The old is new again: "Ze Jews" thread followup

[GeoffP]

I'm sorry to have to do this - very sorry - but Tiassa recently closed this thread and it deserves more commentary. Sorry. I believe this is the first time I've been so motivated.

Pardon the fisking, Tiassa and all.

An interesting point, but I don't think this issue arises in a vacuum.

It certainly doesn't. And neither does its response.

At Sciforums, many of our more respected minds like to appeal to science and the scientific method. So let's consider that as a loose analogy. Someone tells S.A.M. her use of the word "Jews" is making people wary of her threads and posts. So she formulates a hypothesis: Perhaps the discussion can move forward if she calls them something else.

Tiassa, that - and Sam's "point" - are vastly disingenuous. To parallel your analogy above, let's say I call any racial group - I arbitrarily pick Chinese people "non-non-Chinese people" (NNPC). Then we can talk about the perceived or imagined or stereotypical shortcomings of NNPCs without fear of being called bigots, yes? You know, those NNPCs are really shifty, I might say. Goonish. They have poor hygiene, and they like to eat babies. But so long as I call them NNPCs, it's all fine. Right?

Wrong, of course. It is the height of bold and brute slight-of-hand dishonesty. Can you honestly believe that Sam's exercise is anything more than another backhand avoidance? Let's not be absurd, here. The general rejection of same has almost nothing to do with Sam herself, save that no one is perhaps surprised at the source. "Oh, Sam again? Welll... " It's like Gustav finding a different way to insult people. Not exactly "experimental". We all know who you mean, wink wink, nudge nudge.

And, of course, she doesn't use the term "Jews". She uses the term "the Jews". There's a difference and, tellingly, Tiassa does not repeat this whole term, because he knows full well the implication. Tiassa, you'd be the first to scream about group identity, but not here.

She has answered substantive inquiries (e.g. Enmos regarding Palestinian Jews)

No. Sam deals largely in avoidance. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

My point being, Bells, are you sure it's S.A.M. who is making an arse of herself?

Yes. Add my moniker to the list of malcontents. Be sure to bold, italicize and underline it.

Yes, I recognize that people just want her to learn to ignore her idiot critics. And I recognize that for many of those people, the primary benefit to that solution is that S.A.M. should just shut the fuck up and leave the bigots of our community in peace.

Again: wide unfounded assertion here. Who, specifically are the idiot critics? Who, then, are the justified critics? What differs their arguments? (There is a way, of course.) Who are these multitudes who want all Sam's critics to shut up? (Can one person be called "people"? )

I actually agree with her. Sciforums is infected with a hateful disease. One symptom is Zionism. And I mean the supremacist Zionism, not that pie-in-the-sky fantasy Zionism people like to pretend. Oh, Israel has a right to exist! Yes, which includes conduct that would be called crimes against humanity if anyone else did it. Israel has the right to be secure! You know, if you don't want to get in a fight, don't go out and punch someone in the teeth.

Well, your disapproval of crimes against humanity is spotty, then. Did Israel throw the first punch? It's open to speculation. I don't call a thousand years of oppression nothing. Maybe their neighbours should think about your last sentence too. That doesn't mean that the settling should stop - it should and must. But let's not pretend that all Araby has been sitting there and just taking it rather than, say, massing armies and invading with the intent of genocide; and their rage extends to their own Jewish (and Christian, apparently) citizens, too, which Sam seems to feel is justifiable in her discussions with me. "If they don't like it they can leave", she tells me (and then denies it ) - yet still claims the critical importance of desegregation. Well, sure she does: in the sense of monoculture, maybe. Like you dissolve sugar in water - so that it can't be seen.

Oh, but her rants are okay, because I must feel the same about muslims, right?

No.

In the long run, Bells, I understand that S.A.M. makes some mistakes in her handling of this issue, but what I can't figure out is why she should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

She isn't; or at least not by me. But she deals in double-dealing, distortion and diversion. Sorry. That's not my fault either.

It was an ugly row in which our Sciforums neighbor established that, for him, there are no innocent Palestinians.

Then blast him rather than consigning all Sam's critics to your own, highlighted "idiots file".

