Sure. But that has to be equally applied, and of course the self-same people who lament Sean Penn talking politics love that Robert Duvall or whoever is an outspoken conservative.
In the broader sense, I'm with you in that I don't think people check their freedom of speech at the door when they become famous. We can and should judge the content of what they say with equal criticism of any one else, but there's this idea out there that public figures just shouldn't talk about politics. But in America, everyone gets to say their piece, and it's really the fault of reporters for constantly sticking microphones in the face of these people if they don't say things worth listening to.
Sorry not to include you above-- I just looked at the Series and saw only Erik and Mark, all apologies!
I've been wrong before. I could be wrong now. I don't think so, though. And I have to tell you, extreme defensiveness about movies, books or music almost always says more about you than about the movie, book or music.
Wait, are you saying I should have wrote this whole thing as a start of a series, or I should have broken it up into several posts in a single series? I mean, I’m done with the topic now, unless someone else wants a piece.
I think he just means that you should put it into a named series for our system, not that you should have broken it up into pieces.
But when I talk on the Israeli side, when I say existential threat I mean the long term loss of political legitimacy of the state. (What I called losing the war, which is maybe the wrong metaphor)
Brilliant point, and so true. Again I think that's part of my point that it's important to remember that Israel gets held to a different standard because we want more from Israel and believe in its project. In a more concrete, pragmatic way, it's at least possible that Israel losing its moral and democratic status could cause it to lose the support of the United States, and then all bets are off. So, you're completely right.
I mean, look-- people love to cast this conflict as a case of Israel facing an existential threat, with Israel being deeply imperiled and in danger of being wiped off the map. Israel certainly faces grave threats to its future, largely because of geographical proximity to regimes that don't like it very much. I actually don't think these are as grave as some people make them out to be, because Israel boasts a nuclear arsenal, a competent and powerful military, and the backing of the United States. But, yes, Syria, Iran, etc. are legitimate threats to the Israeli way of life.
Hamas and the Palestinian population, meanwhile, most certainly are not genuine threats to Israel's way of life or existence. They just aren't. They have nothing resembling the military capability to destroy Israel, or even to cause it meaningful short term harm. Part of the point of talking about the comparatively tiny number of Israelis killed in reference to the number of Palestinians killed isn't just to talk about proportionality, but to demonstrate that Hamas simply isn't a meaningful threat to the Israeli way of life. They just don't have that capacity. The point isn't, and has never been, simply that there's some sort of superior morality in killing less people than more; the killing is immoral, point blank. The question is, are people right when they say that Hamas represents a significant threat to Israeli security? To Israel's border integrity? I say no.
So if we're going to talk about threat level, let's be honest and point out that the Palestinian people are more imperiled than the Israeli people. It seems a matter of little controversy to me to say that a people with neither citizenship rights nor sovereignty, no conventional military, no control over their own borders or airspace, destroyed or decaying infrastructure and no capacity to provide for their own people are far more endangered than the Israelis.
That is, again, not to in any way justify rocketing or bombing. We have to avoid believing in the superior morality of the most oppressed. But the situation here is totally untenable for the Palestinians, and actually quite survivable for the Israelis. It is the Israelis who have the ability to effect meaningful change by honoring international law and their treaty obligations and curtailing the settlements. The Palestinians have to stop rocketing, absolutely must stop it. But in reality whether they do or don't they have an incredibly small amount of control on the situation.
So if the lingo was, say Ebonics, a fair criticism would be that it is not internally constant. (However, a Valley Girl speaking Ebonics might be pretty funny.) But the point was that an internal constancy is desirable. If I see an inconsistency I have a big problem.
Right. Like I said, I'm willing to judge movies based on their own internal conventions; I just want them consistently applied. For instance, when the Kevin Costner Robin Hood came out, people criticized him for not having a British accent. That in and of itself doesn't bother me, any more than a movie set in medieval times having people who speak in conventional times doesn't bother me. What made that Robin Hood weird was that some people had British accents, some had inconsistent British accents, and some had none. That bugged me. Likewise, if in a movie you have some characters who speak in modern slang but some who speak like era-appropriate people, that's a problem, to my lights.
