You haven't been paying attention if you bring up the moral equivalence argument again. The thread title is entirely accurate.

LOL. An IDF website. You sad pathetic piece of shit. At least@BitconnectCarlos makes an honest attempt.

What if the dictator changes her mind? — bert1

Either you're a girl or your wife/girlfriend/mom is really bossy.

Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. However, Arab Israelis are free to join the military if they wish in which case they receive the same benefits as any other soldier.

This point is really just condemning Israel for providing benefits to its veterans when more Jews serve than Arabs (because Jews are required to serve.) It's incredibly dishonest to present this as racism and if this claim is in the same vein as others it feels like propaganda. — BitconnectCarlos

Ooh well played. "There's too many things to respond to so I'll just cherrypick one, decontextualise it from all the other examples of apartheid laws". Never mind that this was like, I don't know, the fifth point in that list so you read at least four others. That doesn't feel like propapanda but just straight up dishonest.

So Arab Israelis aren't Israeli enough to defend their own country because their "brethren" are fighting with Israel. Except, of course, you're all semites so... eh...?

There's nothing wrong with your definition but it's not how many people use those words. See for instance Merriam Webster on racism :

A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

That still seems how most people use it. Based on that individuals can be racist and oppressed people can be racist too - it's just that the consequences of such racism is mostly irrelevant.

Your definition is a persuasive definition that for the purposes of discussions can be used. Or we can say "racist oppression", "sexist oppression" etc. and then nobody will be confused as there's a slight redundancy from your perspective and a clarification from the "general use" perspective.

So it depends what one means by "racism", for example, is disproportionate police violence towards minorities violence racism? That is something I would list as a consequence of racism - among other factors. The disproportionality is not just due to prejudice, the problem is in the policies, laws, structure of policing in general. If one describes things such as disproportionate police violence as racism - which many often do, then racism is not merely a kind of prejudice, it describes far more than that. We could solve this problem by having a few more words but apparently racism needs to mean just about everything. — Judaka

Makes sense. I suppose this broadening of the meaning of the term is likely a reaction to affirmative action being argued as being racism as well.

In the Netherlands it's been more about discrimination, which can be justified or unjustified depending on purpose. So a doctor discriminating between old and young people as a result of triage, or even women or men if recovery rates differed meaningfully, would be doing the right thing. When I'm hiring people not so much.

Does that necessarily apply to what she would say behind closed doors?

Not that any of this will happen under Biden, who is and has been as Israeli bootlicker from day 1. — StreetlightX

He's been surprising on several fronts. He might be here too. Depends also on his advisors and possibly the VP, I think.

I'm not sure why Biden is looking into this. It's been established the virus is not engineered and I was under the impression the lab was for animal testing? Or is this information false?

Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.

The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR. — BitconnectCarlos

Also, you do realise the right of return is a human right? So you want to deny Palestinians human rights because it would be a logistical nightmare? I really don't give a shit that the consequences of crimes are inconvenient to the perpetrator.

And the worst part of this, is that every year this continues the bigger the danger to the Israeli State in the long run. Sentiment will turn and when sentiment turns with stupid people in power it will turn into anti-semitism and precisely realise the risks Jews wished to avoid with their own state. I don't think you realise exactly how dangerous it will be if international political support for Israel dissappears. The Irish declaration is a big thing. This is all the more reason brokering a peace now is in the interest of all Jews.

... I'm just going to leave you alone with your delusions. Every analogy you offer up just decontextualise what is happening on the ground in Israel. If I then explain why yours is wrong and offer a specific analogy to highlight why its wrong, which is not intended as an analogy for the entire conflict, you just don't reply to it, you come up with a new one that is again totally missing the point.

Israel is not a victim here. It's an Apartheid state and commits war crimes more or less continuously. It has exactly zero moral standing to claim self-defence vis-a-vis the people on the receiving end of those laws and crimes. That Hamas does something that is wrong, is exactly zero justification for Israel to do something wrong as well especially when everything it does is originally contaminated by the original crime of oppression and annexation.

