I would ban people like Jay Currie if they ever showed up here. I gave "Marky Mark" very little rope when he commented here.
Here they are at Dawg's, ostensibly commenting on the horrible tragedy of a Palestinian toddler Ali Dawabsheh, burned to death when his parent's home was burned down by arsonists who fled to the stolen lands of the Ma'ale Efraim "settlement." Jay Currie shows himself for the evil shit-head that he is by trying to change the subject to Palestinians handing out candy to each other after their side manages to kill some Jewish Israelis.
It is vermin like Jay Currie who keep the bloodshed going in the Middle East. Self-deluding, deluded liars. It is pointless to "debate" with such scum.
Then, the detestable Marky Mark shows up to give some moral support to Currie's obfuscation. He mentions he's pretty much given up debating on social media. I presume that means he limits his revolting mewling to his personal acquaintances. We can only hope.
I would ban all of them: Jay Currie, Marky Mark, Peter 1, that disgusting cretin whose name begins with a "k." The action at Dawg's blog has long consisted mainly of futile attempts to reason with those trollish liars.
Here they are at Dawg's, ostensibly commenting on the horrible tragedy of a Palestinian toddler Ali Dawabsheh, burned to death when his parent's home was burned down by arsonists who fled to the stolen lands of the Ma'ale Efraim "settlement." Jay Currie shows himself for the evil shit-head that he is by trying to change the subject to Palestinians handing out candy to each other after their side manages to kill some Jewish Israelis.
It is vermin like Jay Currie who keep the bloodshed going in the Middle East. Self-deluding, deluded liars. It is pointless to "debate" with such scum.
Then, the detestable Marky Mark shows up to give some moral support to Currie's obfuscation. He mentions he's pretty much given up debating on social media. I presume that means he limits his revolting mewling to his personal acquaintances. We can only hope.
I would ban all of them: Jay Currie, Marky Mark, Peter 1, that disgusting cretin whose name begins with a "k." The action at Dawg's blog has long consisted mainly of futile attempts to reason with those trollish liars.
7 comments:
I commented back to you at Dr. Dawg's. If you'd like to call me a trollish liar to my face, I'd be happy to meet you.
How the fuck is it anymore in your face if I engage in futile debate with you at dawg's rather than here?
I don't post at dawg's because he saw fit to chastise me for being rude to absolute scumbags.
You can say what you wish here. But you will have, as always, very little room to employ your usual bag of tricks.
I was making the point at Dawg's that a lot of these interactions lack the human element, and was making the point here that you should call me that in person--i.e., meet to say it. Not sure how serious I was, but really just reacting to your observation as to what I said about social media.
As for the substance of the post, obviously the murder is unacceptable, as was the attack at the Pride parade. The substantive issue is one of collective guilt--whether that generally is an acceptable or moral notion and, if so, whether there are those who nonetheless should be removed from that collective group. Thousands of Israelis have protested in the streets. Are they complicit? And, if there is collective guilt on one side, is there collective guilt on the other side? These are reasonable things to debate. I think debates go better when you can look someone in the eye and assess tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. Plus then it is a human interaction, even if conflictual.
Marky Mark,
When I meet people in person I am more restrained in my responses to political differences. Especially given the context and situation. However, were I to meet Ezra Levant or that krygnath-krap creature face-to-face, I'm pretty sure the differences between how I discuss them as "thwap" and in person would be minute.
For me, it's not the case that debating on "social media" is completely empty. Either for me or for my opponents. I'm sure that to a degree most of them mean what they say. (Even when they have nothing to say.)
You will also find (if you think honestly about it) that there are people who are just as capable in real life as on the internet, of blustering, lying, resorting to tricks to win arguments and to refusing to accept new facts and admit that they've been wrong.
What makes debating on social media pointless is that it takes less energy to engage in such stupid behaviour and therefore (with Dawg's blog being one of the worst examples) "debates" being reduced to typing contests between one side and dishonest, stupid lying oblivious hacks like Peter1 or krap-pants on the other.
Unlike Dawg, I have little patience for such stupidity and I refuse to publish such garbage from lying hacks.
It is in that spirit that I deal with your offerings on the topic of Dawg's recent post. First of all, Jay Currie is very much changing the subject. And stupidly at that.
I, as one progressive leftist, do not support Israeli mass slaughters, such as Operation Cast Lead, or the building of "settlements" for Zionist assholes on Palestinian land. I don't support the land theft of the "security wall" or any number of such policies. You will also find that I do not "support" the firing of rockets from the occupied territories into Israel. IOW: It is not something that I wish to see happening. I do not "support" any of the brutal killings that vermin such as Jay Currie obsesses about between servings of pancakes.
