A discussion on the rules.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

The same applies.

Haha...Really? So the only possible "Chinese Communist" that could ever exist is a follower of "Chinese Communism"?. We both know that this isn't true.

Scofflaw

BB, I'm not getting anything from you here except very silly evasions, so I'm calling a mod vote on a permaban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

BB, I'm not getting anything from you here except very silly evasions, so I'm calling a mod vote on a permaban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

I'm questioning you. You're not answering.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

I think it goes a little deeper than that. If BB genuinely doesn't get why Kaganov's Jewish ethnicity is not relevant to his actions in the Holdomor, then he's implicitly saying that it is relevant.

And he refuses, or is unwilling, to explain why it's relevant, which leaves us with the uncomfortable fact that he must believe that Kagonov acted as he did at least in part because he was of Jewish ethnicity. Otherwise, how is his Jewish ethnicity so relevant as to deserve mention - why not highlight his Russian ethnicity, his Caucasian ethnicity, his Kievan origin, etc?

Possibly BB doesn't realise the bigotry implicit in such a view, or that the bigotry is implied by his otherwise inexplicable highlighting of Kagonov's Jewish ethnicity. But it's there either way, and that makes BB a very poor fit for Israel discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

First of all thank-you.

Second, If you assume malice then not only are they not acceptable here they have no place in society IMO. I'm not assuming malice because there isn't a single unambiguous statement that can be otherwise attributed to Conas that can be considered anti-semitic, to the best of my knowledge. You said yourself, just a few pages back here that you give people the benefit of doubt. That is what I am doing.

Actual anti-semitism is all to real and utterly disgusting. However, all Conas did; and be shown to have been done was share a fact. Relevant or not it is an indisputable fact. It's your house and you are free to do as you please and remove undesirables for expressing facts and opinions you may find distasteful but it is a slippery slope of censorship. It would be a shame to justify this through false charges of anti-semitism, which only delegitimise real claims of anti-semitism.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it goes a little deeper than that. If BB genuinely doesn't get why Kaganov's Jewish ethnicity is not relevant to his actions in the Holdomor, then he's implicitly saying that it is relevant.

And I never said it was relevant. Did I?

For clarity: I DO NOT THINK THAT HIS ETHNICITY IS RELEVANT TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE HOLDOMOR.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And he refuses, or is unwilling, to explain why it's relevant, which leaves us with the uncomfortable fact that he must believe that Kagonov acted as he did at least in part because he was of Jewish ethnicity. Otherwise, how is his Jewish ethnicity so relevant as to deserve mention - why not highlight his Russian ethnicity, his Caucasian ethnicity, his Kievan origin, etc?

How can I highlight any other ethnicity when he was 100% Jewish ethnicity?

I have no interest in speaking about him at all, other than to seek clarification in "a discussion on the rules" i.e. here as to why stating a fact gets you banned. The fact in question which led to the ban was that mentioning of Kaganovich was Jewish.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly BB doesn't realise the bigotry implicit in such a view, or that the bigotry is implied by his otherwise inexplicable highlighting of Kagonov's Jewish ethnicity. But it's there either way, and that makes BB a very poor fit for Israel discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Apparently so would The Yivo Institute of Jewish Research, which seems a little off. To quote from their encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Kaganovich_Lazar_Moiseevich

Kaganovich was the only Jew in the Politburo after the removal of Trotsky, Zinov’ev, and Kamenev.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

............... I'm not assuming malice because there isn't a single unambiguous statement that can be otherwise attributed to Conas that can be considered anti-semitic, to the best of my knowledge. .

One....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91308131&postcount=282

Two....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91244124&postcount=173

Three.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220699&postcount=98

Four..........
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220552&postcount=95

K-9

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it! Totally different from the comment by Conas. As for benefit of the doubt, yes, but in the overall context of his posts that one was the one that broke the camels back and is close to incitement to hatred imo. Anyway, Conas is free to appeal it. Mentioning somebodys religion naturally isn't a banable offence, mentioning it as if it was a defining reason for the famine and deaths of millions of people is, similar to criticising Blair and saying sure didn't Englishmen oversee the Irish famine.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

One....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91308131&postcount=282

Two....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91244124&postcount=173

Three.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220699&postcount=98

Four..........
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220552&postcount=95

I stand corrected. Specifically post 95. Too much generalising going on.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I never said it was relevant. Did I?

For clarity: I DO NOT THINK THAT HIS ETHNICITY IS RELEVANT TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE HOLDOMOR.


How can I highlight any other ethnicity when he was 100% Jewish ethnicity?

I have no interest in speaking about him at all, other than to seek clarification in "a discussion on the rules" i.e. here as to why stating a fact gets you banned. The fact in question which led to the ban was that mentioning of Kaganovich was Jewish.


Apparently so would The Yivo Institute of Jewish Research, which seems a little off. To quote from their encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Kaganovich_Lazar_Moiseevich

It's not the mentioning of the fact, it's the connection of his ethnicity with his actions in the Holdomor.

