women as easier targets,” he said.]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/there-were-3-800-anti-asian-racist-incidents-mostly-against-n1261257?fbclid=IwAR1OM54qu1LU5ycBWEaHUQG7hh1QroVK48-VH17yigMW4FOASpkPN1Zppa8

I admit I have my own aesthetic preferences in terms of appearance between races when it comes to a sexual partner. I don't think that arriving at a particular aesthetic preference is racist in of itself (anymore than preferring hair color) but I'm also the product of a media environment. Advertising, television, and Hollywood and the sorts. I was probably at least partly influenced by media portrayals of attractive women, of which there is evidence of a racist bias over many years.