I would simply suggest that you remain aware of this boilerplate translation that Israel = Jews, and accommodate it as best you can. Unfortunately, it's a burden that you should expect to endure for the foreseeable future at Sciforums.

Yes, yes: Israel's political atrocities = Judenraus. All Jews must be painted with this brush, nicht wahr. Because...well, because some posters on here can't distinguish between muslims and islamic politics. Just like how Evangelists = the United States, and like how the Russian Orthodox Church = Russia. Yes, yes. Ironically, religion is actually more divested from politics in these places, but never mind that.

Criticism is fine, you tell me, but we won't stand for your criticism of our criticism.

[Tiassa]

I'm sorry to have to do this - very sorry - but Tiassa recently closed this thread and it deserves more commentary. Sorry. I believe this is the first time I've been so motivated.

Don't look at me. I didn't close it.

It certainly doesn't. And neither does its response.

Point being?

Tiassa, that - and Sam's "point" - are vastly disingenuous. To parallel your analogy above, let's say I call any racial group - I arbitrarily pick Chinese people "non-non-Chinese people" (NNPC). Then we can talk about the perceived or imagined or stereotypical shortcomings of NNPCs without fear of being called bigots, yes? You know, those NNPCs are really shifty, I might say. Goonish. They have poor hygiene, and they like to eat babies. But so long as I call them NNPCs, it's all fine. Right?

Well, S.A.M. is largely allowed to talk about the Chinese without a bunch of people throwing a fit, Geoff. Neither is "Chinese" a controversial word in the same context—regardless of S.A.M.—as "Jews". The analogy doesn't hold.

No. Sam deals largely in avoidance. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

Context, Geoff. I'm aware that S.A.M. turns other people's methods against them. And I'm aware that it drives people to batshit irrationality. But if you read through my post—such as when I noted Enmos' inquiry and raised the issue of a minor fallacy—you might realize I was referring to that very thread.

Yes. Add my moniker to the list of malcontents. Be sure to bold, italicize and underline it.

As sure as you were about the cabbies?

Again: wide unfounded assertion here. Who, specifically are the idiot critics? Who, then, are the justified critics? What differs their arguments? (There is a way, of course.) Who are these multitudes who want all Sam's critics to shut up? (Can one person be called "people"? )

I consider the most frequent and typical of her critics to be rather quite idiotic. I've even asked among my colleagues who criticize her, and nobody can tell me why it's so much worse when S.A.M. does what we accept and even encourage of other members.

The justified critics are the ones who are capable of understanding to a useful degree what she's doing and are willing to offer useful criticism. What differs about their arguments is that the vast majority of complaints about S.A.M. are ridiculous insofar as those critics are either, to the one, unable or unwilling to explain their problem instead of just restate it over and over with increasing frustration, or, to the other, apparently unable to understand written English.

Well, your disapproval of crimes against humanity is spotty, then. Did Israel throw the first punch? It's open to speculation.

Israel didn't exist when the first punch was thrown in this fight.

I don't call a thousand years of oppression nothing.

And?

Maybe their neighbours should think about your last sentence too. That doesn't mean that the settling should stop - it should and must.

That makes sense if I add a word in the second sentence.

But let's not pretend that all Araby has been sitting there and just taking it rather than, say, massing armies and invading with the intent of genocide ....

I see. Because Syria invaded once upon a time and there's an idiot in power in Iran, Israel should beat the holy living fuck out of the Palestinians.

That makes a lot of sense, Geoff.

... and their rage extends to their own Jewish (and Christian, apparently) citizens, too, which Sam seems to feel is justifiable in her discussions with me. "If they don't like it they can leave", she tells me (and then denies it ) - yet still claims the critical importance of desegregation.

See, one of the problems I have with this sort of complaint extends well beyond S.A.M. I'm accustomed, over the course of years, to tracking down whatever discussion people are referring to and finding the representation inaccurate. So, lately, I haven't been bothering. If people want to make the point, they can make the point. But, no, I'm sorry, I'm not just going to trust you on this.

She isn't; or at least not by me.