If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.) — BitconnectCarlos

This is getting tiresome. First, I reject Israel has a right to defend itself as long as it occupies, oppresses and annexes land. Currently, the Netherlands is not doing any of these things to Belgians. Second, even if I accept it has such a defence, I can defend but I'm not allowed to collectively punish people.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours.

Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis. — BitconnectCarlos

No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising.

The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

That's no justification for a war crime.

You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else. — BitconnectCarlos

If you come to this discussion it's assumed you know the facts. Apparently you don't. I already linked the Amnesty International report. Good moment to educate yourself.

The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation.

Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

Jezus, 48 pages and you aren't paying attention are you? This has been explained as nauseum. One group is oppressed the other isn't. Oppressors don't get to play the victim card, your don't get to whine about existential threat when you have a nuclear arsenal. It's just bullshit and an excuse. Also, most Palestinians are willing to compromise as reported in your bloody link!

Also source on the 50% figure? — BitconnectCarlos

https://www.haaretz.com/1.4813183

Our Wikipedia :
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."[15] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.[16] An Israeli minister charged the poll as biased and not credible.[17] The Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was "committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background, as defined by our declaration of independence".[17] Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by "increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state" while it is at war with neighboring countries.

And its laws cause institutionalised racism as well, hence my qualification of Israel as an Apartheid state. Passports have different issue dates for Jewish Israelis, number plates for Jewish Israelis are different, land laws apply differently to Jewish Israelis and non - Jewish Israelis. Quite frankly, where it comes to racism, it's one of the shittiest countries in the world.

These egalitarian shifts are pretty new, most of what you're talking about has taken place in the last eighty years. Things are shifting at an unbelievable pace, each new decade brings about such change. — Judaka

I don't think they're new to be honest. Magna Carta is pretty much the same thing, parliaments limiting the power of kings, human rights thinking of the 1800s culminating in abolition of slavery, Just War tradition (spanning centuries) resulting in Geneva Conventions, League of Nations and UN and condemnation of the use of force as a political tool etc. But the pace nowadays is indeed unbelievable. Exciting times, historically speaking.

The progressives are a result of the history of political, scientific, economic, technological, social and cultural changes. The conservatives are trying to conserve against more than just progressives, rather, what they lose to are the changes in these areas, changes nobody can stop. The victory of the progressives is assured because change is assured but what the progressives believe in isn't. It will all depend on how things develop economically, scientifically, technologically, culturally and so on, as always. — Judaka

Sure, what is progressives constantly changes and there's always a serious risk (a la Germany prior to WWII) that we backtrack. Even so, by and large, I think progressives shift once what they advocated becomes mainstream. Imagine 28 LGBT Republicans in the 1980s: https://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/7/20/28-lgbt-republicans

And an actual conservative should be fine with this from my understanding of conservative philosophy. If the received wisdom over generations is that LGBTQX (if I get the latest acronym right) should be recognised and respected then that's good enough reason to politically protect that. So "conservative" opposition to equality for minorities in the US is reactionary if we are to take their self-procliamed allegiance to the constitution seriously.

At times I just don't get part of the discussion. One side says "it's racism, see how blacks are affected" and the other side is "it's not racism, it's socio-economic, look if you adjust/correct the statistics like so". As if that solves the fact too many (black) people are in prison or living in poverty. I think it was @fdrake that explained at some point that the policies required to solve the problem, irrespective of the cause of the problem, would still be the same.

I talk of nuances, "racism is wrong" is a foregone conclusion, we only debate nuances now. — Judaka

You'd think differently from the exchanges at times. :lol:

Any way, thanks for your thoughts, I'm in a bit in a recalcitrant mood these days and probably agree with more than I let on in my reactions. Since I don't have much time for the foreseeable future I think I'll go back to reading.

Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully. — BitconnectCarlos

Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous.

The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this. — BitconnectCarlos

Which I have previously defended but to think this is mutually exclusive with Palestinian security from Israeli violence simply doesn't follow.

Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning.