So that's out of the way.
What do I "support"? Personally, the idea that Israel is, in 2015, and for whatever reasons, very much a "fact on the ground." It was born out of tragedy and while I do not think it's present borders are sacred, it should be allowed to exist (as all nation-states do) in one form or another where it presently sits.
I "support" the idea of a viable Palestinian state (probably around the lines of the UN partition plan of 1940s, or the borders of 1967), living in peace with its neighbour.
That is what I "support."
But now you want to talk about the imposition of "collective guilt." And, in so doing, you either knowingly, or stupidly muddy the waters. [to be cont'd]
MM - [cont'd]
Do you honestly believe that accusing "Israel" of allowing these constant racist outrages by "settlers" (and the constant expansion of these "settlements") is unfair or even racist?
Is it unfair to accuse the USA of having a racist heritage? If I point out that blacks were once enslaved and are now brutally discriminated against, are you going to go in for a typing marathon as to whether I'm saying that 100% of white US-Americans are racists and the USA has no right to exist?
Is it unfair to say that Canada has abused and robbed the First Nations? Is admitting this to say that settler-society Canadians who protest against these abuses themselves racists and that Canada should be dismantled and the non-First Nations population to be scattered?
Is it unfair to say that England bled India (and most of the rest of its colonies) dry? Is saying so equal to saying that every Englander was a contemptible racist exploiter?
No?
Then why the hell bring up Israelis who protest against the abominations committed by the Israeli government and the settlers?
No Marky, I am not condemning those Israelis who protest injustices against the Palestinians.
The fact that I've wasted five minutes explaining the utter stupidity of your accusation to you is what I mean about how only certain behaviour makes debating on social media unproductive.
Whether its mental incapacity or cynicism that causes you to raise such points as subjects for debate, the fact of the matter is that these ridiculous strawmen that you raise again and again and again and again, is what makes debating with you such a waste of time.
I can assure you my friend, were I able to look you in the eye, assess your tone of voice, see your facial expressions and body language, etc., it would not add one iota of validity to your points.
If I were to provoke a large dog, or a large man in a bar, or a cop, ... if I were to do any stupid action that got me injured by my target's response, you would be able to grasp that my actions led to my subsequent predicament. You would be able to do this without necessarily "supporting" that I got bitten, or my teeth knocked out, or tasered.
I'd type more but I've already wasted enough time as it is. None of this is going to affect your reasoning.
In terms of your solution, we actually agree. I fear that many on the more radical left wouldn't say what you say, and just want Israel gone altogether, but maybe I'm wrong in that view. I think the nub of the issue is that while I am completely against the settlements, I am not convinced that if they were completely dismantled that it would matter. Yes, those standing up for the rights of First Nations (called "native rights" back in law school in the '80's--interesting how language changes and what those changes mean) are NOT calling for the dismantling of Canada. But in contrast it seems quite clear to me that Ali Abunimah, Max Blumenthal and other intellectual leaders of BDS actually ARE calling for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state. So there is a real live issue beyond the settlements. Israel is causing much suffering by continuing the policy and has eroded its moral capital when it comes to her continued viability. That's what decades of rightwing rule have wrought there. The Israeli left has been trying hard to change course, but for various reasons it has been losing the battle-one of those many reasons is that to your average Israeli, the global "left" is seen, fairly or unfairly, as hostile to the existence of Israel for its stated purpose.
I have no problem with the NDP platform on this issue-it is more aligned with my views than the CPC platform. I'm just not sure that the intellectual leaders/academics of the left themselves are OK with it, which is one reason many of them didn't like the idea of a Mulcair leadership before it happened and are standoffish to it now. Not that this issue really has weight in my voting intentions anyway--the problems of the Middle East will not be solved by Canada.
Anyway have a good one.
MM,
I think your efforts are better spent on speaking out against the land theft, abuse and murder of the Palestinians on the part of the Israeli state and the racist expansionists, than on worrying over whether some non-Israeli critic of these abominations seeks, at heart, to see Israel dismantled. (I'm not sure you honestly believe that.)
Because BDS Canada has no power to do such a thing. And trust me, most of us have no desire to see Israeli citizens garroted by the enraged Palestinians.
At the same time, unlike you, we find the NDP, especially under Mulcair, of being needlessly pro-Israel. For articulating the blinkered notion that somehow the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a "tragedy" perpetuated by "extremists on both sides" as if the side with the preponderance of power (Israel) is less capable of bringing an end to the conflict than is the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and the people of Palestine as a whole.
Ask yourself; if Palestinian rockets are a bad response to Israeli provocations, what are Israeli land-grabs a bad response to?
Post a Comment