As to the first, yes, she is. I have this discussion with my colleagues regularly, and as I noted previously, have yet to get a useful answer. As to the second, I simply don't believe you.

Then blast him rather than consigning all Sam's critics to your own, highlighted "idiots file".

Oh, I did. Now, perhaps you could condescend to go back and read the sentence you responded to in its proper context. One of the things that I never know quite what to do about is when people invent contexts in order to foster digressive responses. Are they deliberately missing the point? Are they simply incapable of understanding it? Either way, it doesn't speak well of them.

Yes, yes: Israel's political atrocities = Judenraus. All Jews must be painted with this brush, nicht wahr.

Take it up with the Israeli sympathizers I cited. Oh, the poor Israelis. So abused by their own damn supporters.

Criticism is fine, you tell me, but we won't stand for your criticism of our criticism.

No, it's the dishonesty of the criticism I protest, Geoff. Perhaps you should pay closer attention. That way you won't embarrass yourself so badly by trying to write my argument for me.

Pardon the fisking, Tiassa and all.

Dude, that wasn't even a finger.

Oh.

You said fisking.

Still, you give yourself too much credit.

[(Q)]

Still, you give yourself too much credit.

As do you. One might tend to think Sam was your sock puppet the way you defend her dishonesty. And, if not a sock puppet, you still manage to defend dishonesty, lies and deceit, which only demonstrates your position and not an argument, dude.

[mike47]

As do you. One might tend to think Sam was your sock puppet the way you defend her dishonesty. And, if not a sock puppet, you still manage to defend dishonesty, lies and deceit, which only demonstrates your position and not an argument, dude.

Wow....this is a tough one to take !!!.
Dishonesty, lies and deceit ?!.
Sock puppet ?.
I hope you do not explode or explode soon from your anger !.

[Tiassa]

As do you. One might tend to think Sam was your sock puppet the way you defend her dishonesty. And, if not a sock puppet, you still manage to defend dishonesty, lies and deceit, which only demonstrates your position and not an argument, dude.

(Q), you ought to learn how to write an argument instead of just seethe hatred.

You're a real piece of work, Tiassa. You write up a huge post insulting a bunch of people and then close the thread. Get a fucking life.

Like this, for example. What thread did I close, (Q)?

[(Q)]

Wow....this is a tough one to take !!!.
Dishonesty, lies and deceit ?!.
Sock puppet ?.
I hope you do not explode or explode soon from your anger !.

Back to school in a couple of days, eh Mike? Were you going into grade 5 or was it 6?

[(Q)]

(Q), you ought to learn how to write an argument instead of just seethe hatred.

As should you T. Your past few posts (conveniently in closed threads) have been dripping and oozing with insults. Did I mention they were placed conveniently in closed threads? LucySnow said you were shameless to place them there, you know, as a moderator and a role model. Clearly, she overestimated your shame.

When are you, T, going to see the lies and hatred Sam spews on these forums every day? Why do you defend it?

No, it's not a matter of seeing through someone else's eyes, it's a matter of bold-faced lies and deception. And, if you can't see that, then yes, you give yourself way too much credit.

[Tiassa]

As should you T. Your past few posts (conveniently in closed threads) have been dripping and oozing with insults. Did I mention they were placed conveniently in closed threads? LucySnow said you were shameless to place them there, you know, as a moderator and a role model. Clearly, she overestimated your shame.

One, mistakenly posted and withdrawn. If you would care to fill in the rest of that few, I'll take a look.

When are you, T, going to see the lies and hatred Sam spews on these forums every day? Why do you defend it?

Same offer I made Lucy: Show me what you see. Oh, wait:

No, it's not a matter of seeing through someone else's eyes, it's a matter of bold-faced lies and deception. And, if you can't see that, then yes, you give yourself way too much credit.

Yes, of course. There is only one way to see the world, isn't there, (Q)?

[Ganymede]

As do you. One might tend to think Sam was your sock puppet the way you defend her dishonesty. And, if not a sock puppet, you still manage to defend dishonesty, lies and deceit, which only demonstrates your position and not an argument, dude.

Why is it that S.A.M's detractor's can only counter her arguments with childish insults and name calling? It happens far to often on this board.

