The Islamophobia split on the left.

[Funky]

I actually started watching it from Funky's post before, in hour or 30 minute increments.

That was actually a mistake, I had intended the link to show the video from the beginning. I think especially the very first part about the ethos of digital journalism is quite noteworthy. Anyway, I'm glad it didn't go unnoticed, even if metatron's advice

never post long youtube videos merely by providing a link.

makes sense.

Otherwise I agree with Smote in that I also found Cenk's attitude rather adversary, yet his comments couldn't really stand up to the intellectual prowess of Sam Harris' reasoning. Though as someone who has read all of Harris' books I admit I am somewhat biased.

 

[Takhisis]

That was exactly my point about useless' comment. Well put.

Have chanced to have read and thought about what was posted? If so, we could have a discussion. So far I have not seen such indication.

J

Did you just do yet another 'NO U' pseudo-argument?

Look up any formaldehyde post on Israel for instance. They clearly state 'murdered' instead of 'killed'.

Just because Formaldehyde is one of the people with the most posts on this forum does not mean that most people on the website -let alone the world- think the same way as him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You don't need to support Israel. You only need to seek objectivity, which is noticeably lacking here.

J

Most pro-Palestinian supporters talk similar bollocks.

Objective enough?

 

[Takhisis]

'Bollocks' has a despective connotation, so no. Maybe 'nonsense' or 'hogwash' would work better.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I do overuse the term "bollocks". Glad that Freud is dick, no, I mean breasts, no death! Damnit.

I'll use poppycock or horsepuppies in the future.

 

[bhsup]

Frak Feldercarpin' Frelled BELGIUM!

 

[Smote]

I think especially the very first part about the ethos of digital journalism is quite noteworthy.

Much of what you read on Salon is maniacs in their bedrooms typing. This is not the New York Times...factual inaccuracies and tonal things that are just crazy for a journalist to be doing...what Salon is doing is the end of journalism, as far as I can see...that is where journalism is going to die

But, sam, you say incredibly outrageous things, like we should consider a nuclear first strike, that we should consider torture...and you put caveats in there, which is smart...and then when people criticize that, you go, 'How could you?'

Criticism is totally fair, and hard hitting criticism is totally fair... the stuff I've written about Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is incredibly hard hitting. There's no way he likes what I've written about him. But I was careful not to misrepresent his views. And if anyone ever catches me misrepresenting the views of one of my targets, I will be the first to apologize. That is a completely illegitimate way to argue...this is an ad hominem attack that is not actually engaging my argument.

This is similar to the problem GamerGate had with online gamer journalism, with regards to some other sites. The issue here is that these websites are going overboard with sensationalism and lacking in journalistic integrity without proper oversight from editors. From what I can see, they treat themselves more as a collection of opinions rather than as legitimate news sources. Should opinion websites have standards for journalistic quality, or allow any garbage to be posted? (Similarly, should a forum like this one?)

 

[Mark1031]

Well, since we made these comments, Werleman (the guy doing all the talking) has been exposed as a serial plagiarist, liar and intellectually dishonest propagandist of sarkeesianesque proportions.

Maybe that diffuses the split, on your part, specifically regarding the video you linked somewhat.

Yes, I was quite familiar with Sam Harris nuanced and seemingly controversial views and knew they were being misrepresented by that speaker and Reza Aslan.
I am a big fan of TYT as it is entertaining and covers important issues that are not covered extensively elsewhere, especially $$ in politics. I had generally considered them to be fair (biased as all commentary but fair). To see this level of misrepresentation and strawmanning made me realize that I probably just give it a pass when it is something I agree with.
While I don’t consider TYT journalists I’m not sure there really is journalism anymore. NYTimes lost me during the Iraq war run up (aluminum tubes lol) and all outlets with the general lack of depth and lack of topics that challenge power. TYT does challenge power but in a bombastic and sensationalist style that may not be helpful in terms of accurate information conveyance.
Cenks argument is we just put on anyone and let them say anything and then we have you on to rebut them because your “opinions” differ. But if it a purposeful misrepresentation it is like saying I go on and say you are a child molester and you come on to say you are not. Simple difference of opinion. It is a bit of hypocrisy on their part as one of the main complaints of the MSM is that it is all he said-she said with no moderation of fact. Same as what he is arguing his show should be allowed to do.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't suppose Israel does target civilians systematically - given the amount of bad publicity which civilians they inadvertently kill gives them.

(I think Israel would deliberately target civilians if they thought they could get away with it, though.)

Nevertheless, I think Israel's long term goals are to discourage Palestinians from living in both Gaza and the West Bank altogether. So, they're not really all that unhappy if Palestinian civilians don't feel secure in their own homes.

Which is why emigration from Gaza is nest to impossible? You'd think Israel would want to make it easy.

