Well liberals is it time to stop July 4th being a holiday?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2023, 02:11 PM)Dill Wrote: You are all to be commended for rejecting Murray's framing of the debate around Western Civ. 

I think Murray's main point is not that Western nations should be immune to criticism because, "both sides do it".  His point is that it's only western nations that are taken to task for their roles in these atrocities, while other nations warrant nary a peep of protest.  Hence, many in the west are sick of being singled out for criticism.  

But please, don't let me interrupt your award ceremony.

[*pally*]

(07-08-2023, 07:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

I think Murray's main point is not that Western nations should be immune to criticism because, "both sides do it".  His point is that it's only western nations that are taken to task for their roles in these atrocities, while other nations warrant nary a peep of protest.  Hence, many in the west are sick of being singled out for criticism.  

But please, don't let me interrupt your award ceremony.

Maybe that's because Western nations hold themselves to be superior to other nations. When you claim to be better than anyone else you get held to a higher standard

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2023, 08:47 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe that's because Western nations hold themselves to be superior to other nations. When you claim to be better than anyone else you get held to a higher standard

Maybe, is that why you think this is?  Possibly, is it because these other nations don't even consider allowing it for a second?  China is doing to an indigenous population today what the US did 200+ years ago, does anyone level any criticism of substance at them?  It's this double standard that rankles with many and inclines them to tune out.  It inclines people to not even consider the subject, as double standards tend to turn people off.

[Dill]

(07-08-2023, 07:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think Murray's main point is not that Western nations should be immune to criticism because, "both sides do it".  His point is that it's only western nations that are taken to task for their roles in these atrocities, while other nations warrant nary a peep of protest.  Hence, many in the west are sick of being singled out for criticism.  

Yes. “Whattaboutism”.  At least 4 people recognized it. Not you.

I.e., they recognized that holding the U.S. gov. accountable for its own actions was a "domestic" issue for Americans responsible for their own government, not for the Chinese government. Imagine if someone were arrested for stealing a car in Iowa, and Murray defended him in court by saying "People steal cars and China too! Why is no one talking about that? My client demands to know why he is being singled out when etc. etc. etc."  

Some people want school books to accurately present US history.
Others say “not unless you ‘protest’ China too!”  

Then it will be fair. No “singling out.”

When it actually comes to global history and politics, it's not clear who is “only” taking western nations to task. I’ve read 4 books on China over the last two years. I believe all “took China to task” for human rights violations with "criticisms of substance" except for one about the deep economy. How would I know about summary executions of Tibet protesters if no one were “taking China to task”?

Are there historians who go easy on Japanese wartime atrocities, or reporters who went easy on Al qaeda and saddam and ghaddafi, or who now go easy on North Korea? Looks like Murray's history is to history what push polling is to polling. It's for people who aren't very interested in history until it is linked to grievance. Even they prefer Youtube to scholarly books. That makes them easy marks for "push history." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2023, 12:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. “Whattaboutism”.  At least 4 people recognized it. Not you.

Nope, you're still not getting it.  Unsurprising.

Quote:I.e., they recognized that holding the U.S. gov. accountable for its own actions was a "domestic" issue for Americans responsible for their own government, not for the Chinese government. Imagine if someone were arrested for stealing a car in Iowa, and Murray defended him in court by saying "People steal cars and China too! Why is no one talking about that? My client demands to know why he is being singled out when etc. etc. etc."  

And still not getting it.  We're talking public perception, not a court of law.  Inappropriate analogies don't help address the topic.

Quote:Some people want school books to accurately present US history.
Others say “not unless you ‘protest’ China too!”  

Then it will be fair. No “singling out.”

Who is saying that?

Quote:When it actually comes to global history and politics, it's not clear who is “only” taking western nations to task. I’ve read 4 books on China over the last two years. I believe all “took China to task” for human rights violations with "criticisms of substance" except for one about the deep economy. How would I know about summary executions of Tibet protesters if no one were “taking China to task”?

It's not clear?  Have you been in a coma the last three years?

Quote:Are there historians who go easy on Japanese wartime atrocities, or reporters who went easy on Al qaeda and saddam and ghaddafi, or who now go easy on North Korea? Looks like Murray's history is to history what push polling is to polling. It's for people who aren't very interested in history until it is linked to grievance. Even they prefer Youtube to scholarly books. That makes them easy marks for "push history." 