[mike47]

Back to school in a couple of days, eh Mike? Were you going into grade 5 or was it 6?

You want to fight and belittle people all the time therefore you should join kindergarten very soon........

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Tiassa: Well, S.A.M. is largely allowed to talk about the Chinese without a bunch of people throwing a fit, Geoff. Neither is "Chinese" a controversial word in the same context—regardless of S.A.M.—as "Jews". The analogy doesn't hold.

Well this isn't true. When Sam started a thread on Buddhism and made all these spurious claims about Buddhism's affect on these societies members who posted did react and she did find a lot of opposition to how she characterized these societies but Sam does not speak against Buddhist societies or the Chinese on a regular basis. She isn't starting thread after thread about these people. Again this isn't about the fact that she uses the word 'jew' or 'the jews' its the context within which she uses these words to characterize this group in a negative light plain and simple.

This is a situation where you have decided that Sam is a victim and everyone else is just blindly against her without any cause whatsoever. I remember that there were one or two people who thought that Satyr was also being targeted for 'no reason whatsoever' but that wasn't the case was it? No he was opposed because he was becoming divisive and deemed destructive.

Anyway it was a nice touch to add this concerning Sam:

"That second master's degree? The international travel experience and perspective? That practical relationship with Islam? None of those things matter, S.A.M., to that majority. You're a dark-skinned, Muslim, Indian woman. The only thing you're capable of, in their view, is stupid bitchy histrionics."

Besides the fact that Sam is not the only member with either a degree or travel experience and perspective (how practical her relationship with islam no one here is in a position to know), you seem to take the stance that there are detractors simply because Sam is a 'dark skinned muslim woman, indian woman'. She is not the only muslim or dark skinned woman on this site and it is purely insulting to use the race card on other members because there is an objection to her posting practices. Being a 'dark skinned' woman myself I think its revolting to use race in this manner undermining real racism and bias. Sam is disliked because of how she behaves as a member plain and simple not because she is a 'dark skinned muslim indian woman'. That claim is a load of bullshit and has blinded you from seeing her bigotry. So bloody what she's a dark skinned muslim woman? Does this give her a right to run around characterizing Jews in any way she pleases? If you said yes it wouldn't surprise me.

What you have done Tiassa is claim that anyone who criticizes Sam's assumptions about Jews or her negative characterization of all Jews are 'haters'. Well done. Haters of what you never indicate. Its a similar tactic used by republicans when they call Obama a 'nazi' or 'socialist' because he supports universal health care. You are basically trying to negatively brand everyone who criticizes Sam by the use of 'hater' you don't quite go so far as to call us racist but you are hint towards it.

So what is a problem with the 'no more jews' thread:

Its fascinating really. She says that when she speaks of jews she will substitute the word 'jew' with 'non palestinians'. So basically if she speaks of american, scottish or jews anywhere they will be the 'non palestinians'. Because as you know its impossible for Sam to see jews as anything but tied to the situation in Israel and zionism and therefore also the palestinians. She is not liberating the word 'jew' from her bigotry she is tying them to it.

Ironic thread title don't you think?

[spidergoat]

I never had a problem with the term, "Jews" or "the Jews". It's just that you see a thread with that title and skip to the end, and see, for instance, falsified quotes from the Talmud, a typical slander you can see all over any anti-semitic site, and you get the impression that that denigrating Jews was the purpose of the thread.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No one here claims to have a problem with the term 'jews'.

[Gustav]

sure they do
buried deep within their psyche lies an ancient prejudice

JEW

look at it closely
gaze at it


Someone wrote an anti-Semitic slur on the side of an Annapolis synagogue over the weekend, city police said. Police were called to Congregation Kneseth Israel on Spa Road at about 8 p.m. Sunday after a representative of the synagogue reported graffiti written in pencil on a wall nearest the entrance to the facility. Police found the words, attacking members of the Jewish faith,scribbled on the building. The graffiti misspelled the word Jew as "Juew." (link)

[S.A.M.]