Except that I've already distinguished between arguing about definitions and politics. The former is happening regardless what conservatives think about it. Most of the rest will too. Conservatives always fight a losing battle where it concerns social change even if they win a lot of elections. Progressives are quite happy to leave the Conservative wallow in their reactionary circle jerks, where they used to complain about uppity women daring to demand a vote. These shifts are not new but they always end up the same, progressives ultimately win out and it becomes the new Conservative once it becomes widespread enough. Women's suffrage, gay couples, etc. Been there, done that, pay attention to how the wind is blowing.

In the Netherlands our centre right government started to discuss racism as a result of George Floyd and BLM. Before that it was "our laws defend defend equality and that is enough".

I don't know about Australia but I partially consider Trump as reactionary to changes they're not going to stop. Dinosaurs. For the rest it was also a dislike of Hillary and a fundamentally corrupt political system and politicians. People with actual issues with no where to go but the out group candidate thanks to a two party system.

I'm sorry but I'm getting a bit confused. In one post you're talking about culture wars and social phenomena, I react to that and the next you reply to that by pointing to specific posters here and their intent as somehow a rebuttal. I think a lot of what you think is still undecided in the "culture wars" is just dinosaurs making a lot of noise. There's no war, there's just change and some people apparently can't handle it.

I think confusing fighting over definitions with politically sensitive topics is a funny way to look at it.

So on the one hand we have people demanding justice and equality and on the other people whining about those first people's use of words thereby avoiding actual engagement and discussion about the subject. But by all means, have at it if your think it's important. It's politics for sure, but one of evasion and preferably framed in such a way that they then get to blame the other side.

Or you can say, ok, I don't like your definition and I think it's wrong to use it like that, but I understand it so for the purposes of this discussion we'll use it. Then maybe there's, I don't know, an actual meaningful discussion possible?

Nothing in that post is in any way shape or form a justification for Israel committing war crimes. Jews were returning well before WWII, and didn't need to kill, oppress or annex land to do it.

We've already learned grand juries are sham processes meant to cover the prosecutors ass.

You mean from the perspective of functionality, we do not need to debate the definition of racism, maybe that's true but politically, there is reason to debate it. If in 15 years, it is one definition or the other which is standard and each one has repercussions people care about, there is no better reason to debate what racism means than that, surely? There are social, cultural and political repercussions at stake, people wouldn't care otherwise. — Judaka

Yes, I'm talking mostly functionally. For the rest I think it's a bit overestimating influence of, what in essence is, a fringe debate on an obscure website. These are social processes that we're not going to decide on a forum here because there's not really right or wrong whatever direction it will go. The content of sexism has changed a lot too. Racism will probably change and seems to have already, where "power" has become an important element. I'm not married to a specific outcome. I just run with it because I can always find other words to express old ideas to translate to the new.

Some of the comments (like Zenny's) remind me a bit of Peterson's complaints about gender pronouns. By the time they're discussing it in parliament, it isn't a fad. Such comments are just the last spasms of a dinosaur.

Yeah, some people are wasting their time arguing what racism means. We don't even have to agree on it as long as you can understand my use and I can understand yours we can talk about actual instances of racism and what to do about it.

Yeah, semantics then. Nobody denies speech acts have real world effects but I adjust word usage according to the setting. If academic research has moved on, then when speaking academically about the subject I will adjust to it, provided everyone involved if clear on the meaning of words. So is someone here offers a persuasive definition to explicate ideas, I go with it, I'm not committed to policing words in such a context. In others I might.

And this happens regularly, a typical example is the discussion about diversity and inclusivity in HR for instance. Where less agile companies are still stuck with diversity, while the term is not unimportant, inclusivity is the new goal but until 10 years ago they thought that goal was reached through diversity. So the teleological association with diversity has changed over time through research explicating different results and effects of diversity programs by introducing additional vocabulary that previously had no such broad meaning in HR or wasn't even used. Cosmology is full with them, black holes, dark matter, pulsars, etc. All relatively new ideas.