Not sure why you're stuck on modern day examples when his point was regarding actions taken hundreds of years ago.  We get it, you're not interested in understanding why so many people hear "reparations" and "west is bad" polemics and increasingly roll their eyes and stop listening.  Like most ideologues you're incapable of understanding why people think differently than you, because what you think is "correct".  This response from you screams, I have taken in nothing of what is said and will now provide you with a boilerplate "progressive" response.

Also, and typically, you rush to dismiss the positions of your opponents as lacking in scholarly value, an old and apparently favored tactic of yours.  We know that anyone who agrees with Dill is learned and anyone who doesn't is a charlatan who "prefers YouTube to scholarly books", no need to constantly reinforce it.  Your responses positively drip with condescension.  It's not a good look.

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, you're still not getting it.  Unsurprising.

And still not getting it.  We're talking public perception, not a court of law.  Inappropriate analogies don't help address the topic.

Who is saying that?

It's not clear?  Have you been in a coma the last three years?

Not sure why you're stuck on modern day examples when his point was regarding actions taken hundreds of years ago.  We get it, you're not interested in understanding why so many people hear "reparations" and "west is bad" polemics and increasingly roll their eyes and stop listening.  Like most ideologues you're incapable of understanding why people think differently than you, because what you think is "correct".  This response from you screams, I have taken in nothing of what is said and will now provide you with a boilerplate "progressive" response.

Also, and typically, you rush to dismiss the positions of your opponents as lacking in scholarly value, an old and apparently favored tactic of yours.  We know that anyone who agrees with Dill is learned and anyone who doesn't is a charlatan who "prefers YouTube to scholarly books", no need to constantly reinforce it.  Your responses positively drip with condescension.  It's not a good look.

LOL "WE" get it?  On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority. 

And yes, "push history" is about shaping and controlling "public perception" so that eyes roll and people hear "the West is bad" when exposed to a wider account of global history. The goal is to get people to pre-judge and shut out historical knowledge which might alter their views about how existing power arrangements came to be. And ideologues accomplish that by distorting what historians have actually said, reframing history as "grievance," a personal attack on "the West" by people who "hate" it.  

This is especially the case with talk of "reparations," a transnational concept finally enabled by global organizations and courts. So across many countries in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean we see people of various nations calling for reparations.  People who enslaved others and benefitted from that want this to be past harm. Those still affected don't think its all in the past. Haiti is a good contrast to Piers Morgan's example of the Norman invasion. It did not finish paying off its extorted debt to France until 1947 (the "independence debt" for "theft" of property--freed slaves). The role that debt played in Haitian underdevelopment, and Aristide's call for reparations, was still a very live issue when he was overthrown in 2004, 200 years after 1804. https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html. 

Should Aristide have "acknowledged" slavery in India 400 years ago when making his case "only" against France? 

Reparations isn't only about "The West": People in countries like Kenya and South Africa are suing for reparations against former governments.

That's why it is "not clear" WHO is "only taking Western nations to task." Because "who" might take us uncomfortably close to a "why" which cannot be dismissed with an eye roll by "virtuous" Westerners.     

So if I ask who "only" attacks "the West"? And in what context? That is a call to re-assess the easy and uninformed dismissal of reparations as "attacks" on "the West."  Especially curious in the case of someone like Murray, who claims "the West's" stance on slavery is "more virtuous" while dismissing any possible responsibility for it and dissing those responsible for that claimed virtue. 

If you COULD answer that question, you would, instead of finding reasons you don't have to. 

My asking such questions is not exactly a "rush to dismiss." You were given a perfectly good chance to explain what you think I'm not getting. It turns out you cannot. You can only refer me back to that vague and uninformed public perception. That might be ignorance. Murray gestures towards a vague "them" and you "know" what he means. It's "everywhere"--until you have to specify a where. The other possibility is that you can identify someone who "only attacks the West," but it turns out to be quite inconsequential--like a ranting college student on Youtube--or actually consequential, someone who makes a case you don't want heard. Either way, safer to NOT answer and ask if I'M the one who's been in a coma. 

When no substantive answer is forthcoming, then yes, I "rush to dismiss" your sort of response as "lacking in scholarly value." Because it does. Backing up historical claims with reference to historical record, and noting where my opponents cannot, is indeed "an old and apparently favored tactic of mine." Watch out for it in future posts.