I never had a problem with the term, "Jews" or "the Jews". It's just that you see a thread with that title and skip to the end, and see, for instance, falsified quotes from the Talmud, a typical slander you can see all over any anti-semitic site, and you get the impression that that denigrating Jews was the purpose of the thread.

Are you saying that unlike the Quran and Bible verses, "falsified quotes" [none of which were ever described as such by Cheski who has patiently explained all of the ones I asked him to] from the Talmud [not even the Torah, apparently] are beyond ridicule?

Because you're basically saying that while people are free to say anything about the Quran or Bible, they are not free to say anything about the Talmud, let alone the Torah. What makes the cult of Judaism as some would say here, free from being subjected to the same ridicule?

Can we laugh at these nuts without being called antisemitic?

Jerusalem Haredim hold first non-violent Shabbat protest in months

How about these?

Israel to Diaspora Inter-Marriers: You've Been Abducted.

[Bells]

Context, Geoff. I'm aware that S.A.M. turns other people's methods against them. And I'm aware that it drives people to batshit irrationality. But if you read through my post—such as when I noted Enmos' inquiry and raised the issue of a minor fallacy—you might realize I was referring to that very thread.

I'm sorry, what?

So we are meant to despise when other bigots use that method, but we applaud when Sam "turns other people's methods against them"? As someone who is against the anti-Muslim stance that many have adopted on this forum, I find Sam's stance equally offensive.

I guess that is my fault for expecting more from Sam, someone I have always respected and viewed as being an intelligent and sensitive human being. Or is that me being driven to "batshit irrationality"?

Because you're basically saying that while people are free to say anything about the Quran or Bible, they are not free to say anything about the Talmud, let alone the Torah. What makes the cult of Judaism as some would say here, free from being subjected to the same ridicule?

Bullshit!

I'm sorry, but I am calling it as I see it. No one said you or anyone else could not question the holy texts of any religion. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. Should we accept malicious questioning, to allow one's bigotry to come to the fore, when asking such questions? I think the answer to that should be no. Regardless of one's religious beliefs.

Yes, we laugh at the nutbags of any religion or non-religion. But to maliciously pursue individuals and then labelling all as one. No. It shouldn't happen regardless of the religion in question.

---------------------------

Seriously, all this crap has gotten to the point where I don't even want to log on to this site anymore.

[GeoffP]

Don't look at me. I didn't close it.

My apologies.

Point being?

The same as your own - that the issue is complex. Not so?

Well, S.A.M. is largely allowed to talk about the Chinese without a bunch of people throwing a fit, Geoff. Neither is "Chinese" a controversial word in the same context—regardless of S.A.M.—as "Jews". The analogy doesn't hold.

"The Chinese"? Unlikely. I agree that "Chinese" is not a controversial word in the same context - because "the Jews" carries a group assignment of values. Now, that might not be a bad thing. Ex:

"The Jews are great flower arrangers." Innocuous. Still has a faint whiff about it, but okay.

"The Jews are a good bunch of people." Nice, sure. Still doesn't smell like teen spirit. Why "the Jews"? Why not..."Jewish people"? "Fellows who are Jewish"? "A collection of ungeneralized people who happen to be Jewish"? A million acronyms could suffice: JP. FWAJ. ACOUPWHTBJ. I imagine you see.

Context, Geoff. I'm aware that S.A.M. turns other people's methods against them.

No - avoidance. Changing topic, changing geography, changing era, etc. That's not the same thing. I turn people's methods against them, so I know the difference. Yet, it does indeed drive people to batshit irrationality.

As sure as you were about the cabbies?

Thanks for raising that thread.

One of the problems of all debate - internet or otherwise - is the screaming urge to the gotcha. "Oh, you feel this way? But do you remember this?" Etc.

Now, in itself, it's not a dishonest thing. In fact, dredging up old statements that contradict with present ones isn't a bad thing - provided those earlier statements actually do contradict with present ones, and are demonstrably incorrect. That's also one of the test markers as to whether or not you're engaging in an honest debate, in my experience. Foley used to do this WRT my contemplation of Jewish genetics; I'd made a rash statement prior to researching the field, and found later that my rash statement wasn't so. (No trouble; the 'opposition' effortlessly switched their argument from "Jews can be persecuted because they aren't a genetically distinct population" to "Jews don't belong in the Middle East because they're too different to Arabs". A classic example of the internet argumenter/argumentrix.) Still, I could respect Foley's point: earlier, I had indeed assumed too much.

