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?

Because he argues there's a difference between racism and prejudice. How do racism and prejudice differentiate according to 180 proof? Explain it to me so we can be certain you understand his argument and then you explain why you disagree with the differentiation.

The one who's wriggling is you. If it's so obvious, surely you can provide a single quote instead of handwaving at a thread?

The extent of black privilege revolves around being able to use the N-word without repercussion and claiming experiential knowledge about being on the receiving end of racism. Wooptiedoo.

*Racist canards mode on*

And of course, especially black people, are more athletic, have bigger dicks and a better sense for rhythm. Asian people are better at math and are just really model citizens. Look at them working hard and integrating and stuff!

*Racist canards mode off*

You asked for something after accusing people of something which forms the basis of you asking that question. Let's start with you proving the accusation first. If you can't, your question is baseless.

I think there's no closed objective system but we can probably derive a statistically relevant indication based on subjective measures. Such as a value scale for statements like "have been looked down upon", "have been treated as inferior", etc. and then validate with "my life is close to ideal" to examine discriminant validity.

More problematic is, I think, establishing the factors causing the oppression. Is it because you're poor? a woman? Black? etc. and they will most likely not carry over from one culture to the next and since cultures aren't monolithic...

So I guess, to an extent we can look into it but better staticians should do the leg work.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words".

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok.

Israeli oppression, occupation and annexation are what put Israel in a difficult spot and you're whining about having to deal with the consequences of Israeli war crimes and illegal acts. You don't have moral standing, Israel is not a victim, it does not have a right of self defence against the people it oppresses. Israel is a war criminal and every day the occupation, oppression and annexation continue, you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do especially when what they do is a fraction of the violence perpetrated by the oppressor itself. I would start considering Palestinian violence an issue as a problematic means, when the numbers would be reversed and even then their cause would still be just. Israel has neither a just cause nor does it exercise just means.

With anybody really. The internetz is not a healthy place to be honest, which is why it's important to take a regular break from it.

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...?

Uhmm... try again?

And before you try again, the "method used by the oppressed class" is a reaction to oppression. You cannot decontextualise what is happening from the ongoing oppression. The worst the oppression, the acquiescience by society at large, the looking the other way or just not caring about "the other" the more moral responsibility for the cause of such violence rests with the oppressor - which in this case is Israel.

If you actively and wilfully create a situation where you increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, don't feign surprise or moral indignation when you are confronted with such an outcome. And since Israel by far has the most influence on the circumstances and wilfully refuses to deal with the Palestinians as an equal negotiation partner for peace, it reaps what it sows.

Israel has no moral standing here, you cannot claim victimhood when you're the oppressor. It has no right to defend itself against a people resisting oppression even if their means aren't always legal and it certainly does not have a right to collectively punish a civilian population, which it has been doing for over 14 years now. It's as if you would repeatedly punch me in the stomach and then complain foul because I kick you in the nuts and then proceed to claim "self defence" as you start hitting me in the face as well.

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source? — BitconnectCarlos

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance.

I'm not sure about other countries but in the Netherlands this latest attack by Israel appears to be the death knell for Israeli PR. The majority seems to be pro Palestinian now. @Tobias what's your view on Dutch sentiment?

Child abuse also presents itself in what parents say such as “you're worthless", "you're ugly", "you're stupid", and flat out ignoring them and yelling.

I'm not a model parent (who is?) and found a lot to learn through the app "in love while parenting". Anyone struggling with dealing with their kids' emotions and reflecting on your own behaviour and learning to expand your emotional vocabulary can benefit from this app.

For free if you're prepared to take their place.

@180 Proof @Christoffer and it bears repeating that users can report other users. We'll look into it. That doesn't necessarily mean we will agree but we take them seriously.

PS: A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked.

sorry, haven't read the whole thread. You realise that the first two options are political and the third isn't? We have an understanding how to implement the first two. So let's say we pursue option 3. How?

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing. — schopenhauer1

If you think Hamas isn't genuinely interested in peace then you are simply clueless about the politics. Just because everybody calls Hamas a terrorist organisation doesn't make it so. So this is sadly just a really superficial regurgitation of shallow media analyses that we see everywhere.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). — schopenhauer1

How about you fuck right off with your "subtle" language analysis and analyse the facts on the ground instead? Those facts that in very real terms mean that Palestinians are robbed of their agency by an oppressor that is intent on controlling every strata of Palestinian society because of its "existential" security issue - which is just a reflection of collective paranoia and institutionalised racism.