Just as yours is to make expansive condemnations on the basis of "public perception," and then to feel "condescension" while dodging questions about the origins and validity of a "perception" you cannot defend.  Do you think that is a "good look"? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2023, 11:13 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL "WE" get it?  On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority.

It's interesting that you say that like it makes me automatically wrong. 

Quote:And yes, "push history" is about shaping and controlling "public perception" so that eyes roll and people hear "the West is bad" when exposed to a wider account of global history. The goal is to get people to pre-judge and shut out historical knowledge which might alter their views about how existing power arrangements came to be. And ideologues accomplish that by distorting what historians have actually said, reframing history as "grievance," a personal attack on "the West" by people who "hate" it.  

Sorry, there's no global conspiracy at work here.  Just people tired of being held to account for the sins of people long dead.  Especially when major efforts are being made to address those sins.

Quote:This is especially the case with talk of "reparations," a transnational concept finally enabled by global organizations and courts. So across many countries in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean we see people of various nations calling for reparations.  People who enslaved others and benefitted from that want this to be past harm. Those still affected don't think its all in the past. Haiti is a good contrast to Piers Morgan's example of the Norman invasion. It did not finish paying off its extorted debt to France until 1947 (the "independence debt" for "theft" of property--freed slaves). The role that debt played in Haitian underdevelopment, and Aristide's call for reparations, was still a very live issue when he was overthrown in 2004, 200 years after 1804. https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html. 

Should Aristide have "acknowledged" slavery in India 400 years ago when making his case "only" against France? 

Ahh, now you're again talking about recent events.  You continue to do this when Murray is referencing events from hundreds of years ago.  You keep doing this, and it's odd since I've pointed out several times that this isn't what we're talking about.  I think you'll find that there are very few people who begrudge the pursuit of recompense for actions that took place within the seeker's lifetime.

Quote:Reparations isn't only about "The West": People in countries like Kenya and South Africa are suing for reparations against former governments.

For events that happened over 150 years ago?

Quote:That's why it is "not clear" WHO is "only taking Western nations to task." Because "who" might take us uncomfortably close to a "why" which cannot be dismissed with an eye roll by "virtuous" Westerners.     

Again, simply turn on mainstream news and watch.  You'll inevitably run into some of it within a few hours.  Also, it's not about being uncomfortable, that's a projection of leftist reactions to these types of things.  I am in no way made uncomfortable by discussion of wrongs committed by others, and no one I know is either..  If you have no hand in the wrongs being discussed why would you?  I don't subscribe to the sins of the father, nor do I feel responsible for the actions of others simply because we share a similar ethnic origin.  That kind of gestalt perception is a leftist value.

Quote:So if I ask who "only" attacks "the West"? And in what context? That is a call to re-assess the easy and uninformed dismissal of reparations as "attacks" on "the West."  Especially curious in the case of someone like Murray, who claims "the West's" stance on slavery is "more virtuous" while dismissing any possible responsibility for it and dissing those responsible for that claimed virtue. 

This is a perfect example of you not actually listening to opposing viewpoints.  No reasonable person could listen to that argument and take away that he was "dismissing any possible responsibility for it".  

Quote:If you COULD answer that question, you would, instead of finding reasons you don't have to. 

Uhh, I have, repeatedly.  Race hustling is a booming industry in this nation.  People like Al Sharpton have made a very nice living extorting corporations with threats of boycotts.  Joy Reid has an entire show where this is a near daily topic.  The fact that you even have to ask for examples shows what an isolated existence you live. 

Quote:My asking such questions is not exactly a "rush to dismiss." You were given a perfectly good chance to explain what you think I'm not getting. It turns out you cannot. You can only refer me back to that vague and uninformed public perception. That might be ignorance. Murray gestures towards a vague "them" and you "know" what he means. It's "everywhere"--until you have to specify a where. The other possibility is that you can identify someone who "only attacks the West," but it turns out to be quite inconsequential--like a ranting college student on Youtube--or actually consequential, someone who makes a case you don't want heard. Either way, safer to NOT answer and ask if I'M the one who's been in a coma. 

Ugh, you really do make reading and responding to your posts a repetitive slog.  How many times can you restate the same point, only with more words every time?

Quote:When no substantive answer is forthcoming, then yes, I "rush to dismiss" your sort of response as "lacking in scholarly value." Because it does. Backing up historical claims with reference to historical record, and noting where my opponents cannot, is indeed "an old and apparently favored tactic of mine." Watch out for it in future posts.