The problem with Tiassa's gotcha is that it isn't related to the thread. It hasn't the slightest to do with it. But he bookmarked it earlier and raises it now as a sort of "Masada reply" to destroy one's credibility, as if ever being wrong invalidates all succeeding arguments. It doesn't. (Nor is it so clear cut in its finality, seemingly.) Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, Tiassa - and then relate the content of that thread to this. It's a silly kind of cheap shot - I could as easily raise the contents of this thread

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....t=obama+poster

which you've let drop quietly by the wayside, but it wouldn't prove anything about this argument. A fish of a different colour, if you'll pardon the jest. Once wrong, always wrong? Right? Wrong.

I consider the most frequent and typical of her critics to be rather quite idiotic. I've even asked among my colleagues who criticize her, and nobody can tell me why it's so much worse when S.A.M. does what we accept and even encourage of other members.

Well, just what are we accepting and encouraging? Just what was her thread meant to prove? That using a different label changes vitriol? Clearly, I must consider the experiment a failure.

The justified critics are the ones who are capable of understanding to a useful degree what she's doing and are willing to offer useful criticism.

Ah. Then I am one of the justified ones. But - who are the unjustified ones, Tiassa? State names and bent, if you will. I'm curious to see who you're implicating here.

Israel didn't exist when the first punch was thrown in this fight.

Point being? Ze Jews did indeed exist.

And?

And your sense of perspective extends sixty years at the most?

That makes sense if I add a word in the second sentence.

I am glad that you did: that is quite correct.

I see. Because Syria invaded once upon a time and there's an idiot in power in Iran, Israel should beat the holy living fuck out of the Palestinians.

You asked about who threw the first punch - which is more a schoolyard band-aid, really, but fine. The later punches descend from the first. I don't see you criticizing them, as I criticize Israel for the settlers, but perhaps this is a different issue.

See, one of the problems I have with this sort of complaint extends well beyond S.A.M. I'm accustomed, over the course of years, to tracking down whatever discussion people are referring to and finding the representation inaccurate. So, lately, I haven't been bothering. If people want to make the point, they can make the point. But, no, I'm sorry, I'm not just going to trust you on this.

Ha! As if you would. But I'm faced with a similar problem: I don't generally go hunting down earlier editions of the same opinion, for the reasons that I don't have infinite amounts of time to fisk people. (Nor, even, do I bookmark people's statements for the purposes of later, er, debate, Tiassa, or inject them into later debate for the purposes of "honesty". ) Rather, I take note of people's positions as they require blasting, which I do in the relevant thread. Sam is free to retract such a position, although denial is not really an option IMHO.

Of course, since we're speaking of trust, what could I possibly show you that would make you accept my statement, internet arguments and personal biases being what they are? Or: How could I possibly trust you on this? Silly.

As to the first, yes, she is. I have this discussion with my colleagues regularly, and as I noted previously, have yet to get a useful answer.

Then let me be the first: because she posts inflammatory nonsense and half-thoughts. No charge for the service, Tiassa.

As to the second, I simply don't believe you.

My, my: Tiassa doesn't believe me. You're right, of course - my secret hasbara training and Lizardoid contacts allow me to assume the identify of any person, living or dead, on the internet or off it. Why, just the other day, I created the Obama poster and then demanded the creator reveal himself or herself. I'm trickier than even you suspect. No, no: I regularly make up shit about other posters on here. Got me. Your honesty detector is flickering, but it can't be the batteries. It can't! They're DuraCells!

Oh, I did. Now, perhaps you could condescend to go back and read the sentence you responded to in its proper context. One of the things that I never know quite what to do about is when people invent contexts in order to foster digressive responses. Are they deliberately missing the point? Are they simply incapable of understanding it? Either way, it doesn't speak well of them.

OK: you deal in generalities, but don't include me. I suppose I can accept your refrain on the latter - naturally - but how about the former?