You don't have to mention someone's ethnicity at all, you see. And when you not only mention their ethnicity in connection with their involvement in an atrocity, but explicitly connect their actions there, through their ethnicity, to the actions of others of their ethnicity, you're making a very strong statement that the ethnicity is a common causal connection.

"It's a fact that he was Jewish" is not a defence. It's obfuscation.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it! Totally different from the comment by Conas. As for benefit of the doubt, yes, but in the overall context of his posts that one was the one that broke the camels back and is close to incitement to hatred imo. Anyway, Conas is free to appeal it. Mentioning somebodys religion naturally isn't a banable offence, mentioning it as if it was a defining reason for the famine and deaths of millions of people is, similar to criticising Blair and saying sure didn't Englishmen oversee the Irish famine.

And I have to point out, again, that BB also sees the connection as worth mentioning. Just as Conas did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it!

Granted, but it is the context that gives away the intentions. It's like I said before Conas used the example of Kaganovich to illustrate a point - That Jewish suffering though tremendous isn't unique and not only this but the suffering has been at times at the hand of Jews themselves.

The relevance in this context is that Israel today abuses this suffering the Jewish people have endured ostensibly on the basis of this suffering and it's leaders often evoke the Holocaust to justify military aggression and expansionist policies.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I have to point out, again, that BB also sees the connection as worth mentioning. Just as Conas did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then why didn't I make mention of it in the thread itself?

Once again...

I PERSONALY DO NOT see the connection as worth mentioning in relation to Holdomor.

That doesn't make it any less of a fact though.

My sole reason for mentioning it at all was to raise an issue I had. This is based on SOMEONE ELSE's statement. NOT MINE. Why are you twisting this?

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then why didn't I make mention of it in the thread itself?

Once again...

I PERSONALY DO NOT see the connection as worth mentioning in relation to Holdomor.

That doesn't make it any less of a fact though.

My sole reason for mentioning it at all was to raise an issue I had. This is based on SOMEONE ELSE's statement. NOT MINE. Why are you twisting this?

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

As an isolated incident the mere act of mentioning that someone (who is in fact 100% Jewish) is Jewish isn't of itself anti-semitic,

Thanks to Nodin (links) & K9 ("the straw that broke the camel's back") I can understand where you are coming from.

What I don't understand is why you had to treat me like you were a cat playing with a mouse before you killed it. I was just asking for clarification based on an issue I had based on perceived hypocrisy and double standards. On the one hand I am observing that it is permissible to proclaim ad-infinitum that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People" meanwhile on the other I see people getting banned (and worse) labelled as anti-semites, publically.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.an

I would suggest that anyone who considers the use of "jewish" as a perjorative might want to look closer to home.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Defense of what? Believing that you may be mistaken? You are accusing me making the same statement as Conas. This is a completely false accusation.

I wanted to know the logic behind someone being banned for making a truthful statement. I repeated the truthful statement to demonstrate what the truthful statement was. The malice you assume in Conas' post has been explicitly rejected by me.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As an isolated incident the mere act of mentioning that someone (who is in fact 100% Jewish) is Jewish isn't of itself anti-semitic,

Indeed not, as I have explained at great length.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks to Nodin (links) & K9 ("the straw that broke the camel's back") I can understand where you are coming from.

What I don't understand is why you had to treat me like you were a cat playing with a mouse before you killed it.

I gave you an extended chance to offer me an alternative explanation, which you didn't do. You see it as cat and mouse because you can't see what needs explaining, can't see that there's an issue of any kind, and see that I apparently draw some information from that very failure - as indeed I do.

It's all a little Kafkaesque, I guess, from your perspective. And from mine too, now I think about it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was just asking for clarification based on an issue I had based on perceived hypocrisy and double standards.

On the one hand I am observing that it is permissible to proclaim ad-infinitum that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People" meanwhile on the other I see people getting banned (and worse) labelled as anti-semites, publically.

Ah, yes, it's double standards, of course.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone who considers the use of "jewish" as a perjorative might want to look closer to home.

I can't work out whether that's insulting , or simply amazing as a blank failure to deal with reality.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Defense of what? Believing that you may be mistaken? You are accusing me making the same statement as Conas. This is a completely false accusation.

No, that's a completely false statement.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wanted to know the logic behind someone being banned for making a truthful statement. I repeated the truthful statement to demonstrate what the truthful statement was. The malice you assume in Conas' post has been explicitly rejected by me.

Well done you, and believe me, I do appreciate that you don't see how you're like him. Nor, apparently, do you see much wrong with his position, apart from perhaps some "over-generalisation".

Anyways, thanks for being a brick wall. I'm going to have a discussion, but the most likely outcome remains your permanent barring from any and all Israel-related threads on foot of your (apparently unconscious) anti-Semitism, and your definite temporary barring from all such threads until the matter is decided.

