Forum and Israel Discussion

[gotlucky]

Warning: Long post ahead! For any who are interested, this is the thread that started it all. Also, I am uncensoring Aristophanes’ posts. He edited them later, but I am uncensoring them so that you can better see understand my point of view:

@Marko

I agree that mods should had done something about this as it makes the forum look bad. At the same time I think the reason you’re infuriated with Aristophanes’ posting isn’t his unnaceptably liberal use of profanities, but because of positions he stakes out.

Actually, it’s the fact that he used profanities and insults and a distraction of grammar from my original question that caused me to believe that he is an antisemite.

First, I would like to repost a post I wrote last year. I did not expect any of you to be familiar with it or go out of your way to search for my viewpoints on this matter, but I would like you all to see what my beliefs on the subject have been:

@gotlucky

It can be very difficult to see the libertarian principles in some situations. I see that you are refrencing the Zionism/Libertarian thread. There was one person mentioning that the authoritarianism in North Korea is an internal matter that only affects Koreans, so it’s different from the Israel/Palestine situation. I understand where he is coming from, but I disagree with that. I do not care to what culture/ethnicity/religion/group someone feels they belong to - they have a right to not be aggressed against by the state or any other individual. Whether it is the North Korean state against the North Korean people, the Israeli state against the Israelis, the Israeli state against the Palestinians, Hamas against Palestinians, Hamas against Israelis, or the American government against etc. You get the point.

I feel that many people in that thread missed the point. There has been aggression by many individuals in that situation. Saying that Zionists stole the land is to generalize about all Zionists, and there were many who purchased land legitimately, even if there were more (I don’t know the percentages) who may have used violence instead. To say that the Jews (because when we say Israeli, we really don’t mean Israeli Arabs) stole the land of the Palestinians is to do a very un-libertarian thing. Just as it is un-libertarian to generalize that the Palestinians want to kill all the Jews etc.

As a libertarian, I cannot support either Hamas or the Israeli state. When governments are at war with each other, I really cannot side with either one. The people under the state may or may not support warring with each other, but it is ultimately the individuals in the state that do the warring. That being said, governments can be less evil than other governments. Then it depends on your own criteria on how evil you think a government might be.

I’m going to step away from talking about that thread any more.

So, I would like to point out that I have actually been consistent on these forums about condemning both the Israeli and Palestinian gangs. And this was from a thread more than a year ago, not from just a week ago.

Second, I would like to point out that when Clayton was talking about circumcision, I did not ever accuse him of antisemitism nor did I suspect him of that. The reason is that Clayton was very clear as to why he was against it. When I asked him and critiqued his position, he did not create a smokescreen to hide behind. He was blunt and honest about why he believes what he does, and his reasons have absolutely nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with the practice in itself.

So, it seems some of you think that I think Aristophanes is an antisemite because he is against the state of Israel. Well, I’m against the state of Israel, and I’m not an antisemite. So, why do I think Aristophanes is an antisemite? Let’s look at the exchange that started this whole absurdity:

@Aristophanes

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.

My response:

@gotlucky

I’d like a clarification of who this “they” is.

Now, you might wonder why I asked this question. Well, I have no real problem with the first part. It might not be true. After all, the rulers of Israel might not actually hate Palestinians…they might just use them as a scapegoat for justifying many of the actions they do (such as expanding settlements). But, I think Aristophanes is correct. I do think that many of the rulers of Israel are racists and demons.

So, why would I ask him to clarify? Because of the following sentence: “They deserve what they get”. To me, that seemed like a red flag. Who deserves what they get? After all, most of the Israeli victims of Palestinian violence are probably Israeli civilians. To be clear, I am not saying that no Palestinian violence is justified. I am saying that out of all the violence done by the various Palestinians, it’s been my understanding that the people on the receiving end were mostly Israeli civilians, not Israeli soldiers or politicians. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is why I asked for Aristophanes to clarify.

So, while Aristophanes set off a red flag in my head, I had not accused him of anything. You see, what I actually did was give him the benefit of the doubt and asked him what he meant.

Now, let’s look at the response I got from Aristophanes:

@Aristophanes

I’d like a clarification of who this “they” is.

Why don’t you re-read what you quoted …

“Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.”

To whom could “they” POSSIBLY refer to?

tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.

Okay…Really? Was that the appropriate response to my question? Keep in mind I had not accused him of anything. Anyway, Malachi responed to Aristophanes with this:

@Malachi

He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is “they.” interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.