Take it up with the Israeli sympathizers I cited. Oh, the poor Israelis. So abused by their own damn supporters.

No. Sam's comments were on Jews, not Israelis per se. If you like, demonstrate logically how all Jews are Israelis, and all Israelis Jews. I'll even stipulate to the second one free of comment.

No, it's the dishonesty of the criticism I protest, Geoff. Perhaps you should pay closer attention. That way you won't embarrass yourself so badly by trying to write my argument for me.

Now, now: I make it a habit never to take credit for anyone else's work. But we've hit this argument before: how in the name of the almighty Myuu can you possibly know whether a debater is dealing honestly or dishonestly with you? You yourself just dredged up an old, unrelated issues just for the purpose of scoring points. So your criticism of the honesty or dishonesty of the argument is meaningless. It speaks to preconception not precognition, except in the most extreme cases.

Dude, that wasn't even a finger.

Oh.

You said fisking.

Still, you give yourself too much credit.

Possibly; then again, perhaps your thresholds are simply too loose to be able to tell. It only hurts after the first time, I'm told.

[GeoffP]

Why is it that S.A.M's detractor's can only counter her arguments with childish insults and name calling? It happens far to often on this board.

What, like where one makes reasoned arguments and defends them with facts and historical bites?

I never had a problem with the term, "Jews" or "the Jews". It's just that you see a thread with that title and skip to the end, and see, for instance, falsified quotes from the Talmud, a typical slander you can see all over any anti-semitic site, and you get the impression that that denigrating Jews was the purpose of the thread.

Quite so - an excellent point, and one which I did not make in either my initial thread nor just now. Perhaps I judge her too harshly, but still.

I'm sorry, what?

So we are meant to despise when other bigots use that method, but we applaud when Sam "turns other people's methods against them"? As someone who is against the anti-Muslim stance that many have adopted on this forum, I find Sam's stance equally offensive.

...

Seriously, all this crap has gotten to the point where I don't even want to log on to this site anymore.

Sadly for me personally, Bells, you are right on target with this. Perhaps I've been too harsh with Sam. My issue - as I earnestly hope and pray to the almighty and frugal Myuu - is NOT with muslims, nor with the expression of the islamic faith. My criticisms only relate to that area in which it touches the rights of others, or where its conservatism is used to regulate society and freedom. Other religions have their own fallacies - the Catholicis heirarchy, with its idiotic devotion to predators, evangelists, with Robertson and his ilk, and even conservative Judaism's 'settlers'. Atheists, of course, do not earn my censure, because you are all going to hell anyway.

I hope I have not been put in the categories Tiassa describes by any statements or posts of mine. Certainly I've had my dander up about some stories - which I expect Sam or Tiassa can and will trot out from the bookmarked collection ; say on, if indeed I deserve it - but I wish to make it clear that I do not consider islam as some wholesale target. There are heinous elements within some of those who practice it, and I believe it suffers from a deal of conservatism and a failure yet to separate mosque and state. But these things you know of me already. If indeed I cross such boundaries, I will leave it to my reviewers to know them, and to so instruct me.

And to Sam, to blast me no matter where I stand.

Best regards,

Geoff

[Tiassa]

So we are meant to despise when other bigots use that method, but we applaud when Sam "turns other people's methods against them"? As someone who is against the anti-Muslim stance that many have adopted on this forum, I find Sam's stance equally offensive.

Bells, this issue actually finds no sympathy with me.

How many times do I have to concede that I recognize problems about S.A.M.'s approach? Or maybe that's just not good enough, eh? Maybe I need to get angrier at it?

It's like a comedy routine, Bells. Some comedians who tell nigger jokes are, indeed, racist. And some comedians who use the word nigger aren't.

I'm sure you're aware that context affects how we read or interpret information. Including jokes and comedy routines, editorials, stump speeches, sound bites, &c.

Quite clearly, S.A.M.'s approach to Israel and the Jews unsettles people. It's supposed to. That's part of the point. She's doing performance art, Bells. And yes, it's her own damn fault for not recognizing that so many people are absolutely incapable of understanding it.