No, you dismiss any argument as lacking in scholarly value if it doesn't confirm to your beliefs.  You've literally dismissed Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris as not being a "scholar".  I'd be very comfortable in claiming that Hitchens's knowledge absolutely dwarfed yours.

Quote:Just as yours is to make expansive condemnations on the basis of "public perception," and then to feel "condescension" while dodging questions about the origins and validity of a "perception" you cannot defend.  Do you think that is a "good look"? 

I don't "feel" condescension, I recognize it.  Also, no one is dodging anything.  Not answering in the exact Dill proscribed fashion is not dodging.  Especially when your penchant for repetition and overly wordy responses makes engaging with you as pleasant as a root canal.  

[Dill]

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: '''Dill Wrote:[/url]LOL "WE" get it?  On this thread people who don't see through Murray could be in the minority.

It's interesting that you say that like it makes me automatically wrong. 

I say that like your continued use of the plural, as if everyone agrees with you, is "automatically" unethical on several counts.

First it's claim you are speaking for others. Why do that, right or wrong, unless they have specifically authorized you to? 

Also its a way of framing an issue as if you were in the majority and your opponent is an outlier.

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And yes, "push history" is about shaping and controlling "public perception" so that eyes roll and people hear "the West is bad" when exposed to a wider account of global history. The goal is to get people to pre-judge and shut out historical knowledge which might alter their views about how existing power arrangements came to be. And ideologues accomplish that by distorting what historians have actually said, reframing history as "grievance," a personal attack on "the West" by people who "hate" it.  

Sorry, there's no global conspiracy at work here.  Just people tired of being held to account for the sins of people long dead.  Especially when major efforts are being made to address those sins.

Er, the reference to "global history" doesn't establish a "global conspiracy."  I'm referring to people shaping public perception, like Murray and Tucker Carlson and many others, and to opinions of people shaped by them--People like yourself, "tired of being held to account" for what they are told are "sins of people long dead" and, in your words, the "castigation of Western Society." 

Your post dovetails with Luvnits': he sees "hatred" in the presentation of critical, accurate history; you see "castigation." True "patriots" don't support that sort of thing, apparently. In both cases, it appears analytical distance is lacking. Critique="hatred" or "castigation" just by being critique. Judge the issue before understanding it. No need to understand, once you've judged. 

What "major efforts" do you think are being made to address those sins, and which sins? Murray appears to be opposing those efforts, but hard to tell which sins are in question. He goes from the U.S. celebration of Juneteenth to the Barbary pirates and Ottoman Empire. Is it that Italians, who can't remember which of them were enslaved 400 years ago, aren't demanding reparations from Turkey, no longer Ottoman, so Black Americans need to lay off their reminder of U.S. slavery? Or at least mention the Barbary pirates too???? Juneteenth is manufactured grievance? 

Telling me to "turn on the mainstream news and watch" just means you have no idea either. You mention "race hustling" below. Maybe that? 

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:This is especially the case with talk of "reparations," a transnational concept finally enabled by global organizations and courts. So across many countries in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean we see people of various nations calling for reparations.  People who enslaved others and benefitted from that want this to be past harm. Those still affected don't think its all in the past. Haiti is a good contrast to Piers Morgan's example of the Norman invasion. It did not finish paying off its extorted debt to France until 1947 (the "independence debt" for "theft" of property--freed slaves). The role that debt played in Haitian underdevelopment, and Aristide's call for reparations, was still a very live issue when he was overthrown in 2004, 200 years after 1804. [url=https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html]https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article273642735.html. 
Should Aristide have "acknowledged" slavery in India 400 years ago when making his case "only" against France? 

Ahh, now you're again talking about recent events.  You continue to do this when Murray is referencing events from hundreds of years ago.  You keep doing this, and it's odd since I've pointed out several times that this isn't what we're talking about.  I think you'll find that there are very few people who begrudge the pursuit of recompense for actions that took place within the seeker's lifetime.

1804 was 200 years ago. Is that "recent" or an event "from hundreds of years ago"? It's a live issue still since Aristide was ousted in 2004.

The U.S. issue is not whether Murray is "referencing events from hundreds of years ago." There was never any need to keep pointing that out. 

The question is WHY he is doing that, and whether he is refuting any actual arguments for policy or reparations,

or is his "argument" just a round of WHATTABOUTISM to distract the angry and uninformed--as many on this thread already recognized.  