I invite you to consider that what I'm saying might be true, although I hold out little hope of your doing so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I gave you an extended chance to offer me an alternative explanation, which you didn't do

And how am I supposed to explain my innocence to a false accusation? You have set a trap here. You are accusing me of anti-semitism based on something someone else has said and demanding that repent and grovel. It's bad form.

I have condemned Conas' previous statements, openly and as soon as I became aware of them.

You have never warned/infracted/banned me once for anything anti-semitic at all. You have banned me for posting the pictures of the victims of an Israeli massacre and have just infracted me for the strangest sanction I have ever seen on boards. The statement "I said Communist not Communism". Was this a mistake?

Anyway, I passionately detest anti-semitism in all it's forms. Actual anti-semitism that is. So if you have been moderating any of my discussions and you observed actual anti-semitism and let it slide for some strange reason then please ban me for these posts.

Sand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

Actually, Scofflaw doesn't usually wield mod powers to win arguments. There is no such thing as Jewish communism, certainly not on the same level as Chinese communism. And even if there was a distinct Jewish communism, Kaganov was not an adherent of it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Whenever I venture into Israeli-Palestinian threads I tend to get pretty heavily assaulted by ... well, people who disagree strongly, almost instinctively, with Israels defence of it citizens. That said, is it against the charter to be be "unconsciously" anti-Semitic? If so, its been given pretty light punishment so far.

Brown Bomber

Sand wrote: »

There is no such thing as Jewish communism

Why are you telling me this?

Sand wrote: »

That said, is it against the charter to be be "unconsciously" anti-Semitic? If so, its been given pretty light punishment so far.

Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.

Sand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you telling me this?

Because you said this:

I was referring to ethnicity not religion. I was making a statement of fact. He was a Jewish Communist. Just like Chairman Mao was a Chinese Communist.

Would you ban someone for describing Mao as a Chinese Communist?

There is a school of Chinese communism. Called Maoism, coincidentally. There is no equivalent school of Jewish communism, and certainly no such school that would have influenced a 1930s Stalinist.

Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.

If you wanted to describe Mao's views fairly accurately, you wouldn't describe him as a Chinese communist - you'd describe him as a Maoist. If you wanted to describe Kaganov's views accurately you wouldn't describe him as a Jewish communists, you'd describe him as a Stalinist.

Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.

Man, you need to learn to stop picking fights.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.

That's a road you'd be best off bypassing entirely.

Brown Bomber

Sand wrote: »

Because you said this:



There is a school of Chinese communism. Called Maoism, coincidentally. There is no equivalent school of Jewish communism, and certainly no such school that would have influenced a 1930s Stalinist.

To be frank I didn't ask you for a history lesson I asked you why you were lecturing me on "jewish Communism". I have never said anything at all about the existence of Jewish Communism.

Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.

Sand wrote: »

If you wanted to describe Mao's views fairly accurately, you wouldn't describe him as a Chinese communist - you'd describe him as a Maoist. If you wanted to describe Kaganov's views accurately you wouldn't describe him as a Jewish communists, you'd describe him as a Stalinist.

I don't want to describe Mao's views beyond using using it as an example to illustrate how ludicrous it is to be offended by two truthful and uncontested terms being used at the same time to describe a person.

Mao = Communist + Chinese = Chinese-Communist = Accurate and factual.

Sand wrote: »

Man, you need to learn to stop picking fights.

So that is a no then?

Brown Bomber

Oh, and ...

Atheist writer Richard Dawkins sparks outrage by suggesting child sex abuse scandals are overhyped

The outspoken author, who penned the best-selling 'The God Delusion,' said the 'mild pedophilia' he endured at boarding school in his youth 'never did him any harm.'

BY Lee Moran
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 12:11 PM
Updated: Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 12:31 PM


Levenson/Getty Images British atheist writer Richard Dawkins has said he was forced to defend himself against late-night visits at boarding school in the 1950s from boys who were much larger and stronger than he was. The sexual experiences he endured caused no lasting damage, he said.
British atheist writer Richard Dawkins has sparked outrage by suggesting scandals about decades-old child sex abuse are being overhyped.

etc...

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be frank I didn't ask you for a history lesson I asked you why you were lecturing me on "jewish Communism". I have never said anything at all about the existence of Jewish Communism.

Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.

Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

That's a road you'd be best off bypassing entirely.

Vague insinuations. Nice work.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?

What does that even mean? It is somehow inappropriate for a man to be both Jewish and a Communist?

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?

He messed up the quote function I think.

Though you're right, if there's no such thing as Jewish communism, then there is no such thing as a Jewish communist. There can be communists, who are Jewish, in the same way that I am Catholic.

And yet I've never heard of anyone described as a Catholic Communist.

To the google machine Brown Bomber!

P.S. I'm not really Catholic in any actual beliefs or adherence. I barely even pass muster as Christian. The same could probably be said about Kagonov, but yet, he can still be described as a Jewish communist?

K-9

Brown Bomber, you posted about the context of the thread earlier today. After all todays posts, do you now see why calling a Communist Jewish in relation to Stalins collectivisation policy and the famine was inappropriate or can you not see why it would cause offense?