So what happens if we have a new idea about racism? it's meaning changes and calling someone a racist also changes. No biggie. I think you overestimate the tension you perceive now to persist for long. I give it at most 15 years as the next generation more or less decides what a word means. I suspect it will move in the direction that 180 Proof has already expounded. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly capable of using racism here in a different way then when I talk about it in a bar.

No, I just don't acknowledge religious claims or ancient ones for that matter. There's also Roman buildings where I live, that doesn't give Italians any rights to land in the Netherlands.

The only reason people bring up these bullshit religious claims, on both sides, is to argue for an absolute claim at the exclusion of others. These have to be rejected for the obvious fact that it denies rights of those currently living there and because it's obvious nothing can be resolved when arguing from within two different paradigms!

Do you think Apartheid in SA ended because people dredged up 1000 of years of bullshit?

Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs? — BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians and Non-Jewish Israelis.

any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now.

It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history — BitconnectCarlos

But this is where many disagree. It's not complicated at all. The facts on the ground are there for everyone to see. The Apartheid laws are there for everyone to read. It's complicated for you because you're conflicted which is a result of your affection.

Zip it Zippy. A technical glitch that Baden fixed.

I've merged Tiberiusmoon's thread into this one. No need to open a third thread with Zippy not offering an argument.

and bert1 likes to pretend he's one of those clueless Americans that will point at Antarctica on a map when asked where the USA is.

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Yes, I can see you're having trouble grasping simple concepts like most people. I expect more from someone on a philosophy forum though. Unlike you I have no problem understanding what 180 Proof or Baden is saying, despite general language use around me. But that requires you to listen to what's being said, instead of insisting your use of words has to be how it's used everywhere.

It's also entirely normal that specialised debate or professions use words differently than in their common meaning. For law, think about the meaning of "stay". Or if I file something at work, I'm putting it in the archive. If I file something at court, I'm presenting or submitting a document for consideration by such court. So in fact, your insistence on a specific use of these words really has no place here.

What's even more troublesome is that you go from "I disagree with how words are used" to "therefore those posters are racist". I'll leave you to figure out why that doesn't follow.

How is it hidden if the definitions of how the words are used are spelled out repeatedly for you? It's available to everyone. If you want, consider it a game, in this thread when you say prejudice it means xyz and when you say racism it means abc.

I really don't get the problem here. When people try to explicate ideas, given additional facts, information and insights, and do so by adjusting definitions this isn't racism but an attempt to have language better describe the reality they are experiencing.

Honestly, based on your grammar and spelling I just think your English isn't good enough.

He's from the word police, I think you're allowed to say you're biased in favour of your family but that's not yet prejudice.

Indeed. But once again, given the distinction provided here between prejudice and racism, what exactly is your problem with the distinction? The distinction is introduced to tell harmful prejudice from "benign" prejudice and harmful prejudice is then labelled "racism". If all you're objecting to is language use, that's fine but not very interesting or philosophically relevant and no grounds to claim some type of new racism is running amok.

What do you think the differentiation offered here is and why do you think it's wrong?

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that most people would describe a prejudiced person as racist where I come from. So then a sentence like "black people can't be racist" becomes mind boggling to them.

I think it's mostly a semantic discussion to be honest. If you don't follow the reasoning behind some of the language use, the distinction between prejudice and racism seems contrived. I grew up talking about the subject without the distinction being made and I don't have the feeling the distinction is widely accepted specifically in the Netherlands.

There's nothing wrong with these persuasive definitions but I think at the same time we should be sensitive to the fact it's not the mainstream use for many, which might be a source of confusion for them.

I don't intend to patronise you. I believe that if you want to argue a case you need argumentation. So far, all you've done is point at something and said "that's racist". What you believe is obvious, quite clearly isn't, since at least two posters don't interpret it the same. So you need to explain it better.

I'm offering you a way to clarify some things where I suspect the difference in interpretation comes from, instead you complain about having to explain your position. If you can't argue your case then we can dismiss your position as irrational or irrelevant because it's not supported.

Again, do you understand the difference between racism and prejudice as argued by 180 Proof? Explain it to me and then explain to me why that differentiation is wrong according to you.

I don't see it. What's the problem with that post?