Reading books by bigots.

[Dachs]

I thought Vidal Sassoon made hair care products.

Sassoon was too young to fight in the Second World War, but in his teenage years he joined the "43 Group", a collection of Jewish ex-servicemen and youths who engaged in anti-BUF vigilantism following VE Day. He later fought in the IDF during the 1948 war.

The parallels with the Scouring of the Shire ought to be reasonably obvious.

 

[Ajidica]

What was the BUF? All I'm getting on Google are references to the Buffalo-Niagra Airport.

 

[Dachs]

What was the BUF? All I'm getting on Google are references to the Buffalo-Niagra Airport.

Fifth link on Google for "wiki buf" is the British Union of Fascists. Group 43 fought against the BUF's epigones; the Union itself had been formally banned in 1940 as a potential fifth column, but Oswald Mosley and others managed to resurrect a sort of 'union movement' that had some success on the streets in the late 1940s through the fifties.

 

[Masada]

Contact do have a little bit of that vibe, don't they?

I was thinking more Special Circumstances and the Interesting Times Gang. But even Contact on reflection was problematic.

Problem with Banks is that his anarchism was utopian, but he wasn't, so he had a bit of a soft spot for the old liberal (or, charitably, socialist) interventionism.

I don't get the impression that the interventions planned by the Minds fit those paradigms. The Player of Games has them deliberately setting off a civil war that'll kill billions because it might lead to a better outcome in the future. Look to Windward shows that the Minds aren't infallible and that their interventions often spin out of control. I guess those to my mind don't fit into either of those paradigms.

 

[Traitorfish]

Aye, true enough, there's a bit more Thucydides than Locke to a lot of their schemes...

There's probably a dissertation in that, somewhere, if somebody happened to be double-majoring in Literature and Political Science.

 

[NovaKart]

Then I'm sure you won't mind providing even a single example of this so-called "observation", much less try to support the hyperbolic nonsense you posted.

It's a simple one line observation about how you bring up race a lot. I swear you could start an argument in an empty room.

 

[NovaKart]

Sassoon was too young to fight in the Second World War, but in his teenage years he joined the "43 Group", a collection of Jewish ex-servicemen and youths who engaged in anti-BUF vigilantism following VE Day. He later fought in the IDF during the 1948 war.

The parallels with the Scouring of the Shire ought to be reasonably obvious.

That is terribly obvious I should have realized that when the story mentioned the hobbits geometric bob cuts and their samples of conditioner.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a simple one line observation about how you bring up race a lot. I swear you could start an argument in an empty room.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Lem is a misanthrope and a Russophobe, but is my favourite author.

 

[Mouthwash]

I objected to Banks' actions because they were collective punishment. OK, I phrased it poorly. You have utterly dominated me in the contest of semantics. But my point stands that singling out people who live in Israel to not be able to read your books for no real reason is disgusting.

Thank you.

 

[Traitorfish]

"For no real reason"?

 

[Kyriakos]

"For no real reason"?

^Maybe Banks had in mind to say what westerners think of Israel, not his actual view

 

[Tahuti]

"For no real reason"?

Well, I find the idea that all persons living in Israel - which may well include someone of Arab descent - to be somehow responsible of the suffering of Palestinians and thus deserving to be targeted by a wholesale economic blockade to be pretty offensive myself. The Netherlands treats illegal immigrants very poorly, yet I would be genuinely offended if a writer says that all goods coming from the Netherlands should not be bought for that reason.

 

[Traitorfish]

You could certainly make the case that Banks' reasoning was mistaken. But that's a very different claim than saying he had "no real reason" at all. Surely?

 

[Mouthwash]

You could certainly make the case that Banks' reasoning was mistaken. But that's a very different claim than saying he had "no real reason" at all. Surely?

I don't understand you. "Cultural" or "educational" boycotts are never justified because there is no conceivable way they could have an effect in changing a state's policies, but engage in collective punishment without justification. You yourself said the same thing in regards to eugenics.

^Maybe Banks had in mind to say what westerners think of Israel, not his actual view

If he had openly and explicitly condemned BDS beforehand, then maybe. For instance, Masada here does the exact same thing, but it's pretty clear, based on context and his previously mentioned views, that he probably was engaging in sarcasm.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't understand you. "Cultural" or "educational" boycotts are never justified because there is no conceivable way they could have an effect in changing a state's policies, but engage in collective punishment without justification. You yourself said the same thing in regards to eugenics.

It's not collective punishment since the decision to buy goods or not is ultimately a private decision, unless it is enforced by government (as in many Arab countries) and individuals who break the boycott are punished.

Regardless, it should be considered highly offensive, akin to saying "All Palestinians are terrorists".

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not collective punishment since the decision to buy goods or not is ultimately a private decision, unless it is enforced by government (as in many Arab countries) and individuals who break the boycott are punished.

Regardless, it should be considered highly offensive, akin to saying "All Palestinians are terrorists".

You're depriving those in Israel of the opportunity to buy your book for no other reason than the state they live in.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't understand you. "Cultural" or "educational" boycotts are never justified because there is no conceivable way they could have an effect in changing a state's policies, but engage in collective punishment without justification. You yourself said the same thing in regards to eugenics.

Perhaps this is so. But it is, again, another argument entirely. Bad, misguided or even downright malicious reasons are not the same as "no real reason".

You're depriving those in Israel of the opportunity to buy your book for no other reason than the state they live in.

Individual Israelis are still entirely able to order the books from foreign suppliers. It's only Israeli business, who buy the books in bulk for resale, that are actually inconvenienced.

 

[Mouthwash]

Perhaps this is so. But it is, again, another argument entirely. Bad, misguided or even downright malicious reasons are not the same as "no real reason"

Well, this is a rather miserable attempt at semantically wiggling out under my argument.

Individual Israelis are still entirely able to order the books from foreign suppliers. It's only Israeli business, who buy the books in bulk for resale, that are actually inconvenienced.

Yes, but that's a loophole. Unless you can show that he didn't intend to actually prevent those in Israel from buying his books? If that's the case, than Banks' or Alice Walker's statements seem very disingenuous.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, this is a rather miserable attempt at semantically wiggling out under my argument.

You've really got to stop doing this, letting the words fall onto the page as they please, and then reacting with hostility when people read them as they are written. Think about what you want to say, think about what you're writing, and think about how people might take it, because the burden is on you as the writer to make sure that your words communicate your meaning. Failing to do so is bad forum etiquette, hinders discussion, and prevents people from taking you seriously.

Yes, but that's a loophole. Unless you can show that he didn't intend to actually prevent those in Israel from buying his books? If that's the case, than Banks' or Alice Walker's statements seem very disingenuous.

Banks' intent, as I understand it, was to prevent Israeli businesses from profiting form the sale of his books. I don't see what reason we have to believe that this was intended as an attack on individual inhabitants of the State of Israel. If you can find evidence to support this claim, you're certainly welcome to present it.