'Other people are wrong in the same way as me' is a pretty desperate argument... People genuinely do understand the rationale for Israeli action in Gaza, it's just that it looks like a much flimsier line of justification than that for violence on behalf of the Gazans. Essentially, the Israeli armed forces cause a much greater degree of destruction (and proportion of civilian casualties) despite Israeli people suffering much less damage in provocation.

Still, some (notable George Galloway) have justified such mass killings. Is there no one who has ever said "I can understand why Israel is committing genocide even if I don't agree with it?"

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that's where most sensible people sit; the problem is that it doesn't make a very good political argument, so if you want to enter the fray of making your opinion heard then you do have to choose to emphasise one side or the other. Usually in politics trying to please both sides ends up angering them both.

 

[Old Hippy]

. Is there no one who has ever said "I can understand why Israel is committing genocide even if I don't agree with it?"

I think most people say that...

 

[Borachio]

Which is why emigration from Gaza is nest to impossible? You'd think Israel would want to make it easy.

Is emigration next to impossible? I understand that the Egyptian border is fairly tightly controlled. Possibly because Egypt doesn't want an influx of Palestinians, or possibly because Egypt wants to make matters uncomfortable for Israel (I've really no idea). But I haven't heard that Palestinians in Gaza are in an any worse position than any other potential migrants.

Do you have a source to cite on this?

Still, this doesn't tell me much apart from some guy thinks the PCBS produces nonsense.

 

[Flying Pig]

Isn't that to do with the flow of supplies more than people, though?

 

[Mouthwash]

I think that's where most sensible people sit; the problem is that it doesn't make a very good political argument, so if you want to enter the fray of making your opinion heard then you do have to choose to emphasise one side or the other. Usually in politics trying to please both sides ends up angering them both.

Most sensible people believe that Israel is committing genocide?

Is emigration next to impossible? I understand that the Egyptian border is fairly tightly controlled. Possibly because Egypt doesn't want an influx of Palestinians, or possibly because Egypt wants to make matters uncomfortable for Israel (I've really no idea). But I haven't heard that Palestinians in Gaza are in an any worse position than any other potential migrants.

Do you have a source to cite on this?

Still, this doesn't tell me much apart from some guy thinks the PCBS produces nonsense.

It's common knowledge. The naval blockade prevents them boating to Europe, Egypt certainly won't give them access, and the other directions are the Zionist regime.

Unrelated fact: Ismail Haniyeh's daughter treated in Tel Aviv.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most sensible people believe that Israel is committing genocide?

I was deliberately leaving the loaded term out of it, but I think it's certainly true that a) most sensible people believe that Israel should not be acting as forcefully as it is, and causes too many civilian casualties (though the implications of that term are tricky) and b) that most sensible people understand the arguments put forward by the Israeli military for acting as they do. You won't find many outside Israel itself and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US who are uncritical of Israel's policy, even if it's difficult to get agreement on the term 'genocide'. Certainly it's difficult to argue that Israel is not systematically killing people simply for being Palestinian; the difficult part is whether doing so through gross negligence is enough to constitute 'genocide'.

 

[Arakhor]

I quite agree, FP.

Mouthwash, I believed I expressed similar sentiments in post 338 of this very thread, which, at the risk of suggesting that people aren't reading every post in the thread...

 

[onejayhawk]

I was deliberately leaving the loaded term out of it, but I think it's certainly true that a) most sensible people believe that Israel should not be acting as forcefully as it is, and causes too many civilian casualties (though the implications of that term are tricky) and b) that most sensible people understand the arguments put forward by the Israeli military for acting as they do. You won't find many outside Israel itself and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US who are uncritical of Israel's policy, even if it's difficult to get agreement on the term 'genocide'. Certainly it's difficult to argue that Israel is not systematically killing people simply for being Palestinian; the difficult part is whether doing so through gross negligence is enough to constitute 'genocide'.

It is certainly possible to argue excessive force, but there is a vast gulf between that and what you are saying here. This is a plain accusation of genocide, couched in other terms. I find that disingenuous. Say what you mean.

J

 

[Funky]

On the topic on Israel, I'd like to point to an article by, surprise, Sam Harris. He offers an interesting perspective. Why Don't I Criticize Israel?

 

[Tee Kay]

On the topic on Israel, I'd like to point to an article by, surprise, Sam Harris. He offers an interesting perspective. Why Don't I Criticize Israel?

tl;dr it's all the Palestinians fault, only they have to change their ways because Israel is just retaliating to their barbarism.

This lie has been refuted time and time again.

Some liberals let their anti-religion dogma blind them to the actual situation on the ground. Pallies are religious therefore obviously bad, etc.

 

[Funky]

tl;dr it's all the Palestinians fault, only they have to change their ways because Israel is just retaliating to their barbarism.

This lie has been refuted time and time again.

I suggest you actually read the article before making assumptions about its content...

In this case you can even listen to it, if reading is too laborious for you.