But maybe, as well, you’re missing the point that ‘truth in film,’ as it were (and I’m not original in this; see Bazin, Deleuze), isn’t simply propositional or plot-driven. There are all sorts of different aesthetic phenomenological manifolds going on … often I don’t really care about plot at all, and many great films don’t care so much about it either.
I respect that. I just think that there's got to be some sort of artistic tradeoff to be had and, often enough, there is none. But that's a good point and well taken.
You know, I've never been moved with those who thread logic through ever-thinner needles in order to say "don't worry, this isn't actually immoral." I don't know if proportionality is the best philosophical prism to consider this issue through; I do know that if you've arrived at a place where you have abdicated your responsibility for moral action, you are in bad faith, and in the wrong.
As for you, Roque, following this brief statement I won't be responding to your comments, because you've demonstrated that you aren't worth responding to. If you had ever shown even a modicum of good faith in responding to me, or even a shred of being interested in an actual dialogue, that wouldn't be the case; you can ask almost anyone else who's ever argued with me at my blog, ever. I respond to them all, I engage with them all, and then there's you. Many of my other commenters and I still don't agree, many think I'm totally off-base, but we have talked together. You and I meanwhile, never haved; you've yelled at, insulted and sworn at me, and I've grown to ignore you. The question is, do you have the self-critical mechanism necessary to ask yourself the question, "Maybe it's not him... maybe it's me"? I highly doubt you have; your certitude is the only thing that matches your frankly ludicrous bile. So, from now on, I'll just ignore. I believe in the enterprise of discussion, but I have limits, and you've never demonstrated, in any degree or capacity whatsoever, that you actually want to talk. And that's that.
On “earnestness is mine, sayeth the conservative”
Thanks Erik!
"
Sure. But that has to be equally applied, and of course the self-same people who lament Sean Penn talking politics love that Robert Duvall or whoever is an outspoken conservative.
In the broader sense, I'm with you in that I don't think people check their freedom of speech at the door when they become famous. We can and should judge the content of what they say with equal criticism of any one else, but there's this idea out there that public figures just shouldn't talk about politics. But in America, everyone gets to say their piece, and it's really the fault of reporters for constantly sticking microphones in the face of these people if they don't say things worth listening to.
Sorry not to include you above-- I just looked at the Series and saw only Erik and Mark, all apologies!
On “incoherent blockbusters and the Dark Knight”
I've been wrong before. I could be wrong now. I don't think so, though. And I have to tell you, extreme defensiveness about movies, books or music almost always says more about you than about the movie, book or music.
On “Contrarianism for the Sake of Contrarianism (or: The Virtue and Vice of Partisanship in a Post Partisan World)”
Wait, are you saying I should have wrote this whole thing as a start of a series, or I should have broken it up into several posts in a single series? I mean, I’m done with the topic now, unless someone else wants a piece.
I think he just means that you should put it into a named series for our system, not that you should have broken it up into pieces.
On “incoherent blockbusters and the Dark Knight”
Some superhero movies make sense. Some don't. I prefer those that make sense.
On “Civilization is a responsibility.”
But when I talk on the Israeli side, when I say existential threat I mean the long term loss of political legitimacy of the state. (What I called losing the war, which is maybe the wrong metaphor)
Brilliant point, and so true. Again I think that's part of my point that it's important to remember that Israel gets held to a different standard because we want more from Israel and believe in its project. In a more concrete, pragmatic way, it's at least possible that Israel losing its moral and democratic status could cause it to lose the support of the United States, and then all bets are off. So, you're completely right.
"
I mean, look-- people love to cast this conflict as a case of Israel facing an existential threat, with Israel being deeply imperiled and in danger of being wiped off the map. Israel certainly faces grave threats to its future, largely because of geographical proximity to regimes that don't like it very much. I actually don't think these are as grave as some people make them out to be, because Israel boasts a nuclear arsenal, a competent and powerful military, and the backing of the United States. But, yes, Syria, Iran, etc. are legitimate threats to the Israeli way of life.
