Reading books by bigots.

[useless]

...So the boycotts against Apartheid South Africa were apparently infact attacks against individual South Africans, some of whom the boycotts were trying to help (or at least done in solidarity with)?

 

[Mouthwash]

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.

The term cultural boycott makes it pretty obvious. There's also his statement.

 

[Mouthwash]

...So the boycotts against Apartheid South Africa were apparently infact attacks against individual South Africans, some of whom the boycotts were trying to help (or at least done in solidarity with)?

Haven't I responded to the "South Africa" precedent multiple times?

 

[Traitorfish]

The term cultural boycott makes it pretty obvious.

Not obvious enough, I'm afraid. Are you able to elaborate?

There's also his statement.

This does make it clear that Banks' intentions were broader than the simply economic, I'll grant you that, but he also seems quite explicit that his intention is to embarrass Israeli publishers, the Israeli state, and the Israeli establishment generally. But nothing in there suggests an obvious enmity towards individual Israelis.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not obvious enough, I'm afraid. Are you able to elaborate?

It means culturally boycotting a state. Music, art, books, sports, etc. How much clearer can it be made?

This does make it clear that Banks' intentions were broader than the simply economic, I'll grant you that, but he also seems quite explicit that his intention is to embarrass Israeli publishers, the Israeli state, and the Israeli establishment generally. But nothing in there suggests an obvious enmity towards individual Israelis.

The "Israeli establishment" includes individual Israelis. My entire point is that he supports collective punishment. Sure, it might be justified under the right circumstances (allowing for a sufficiently consequentialist ethic) to temporarily impoverish or deprive those who are innocent in order to bring down a repressive regime or laws. But there is simply no good reason imaginable that Banks wouldn't want his book to be published in Israel or Saudi Arabia. The people in those countries are not responsible for their government's foreign policy, and neither are the publishers. What about blaming the people of Gaza for electing Hamas? And trying to "flush out" the Zionists by having as many children as possible, destroying their economy and deliberately putting them in harm's way? (Well, actually they can be blamed for the latter.)

 

[bathsheba666]

If only Israel had done something really serious to merit a blockade unlike, say, Cuba.

 

[Tahuti]

...So the boycotts against Apartheid South Africa were apparently infact attacks against individual South Africans, some of whom the boycotts were trying to help (or at least done in solidarity with)?

Not all types sanctions against South Africa were justified: The state enforced sanctions against South African universities arguably hurt the anti-apartheid cause by hurting the institutions most opposed to the apartheid regime. Aside from the fact Israel is morally superior to Apartheid South Africa by a vast margin.

If only Israel had done something really serious to merit a blockade unlike, say, Cuba.

Let's face it, how did the American blockade of Cuba work out? Last I've heard the Castro regime is still alive and kicking.

 

[Traitorfish]

It means culturally boycotting a state. Music, art, books, sports, etc. How much clearer can it be made?

The word I used was "elaborate", not "clarify". Point being, I wasn't asking you to define the term "cultural boycott", but to explain what it's significance is in this context, and what you find so heinous about it.

"Israeli establishment" includes individual Israelis. My entire point is that he supports collective punishment. Sure, it might be justified under the right circumstances (allowing for a sufficiently consequentialist ethic) to temporarily impoverish or deprive those who are innocent in order to bring down a repressive regime or laws. But there is simply no good reason imaginable that Banks wouldn't want his book to be published in Israel or Saudi Arabia. The people in those countries are not responsible for their government's foreign policy, and neither are the publishers.

Being refused the rights to publish a book is hardly "punishment", collective or otherwise. It's a refusal of association, which is entirely within an authors' rights, and serves to embarrass rather than harm the Israeli public, to remind them of the international criticism of their rulers and encourage them to do so something about it. Unless you seriously believe that states have an intrinsic right to be admired and accepted, regardless of what they do to their inhabitants or neighbours, it's hard to see how this constitutes the cruel and unusual punishment you want us to see it as.

What about blaming the people of Gaza for electing Hamas? And trying to "flush out" the Zionists by having as many children as possible, destroying their economy and deliberately putting them in harm's way? (Well, actually they can be blamed for the latter.)