The question about reparations is not about "paying for sins of the father." It is about whether damage done in past times continues into the present, affecting living people. 

But you'd actually have to hear the other side to know that--not pre-judge and dismiss them as "race hustlers" at someone else's prompting. 

[Dill]

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:That's why it is "not clear" WHO is "only taking Western nations to task." Because "who" might take us uncomfortably close to a "why" which cannot be dismissed with an eye roll by "virtuous" Westerners. 

Again, simply turn on mainstream news and watch.  You'll inevitably run into some of it within a few hours.  Also, it's not about being uncomfortable, that's a projection of leftist reactions to these types of things.  I am in no way made uncomfortable by discussion of wrongs committed by others, and no one I know is either..  If you have no hand in the wrongs being discussed why would you?  I don't subscribe to the sins of the father, nor do I feel responsible for the actions of others simply because we share a similar ethnic origin.  That kind of gestalt perception is a leftist value.

That's what, the third time I have asked you "WHO?" And your response is "turn on the mainstream news and watch"? 

You are uncomfortable about something or you would not backing Murray against "leftists" (to whom you ascribe right wing values) and then deflecting all requests for specifics you apparently don't have as refusal to "answer in the prescribed Dill fashion." 

That this is about the "sins of the father" and based on "ethnic origins" is NOT something you could get from current arguments about reparations that I have referenced above. Easy mistake to make if you substitute guidance from "scholars" you consider authoritative but don't have actual examples. 

You have to get that from the "push history" of people who pre-frame the issue for you. They assume, rightly apparently, that you are not following the actual arguments.

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So if I ask who "only" attacks "the West"? And in what context? That is a call to re-assess the easy and uninformed dismissal of reparations as "attacks" on "the West."  Especially curious in the case of someone like Murray, who claims "the West's" stance on slavery is "more virtuous" while dismissing any possible responsibility for it and dissing those responsible for that claimed virtue. 

This is a perfect example of you not actually listening to opposing viewpoints.  No reasonable person could listen to that argument and take away that he was "dismissing any possible responsibility for it".  

And why couldn't a "reasonable person" take that away?  What "possible responsibility" does he allow for then?

"Not fooled" is not the same as "not listening." 

And I am clearly listening close enough to see the contradiction in calling the West "virtuous" for its stance on slavery--virtuous because it recognizes culpability and so stops bad behavior--while simultaneously arguing against culpability. That's because the people who establish the West as "virtuous" are precisely the people Murray argues against. While his Western chauvinism is same ethnocentric impulse that supposedly makes no-Western civilizations "inferior." 

(07-12-2023, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:If you COULD answer that question, you would, instead of finding reasons you don't have to. 

Uhh, I have, repeatedly.  Race hustling is a booming industry in this nation.  People like Al Sharpton have made a very nice living extorting corporations with threats of boycotts.  Joy Reid has an entire show where this is a near daily topic.  The fact that you even have to ask for examples shows what an isolated existence you live. 

People cannot carry on focused, responsible discussions of topics like this without examples. That's what keeps discussion anchored--especially if we are talking about wrongs from hundreds of years ago from all around the globe and "calls for reparations" from different groups for multiple reasons. 

Astounding that you treat NOT referencing examples as a virtue. Like we don't need to know exactly which "wrongs" and which "calls" are being discussed. We'll all "just know" what we are talking about. I can and have referenced specific calls for reparations, e.g. Haiti and Kenya; you cannot, and from that you deduce that I am "isolated."  

But Wait! finally you did offer some specific "who's"--It is Al Sharpton and Joy Reid who are "castigating the West." What "threats of boycotts" has to do with this I don't know, except maybe it allows you to frame critiques of "the West" and reparations as "race hustling." I watch Reid occasionally but don't recall attacks on "the West"--or maybe that is what you are calling accurate history. Just presenting that is "castigating." I have heard her support reparations in this country. 

Could THEY be whom Murray is referring to when complains that no one is complaining about Europeans kidnapped by Ottomans? I rather doubt it. Sharpton and Reid would only be reporting on and agreeing with others' efforts to argue for reparations. And it is with those people that we'll find the actual arguments--the evidence and legal rationale for reparations. But that's a level beyond someone who has already pre-judged Sharpton and Reid as "race hustlers," part of a "booming industry" which Tucker and Hannity have warned us about.  Those journalists are "scholars" too, right?