Hamas and the Palestinian population, meanwhile, most certainly are not genuine threats to Israel's way of life or existence. They just aren't. They have nothing resembling the military capability to destroy Israel, or even to cause it meaningful short term harm. Part of the point of talking about the comparatively tiny number of Israelis killed in reference to the number of Palestinians killed isn't just to talk about proportionality, but to demonstrate that Hamas simply isn't a meaningful threat to the Israeli way of life. They just don't have that capacity. The point isn't, and has never been, simply that there's some sort of superior morality in killing less people than more; the killing is immoral, point blank. The question is, are people right when they say that Hamas represents a significant threat to Israeli security? To Israel's border integrity? I say no.
So if we're going to talk about threat level, let's be honest and point out that the Palestinian people are more imperiled than the Israeli people. It seems a matter of little controversy to me to say that a people with neither citizenship rights nor sovereignty, no conventional military, no control over their own borders or airspace, destroyed or decaying infrastructure and no capacity to provide for their own people are far more endangered than the Israelis.
That is, again, not to in any way justify rocketing or bombing. We have to avoid believing in the superior morality of the most oppressed. But the situation here is totally untenable for the Palestinians, and actually quite survivable for the Israelis. It is the Israelis who have the ability to effect meaningful change by honoring international law and their treaty obligations and curtailing the settlements. The Palestinians have to stop rocketing, absolutely must stop it. But in reality whether they do or don't they have an incredibly small amount of control on the situation.
On “incoherent blockbusters and the Dark Knight”
So if the lingo was, say Ebonics, a fair criticism would be that it is not internally constant. (However, a Valley Girl speaking Ebonics might be pretty funny.) But the point was that an internal constancy is desirable. If I see an inconsistency I have a big problem.
Right. Like I said, I'm willing to judge movies based on their own internal conventions; I just want them consistently applied. For instance, when the Kevin Costner Robin Hood came out, people criticized him for not having a British accent. That in and of itself doesn't bother me, any more than a movie set in medieval times having people who speak in conventional times doesn't bother me. What made that Robin Hood weird was that some people had British accents, some had inconsistent British accents, and some had none. That bugged me. Likewise, if in a movie you have some characters who speak in modern slang but some who speak like era-appropriate people, that's a problem, to my lights.
"
But maybe, as well, you’re missing the point that ‘truth in film,’ as it were (and I’m not original in this; see Bazin, Deleuze), isn’t simply propositional or plot-driven. There are all sorts of different aesthetic phenomenological manifolds going on … often I don’t really care about plot at all, and many great films don’t care so much about it either.
I respect that. I just think that there's got to be some sort of artistic tradeoff to be had and, often enough, there is none. But that's a good point and well taken.
On “Civilization is a responsibility.”
You know, I've never been moved with those who thread logic through ever-thinner needles in order to say "don't worry, this isn't actually immoral." I don't know if proportionality is the best philosophical prism to consider this issue through; I do know that if you've arrived at a place where you have abdicated your responsibility for moral action, you are in bad faith, and in the wrong.
As for you, Roque, following this brief statement I won't be responding to your comments, because you've demonstrated that you aren't worth responding to. If you had ever shown even a modicum of good faith in responding to me, or even a shred of being interested in an actual dialogue, that wouldn't be the case; you can ask almost anyone else who's ever argued with me at my blog, ever. I respond to them all, I engage with them all, and then there's you. Many of my other commenters and I still don't agree, many think I'm totally off-base, but we have talked together. You and I meanwhile, never haved; you've yelled at, insulted and sworn at me, and I've grown to ignore you. The question is, do you have the self-critical mechanism necessary to ask yourself the question, "Maybe it's not him... maybe it's me"? I highly doubt you have; your certitude is the only thing that matches your frankly ludicrous bile. So, from now on, I'll just ignore. I believe in the enterprise of discussion, but I have limits, and you've never demonstrated, in any degree or capacity whatsoever, that you actually want to talk. And that's that.
On “Meet the New (Drug) Boss, Same as the Old One?”
I prefer "OG's", for ordinary gentleman, and also for Original Gangsta.
On “Same Sex Marriage and Nomenclature”
Glad to see you migrated over here, raft. I have indeed become somewhat enamored of this idea lately. I mention it briefly here.
http://lhote.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-is-gender-difference-disqualifying.html
On “our changing media and the future for Israel”
Mic check one two, wacha gonna do, coming for you....
"
test test