[RD] War in Gaza News: Pas de Deux

Because across several different posts religion and terrorist assistance were implied and connected.

It's outgrouping and dog whistles again.
I see.
So there are two groups, who share not only religion, but also affinity for terrorist practices - and you dispute neither fact. But calling them "kindred spirits" in acknowledgement of these commonalities (or maybe just one of them) is "racist", because you think it implies something you are not comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
I see.
So there are two groups, who share not only religion, but also affinity for terrorist practices - and you dispute neither fact. But calling them "kindred spirits" in acknowledgement of these commonalities (or maybe just one of them) is "racist", because you think it implies something you are not comfortable with.
Hamas is a political organisation. Palestinians are a people.

But I guess all Israelis aren't affiliated with the documented, reprehensible excesses of the IDF and militant settlers. Or are they?

And what does that say for military forces that the IDF (or Mossad) help train?

The problem with these selective assertions, and indeed why people point out the associated baggage, is because they're never made nor applied consistently.
 
!?
 
Are all catholics associated with the IRA?
Obviously not.
Even most Irish are not associated with IRA.

Regardless, if someone called the Irish and the Basques "kindred spirits", it would be neither wrong nor eyebrow-raising - at least not in my opinion.

Exactly because "all catholics are terrorists" is by no means a logical extension of that statement and is regardless such a silly claim that I would not attribute it to anyone who has not explicitly made it.
 
Obviously not.
Even most Irish are not associated with IRA.

Regardless, if someone called the Irish and the Basques "kindred spirits", it would be neither wrong nor eyebrow-raising - at least not in my opinion.

Exactly because "all catholics are terrorists" is by no means a logical extension of that statement and is regardless such a silly claim that I would not attribute it to anyone who has not explicitly made it.
What about people who say "two groups who share an affinity for terrorist practises" when referring to citizens of a country in general? It feels pretty explicit to me.
 
Imagine someone saying Czechs and Russians are kindred spirits because of religion

Then they'd be wrong, as Czechia is mostly atheist/agnostic, while Russia is predominantly orthodox christian.
 
The IRA was mentioned, and I always think it's interesting to juxtapose it with Hamas.

Hamas arguably intends to use somewhat similar tactics to achieve a political goal, but there are problems. The IRA was mostly looking for independence, whereas, Hamas is mostly looking to destroy Israel. The one is much easier to provoke than the other.

The IRA famously demonstrated capability to threaten British leaders, while not actually acting on it.

Hamas, OTOH, given its goal, has to take really stupid actions(like shooting kids at a music festival), totally destroying whatever moral authority they have across the entirety of the world, in hopes that the at this point super unreasonable view that Israeli Jews aren't native is correct, and in the face of such pressure, will simply pack up and go back to Europe.

That fundamental goal, and the fundamental presumptions Hamas makes about Israel, are both just really stupid, but I wouldn't expect them to change it. At some point, I have to wonder why the historic leftist attachment to these guys doesn't wane, they're very clearly just belligerent fools with no real hope of success. Just gonna march from disaster to disaster.
 
This is missing the point with pedantry.

You made a bad generalisation (or implied one, hopung it would carry). There. Is that explicit enough?

When someone uses false equivalence as argumentation, correcting them is not pedantry.
 
in hopes that the at this point super unreasonable view that Israeli Jews aren't native is correct, and in the face of such pressure, will simply pack up and go back to Europe
Oh boy... You'll find quite a few people here supporting this view with unwavering moral conviction.

They'll also stand firm for the right of anyone to move to anywhere... except when it's Jews moving to Israel. Those guys should "get back to Boston".
 
When someone uses false equivalence as argumentation, correcting them is not pedantry.

You still made an unsupported generalization, possibly with an implication that you're not quite saying out loud. You're still insisting on corrections/pedantry whatever you call it, rather than just making your point (or any point).

This could all be avoided if you just said it at the start, rather than moaning about people finding implications in what you say, when you absolutely insist that the dance be performed with every step.
 
Oh boy... You'll find quite a few people here supporting this view with unwavering moral conviction.

They'll also stand firm for the right of anyone to move to anywhere... except when it's Jews moving to Israel. Those guys should "get back to Boston".
This is also a false equivalence. You're up Sarin!
 
You still made an unsupported generalization, possibly with an implication that you're not quite saying out loud. You're still insisting on corrections/pedantry whatever you call it, rather than just making your point (or any point).

This could all be avoided if you just said it at the start, rather than moaning about people finding implications in what you say, when you absolutely insist that the dance be performed with every step.

And what implication would that be? Go ahead, say it, because I have no idea what you're talking about. The implication is only in your mind.
 
He said that Palestinians and Chechens are "kindred spirits". Because they are both Muslim. That is barely a generalization, and certainly not unsupported one.

It's fairly unsupported, because he doesn't say what he means by it, so we don't know if he's saying both practice dietary observance or something he thinks action needs to be taken on. Difficult to evaluate.
 
Back
Top Bottom