For a 100 bucks we'll let you post Nazi crap and links to Parler.

And we funnel billions to Hamas.

Yeah, all the billions we're making of this site are being funneled to Hamas.

we like our privacy.

...and my acute obsession with triggering and being impolite... — Banno

I'm pretty sure it was only this...

of course it won't hold. IDF tends to break them about 3 times as often as Hamas.

As my former manager said when I was embedded in the risk department : not enough data points! Go back and do your homework!

sheps...

They're what makes the place lovable. :kiss:

Hey, I got some shit for free! This free shit really sucks!

I love the place except for ungrateful cunts.

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

The 1967 war was complex because it is based on a pre-emptive form of self-defence that was previously not recognised as valid. But I don't think this is an issue, you can initially defend for the right reasons and have that change into a war of aggression. When Israel decided to occupy the territories, it was still ok (provided there's a sensible way to return the land, instead of an indefinite occupation), but once it took land for itself (settled it) it became an act of aggression. I guess there's some argument to make that the latter decision to settle is the act of aggression itself, leaving the argument that the 1967 war was a defensive war in tact.

Maybe. I've disagreed often with him but I think we're usually cordial to each other. Not sure I was everywhere in this thread but he's been so. This is just so much more emotional and closer to home for him personally.

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes.

I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. That's not attained through military control and oppression, in other words, in the long run current Israeli policies will undermine its security objectives.

A real threat, considering the influence of Wahhabism there.

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies. — BitconnectCarlos

1. Except for the hickup that was Rabin, more or less all of them? I'll concede I'm not intimately familiar with every government of Israel, especially before Begin. But anything Likud has been terrible. Not surprising considering its goals:

• Jordan River will be the eastern border.
• The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
• The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
• Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem. The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in 'City of David'.

And other vile nonsense which is as bad as Hamas really - or actually worse considering Hamas' statements in 2017 which accepts the 1967 borders. But Likud fundamentally does not accept a two-state solution, it does not accept its settlements are illegal and believes they should be strengthened (e.g. expanded) and will not be given back.

2. I don't think everybody has to move, Israeli settlers can decide to stay where they are but then under a common rule where they can have 1 person, 1 vote in a sovereign State that isn't Israel but will be a new Palestinian State. Whether those settlers will want to stay is up to them. Israel will have to pay reparations for the land its settlers stole of course if they do decide to stay. But it's already clear that 1967 borders will work too to achieve peace so we're not talking about the 1948 borders. I raised that point to drive home that anything Israel acquired after 1948 has been illegal and morally condemnable. And that despite that the Palestinians have already offered a huge olive branch, which Israel ignores.

3. The Zionism that has resulted in the Apartheid rule in Israel proper, that thinks settler colonialism is a good thing and to be supported by the government and that is not interested in a two state solution. Basically anything that agrees with Likud's points above.

5. Yeah, where you're armed to the teeth, taken my home, continue to oppress my family, kill my family and friends indiscriminately don't complain when I lash out. Sure, it's immoral what Hamas' military wing does but the greater crime that gave rise to Hamas even being created lies with the Israelis. There's no chicken and egg story here, Hamas wasn't created until 1987 as a reaction to the continued oppression and colonisation by Israel of land that isn't theirs. So a Hamas' rocket gets a shrug from me because WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Israel isn't the victim here. You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out.

The worst crime is how Zionism, as an idea of the Jewish people returning to their original homeland, which was in itself a beautiful thing, has warped into, what I'll call, political Zionism, which denies other people rights and dehumanised an entire ethnic people and is the source of the worst atrocities in modern history.

If the Russians had annexed land like Israel has done through its settler policy and had politicians in power actively claiming the goal is to annex the whole of Germany, they might have started as a "defensive war" but the end result would be qualified as aggression. I'm sorry but international law is clear on this - you can't win land through conquest any more - it's aggression by definition. There's a clear distinction between occupation and settlement/annexation, as I already stated and which you conveniently didn't quote.