Okay, look. When people scorched "Muslims", that was all well and fine with a lot of people. When S.A.M. turned that rhetoric and those standards toward the United States, people said she "hated America"; apparently, Americans should be viewed and judged according to different standards than Muslims. And when she went after a problem closer to the heart of the Muslim issue—e.g., Palestine—that necessarily involves Israel. And when she turned that rhetoric and those standards toward Israel and the Jews, she is accused of hating Jews. Apparently, Israel is to be viewed and judged according to different standards than Muslims. Or maybe it's just that Muslims are to be viewed and judged according to different standards than America, Israel, and other leading Westernized nations and peoples.

Okay, fine. So S.A.M. is a horrible person who hates Jews. Well you know what? That makes a really long list of horrible people—including some of our fellow moderators—who are horrible people for hating Muslims. So just so we're clear, that doesn't just include horrible people like Buffalo Roam and (Q), but also Madanthonywayne and Superstring, as well as our administrators, who not only let Buffalo Roam and others run amok, but on some occasions protected them while doing so. And all so we can indict S.A.M.

So think about that, please. And could someone please answer the question of why S.A.M. is such a horrible person because she does what we not only allow, but occasionally encourage of other people?

As far as I can tell, this has everything to do with stupid and petty bigotry. Yes, the fight is ridiculous, but I reject the underlying theme that the only proper solution is for S.A.M. to shut the fuck up about Jews, America, or whatever else people don't want her to talk about while empowering actual bigotry.

I guess that is my fault for expecting more from Sam, someone I have always respected and viewed as being an intelligent and sensitive human being. Or is that me being driven to "batshit irrationality"?

I don't know. Perhaps you could apply that view of her as an intelligent and sensitive human being to the circumstances of the larger dispute. This has been carrying on for years. And every time we deal with it, we're expected to take a microcosmic view. S.A.M. apparently exists in a vacuum.

So what would you like her to do, Bells? What special rules that don't apply to anybody else should she obey?

Seriously, all this crap has gotten to the point where I don't even want to log on to this site anymore.

I'm sorry it's coming to that. Really, I am. In the long run it has the potential to diminish my relationship with this site, too, because from the time I returned from my 2005 hiatus and found the site under new ownership, it hasn't been the same place. In order to be "fair", we have pandered to bigots and trolls. And the recent dispute that led to the WE&P overhaul is the first major attempt at progress on that front I've seen in over three years.

But I've been here too long to walk away without putting up one hell of a fight, and we're not anywhere near that round yet as far as I'm concerned. I've already conceded my faith in the "intelligent community". I recognize that we are no longer about that mission. It would be nice to have it back. Really, it would. But that's quite obviously not the administration's plan. We're guinea pigs, Bells. Running around for software developers. And look at the controversy. It keeps the traffic up, adds weight to the database, gives the developers material to work with. In the meantime, they're not even keeping the clock accurate. (It's several minutes slow compared to every other network clock I have access to, and that gap is growing; the last time I inquired about the phenomenon, the Sciforums time stamp was around twenty minutes behind.) In other words, their focus is elsewhere. We're here—all of us—for them.

And no, that doesn't bother me in and of itself. But the longer we have to maintain such unjust and focused standards? Yeah, that erodes both my faith and my place in this community.

The S.A.M. issue itself? At least that's mildly entertaining. Well, most of the time. I am genuinely sorry it upsets you so. But underlying the S.A.M. issue is a deeper problem that should have been handled years ago, except that wasn't really our purpose here.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Performance art? The whole idea of performance art is to portray something that is an obvious portrayal of something. She seems to have forgotten when to take off her performance costume. If its performance art and it doesn't work then why has she continued in the same vein? Why not stop and allow others to see what she is doing? Also if its performance art that she is engaged in then why is it that when that is turned on her she fails to recognize it herself? I have done that with her on two different occasions and all she could come up with is that I am some kind western racist. I have no reason to believe that all this has been a performance on her part and if it is she was free at any time to come out and say so. I think you are just looking for a way to excuse her behaviour. I mean did she send you some secret memo or something telling you that she was engaged in performance art?