My understanding is that, because Gaza is as poor and miserable as it is, boycotts would be in the first place inhumane, and in the second place ineffective. People living in a giant prison camp and people living in a developed industrial economy can't really be compared in this direct fashion, as I'm sure you'd realise if you stepped back and considered it.


Also, it's worth noting that in debating the rationale of the BDS movement, we're implicitly agreeing that "bigotry" is nothing like a sufficient explanation for Banks' choice, and that the OP's accusation was as spurious as we've been telling him the whole time. So that's nice.

 

[Mouthwash]

The word I used was "elaborate", not "clarify". Point being, I wasn't asking you to define the term "cultural boycott", but to explain what it's significance is in this context, and what you find so heinous about it.

In that case, I've already made my argument more than clear. I'm sorry if you still can't get it.

Being refused the rights to publish a book is hardly "punishment", collective or otherwise. It's a refusal of association, which is entirely within an authors' rights, and serves to embarrass rather than harm the Israeli public, to remind them of the international criticism of their rulers and encourage them to do so something about it.

All boycotts are a form of aggression. This one is materially insignificant, but extremely offensive.

Unless you seriously believe that states have an intrinsic right to be admired and accepted, regardless of what they do to their inhabitants or neighbours,

I have no idea where I ever implied this, or why accepting is necessary to argue my point.

it's hard to see how this constitutes the cruel and unusual punishment you want us to see it as.

Cruel, no. Unusual, yes.

My understanding is that, because Gaza is as poor and miserable as it is, boycotts would be in the first place inhumane, and in the second place ineffective. People living in a giant prison camp and people living in a developed industrial economy can't really be compared in this direct fashion, as I'm sure you'd realise if you stepped back and considered it.

I'm talking in principle. Refusing to let my books be sold in the Territories for their support of terror, violence, and jihad wouldn't go over well. It would be offensive, provocative, and ultimately pointless to deprive Palestinians of the right to read my books. Besides, isn't the opposite what's needed? A cultural or educational exchange seems like something you would want to do when getting the Israeli public to change.

Also, it's worth noting that in debating the rationale of the BDS movement, we're implicitly agreeing that "bigotry" is nothing like a sufficient explanation for Banks' choice, and that the OP's accusation was as spurious as we've been telling him the whole time. So that's nice.

OK, fine. He's not a racist, merely a git. Happy?

 

[aelf]

It is a bit of an uncanny valley here: If you are familiar with a relatively limited range of opinions, you are very prone to be poisoned intellectually, but if you are knowledgable - perhaps even formerly a follower - of about every intellectual movement, you are more capable of thinking more broadly without fear of getting intellectual poisoned.

Throughout my relatively young life, I probably tried out almost every ideology, from anarcho-capitalism to communism, from brights-ism to radical traditionalism. I would dare to say I'm pretty immune now to any ill-regarded intellectual tradition, unless it delves into issues that haven't been explored by any stream of thought I know of.

Ohoho, this post is hilarious coming from someone with stubbornly one-sided or narrow perspectives on entire movements and schools of thought

 

[sanabas]

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.

From what I read, his intent isn't to prevent Israeli businesses from profiting, his intent is to protest the actions of the Israeli government in the most effective way he can. And that hopefully, if someone in Israel can't get his books, finds out why, it might encourage them to think about the issue he's trying to raise, and maybe rethink their views, add what small pressure they can, add their voice to any protest.

Calling it a personal attack on Israeli individuals is like saying a bunch of factory workers going on strike are personally attacking that factory's customers, it's like saying people participating in a protest march are personally attacking all the drivers held up by it. The aim of most protests, whatever the form, isn't to have those inconvenienced, those who notice it, think 'I'm being attacked. That protestor is clearly bigoted against me.'

It's a protest that might be futile, but it's certainly not offensive.

 

[Traitorfish]

OK, fine. He's not a racist, merely a git. Happy?

Not really. I prefer debates to end, if not in consensus, then in some sort of mutual understanding. One party withdrawing in a huff doesn't do anyone any good.

(Not to mention that there's something particularly obnoxious about addressing every possible point before withdrawing, so that if I reply I just look petty, ensuring that you get the unchallenged last word.)

Ohoho, this post is hilarious coming from someone with stubbornly one-sided or narrow perspectives on entire movements and schools of thought

In his naive youth, he believed that he had access to objective political and ethical truth; now he knows it for a fact.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not really. I prefer debates to end, if not in consensus, then in some sort of mutual understanding. One party withdrawing in a huff doesn't do anyone any good.

(Not to mention that there's something particularly obnoxious about addressing every possible point before withdrawing, so that if I reply I just look petty, ensuring that you get the unchallenged last word.)

I didn't realize this debate had ended. We were discussing the ethics and purpose of boycotting an entire country, even though I've conceded the point about Banks being bigoted.

 

[Traitorfish]

The discussion of BDS was in reference to the claim that Banks was a bigot. You're free to have whatever opinion you like on its legitimacy or effectiveness, my position is merely that supporting it does not make one a bigot.

 

[Tahuti]

In his naive youth, he believed that he had access to objective political and ethical truth; now he knows it for a fact.

For christsake, please do not take him too seriously. Already too many here on CFC do. I have never met anyone who is more closeminded, more convinced in his belief that anyone who thinks outside his intellectual framework is dumber than himself than aelf. Never. He is just an intellectually very boring figure who thinks entirely within the framework laid down by the academic textbooks and his required reading (no doubt following the interpretations laid down by his teacher to the minutiae). The fact that I may have expressed too pompously shouldn't distract from the points I am making, which unlike aelf I'm capable of doing as well as revising them whenever necessary.

Again, I have never seen aelf being able to think outside his limited field of gravity and the insults he is making are far more telling of himself than of anyone he is insulting.

 

[aelf]

In your attempt at insulting me, you basically described yourself in one sentence! Congratulations!

But I guess I'm giving you way too much attention.

I never did suggest I was in any way objective or impartial towards all ideas

 

[aelf]

For christsake, please do not take him too seriously. Already too many here on CFC do. I have never met anyone who is more closeminded, more convinced in his belief that anyone who thinks outside his intellectual framework is dumber than himself than aelf. Never. He is just an intellectually very boring figure who thinks entirely within the framework laid down by the academic textbooks and his required reading (no doubt following the interpretations laid down by his teacher to the minutiae). The fact that I may have expressed too pompously shouldn't distract from the points I am making, which unlike aelf I'm capable of doing as well as revising them whenever necessary.

Again, I have never seen aelf being able to think outside his limited field of gravity and the insults he is making are far more telling of himself than of anyone he is insulting.

Perhaps one might be tempted to think that way if one were to ignore the entire history of the conversations between you and myself.

However, owing to the fact that I have in the past presented you evidence that contradicts your assertions about me here and seeing your own perpetual refusal to budge from wholesale dismissal of entire movements and schools of thought, arguing in circles when confronted or simply just disappearing from the debate, I don't see how your assertions are at all true and helpful to your own credibility.

The hostility was, in fact, earned.

 

[Traitorfish]

For christsake, please do not take him too seriously. Already too many here on CFC do. I have never met anyone who is more closeminded, more convinced in his belief that anyone who thinks outside his intellectual framework is dumber than himself than aelf. Never. He is just an intellectually very boring figure who thinks entirely within the framework laid down by the academic textbooks and his required reading (no doubt following the interpretations laid down by his teacher to the minutiae). The fact that I may have expressed too pompously shouldn't distract from the points I am making, which unlike aelf I'm capable of doing as well as revising them whenever necessary.

Again, I have never seen aelf being able to think outside his limited field of gravity and the insults he is making are far more telling of himself than of anyone he is insulting.

Well, that hasn't been my exact experience. Of either of you, if you'll permit the frankness.

Perhaps it depends what we've read, or how we've read it.

 

[peter grimes]

Moderator Action: Please remember to be civil in your criticisms of each other's post and posting style.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mango Elephant]

I think the Israel boycott is good because it gives attention to the issue. If the Israelis get pissed off by it, hopefully that'll spur them to try to change the way their government treats Palestinians.

As a homosexual, I refuse to read Orson Scott Card or watch that movie. That's mostly because I lack the maturity to separate the books I read from the people who write them.