And then I responded with this:

@gotlucky

The term “state” can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.

Malachi may just be right about you. Prove him wrong.

This is Aristophanes’ uncensored response:

@Aristophanes

Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go fuck himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha). You may need to attend with him. You guys should read Henry David Thoureau…my point, to which Malachai refers (however incorrectly), is that if you protest war (for instance) and still pay taxes, then you are a hypocrite. His assumption is off base.

The term “state” can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.

Yes, it sure can. But State is dun dun dunnnnnnnn “singular.” You see, the demonstrative pronoun that I selected was…“they” which is … plural. Further, a demonstartive pronoun that is plural cannot refer to a singular entity. 0_o

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.

“They” refers to those that run the state of Israel.

It’s all about that grammar school.

EDIT:

He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is “they.” interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.

Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me. This is wholly offensive. I think it is libel as well…

Let’s examine this post. Okay, so of course Aristophanes starts off with the insults. Let’s move past that to his response to what I wrote. When I said the “state” can refer to a great many things, what did Aristophanes do? Did he define what he meant by state? No, he absolutely did not. Instead, he decided to insult my understanding of grammar.

So, I have now asked him twice, and he has twice refused to answer my question. Now, you might say, “But look, gotlucky! Aristophanes did say ‘They refers to those that run the state of Israel.’” But here’s the thing, that’s not what my question was. Aristophanes said “they” deserve what they get, so that’s why I wanted to know who he was referring to with the term “state”. But hell, Malachi could be right, that Aristophanes considers anyone who pays taxes to the Israeli government to be included in that.

That is precisely why I asked him what he meant by what he said. I did not expect to be insulted and have him hide his beliefs behind a smokescreen.

Anyway, in one of Aristophanes following responses, he says:

@Aristophanes

There isn’t any truth to what you said you fucking cunt. The specificity of my original statement rules out “they” refering to “state.” You know that. You also still do not use plural pronouns to refer to collective nouns…

Okay, so Aristophanes is making this more about grammar. “They” referred to “racists and demons” and not “the state”. Who cares? It’s not at all answering my question! I want to know who he considers to deserve what they get!

Now, I am not going to repost every post from the lovely yet irrelevant debate about grammar between Malachi and Aristophanes. But, I think this one deserves to be reposted:

@Aristophanes

Uhhh, where is politics not, in its nature, collectivist? Libertarian dogma, such as this insistance upon clarification that “one does not blame the people, (in a democratic nation…) for the actions of their state” is what gets libertarians laughed out of every place they go. They aren’t worth engaging.

The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done. Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote. They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it. Being petty has its price. I cannot wait until interest rates rise.

Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson.

"The specificity of my original statement rules out “they” refering to “state.” “” it could refer to “Israel” actually.

Who refers to nation states in the plural? If I were to refer to Israel, I’d say “it.”

Please dont act as though your obscenity-laden rants are so well-constructed that we can assume a pronoun always refers to the proximate noun. “they” may be used to refer to nations,

But, I only refered to ONE “state.” “It” was never a nation.

Both of you had to go out of your way to imagine that a singular noun would be refered to in the plural. You are just trolling.

as a nation is a group of people with a collective identity.

Oh, so the definition of the word is collectivist, huh? What bastards that make these definitions up. It’s a good thing I refered to a “State” and not a nation…

You habe done this yourself again and again, so theres no need to get butthurt when someone asks you for clarification.

You put words in my mouth. You know that you really have to stretch the definition of these terms to make your case…You’re a prick for even insinuating what you did. I hope your house burns down.

Let’s examine this one. Aristophanes said this verbatim: "The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done. Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote. They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it. Being petty has its price. I cannot wait until interest rates rise.

Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson."

So, Marko, perhaps you can see why I would want Aristophanes to clarify? So “the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done”? Interesting. So, does that mean that the Israeli civilians ought to be counted among those that get what they deserve?

Perhaps you are beginning to see why my question was not so silly?

Oh, and of course Aristophanes is still hiding behind the grammar of it all. I mean, come on. Malachi, that “sleazy truck stop educated ass” as Aristophanes so classlessly put, was able to understand the purpose of my question. Why couldn’t this genius figure it out?

Anyway, let’s move on to what I said:

@gotlucky

Your grammar is amusing. Clearly “they” referred to “racists and demons”. Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind. Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement. I suspect it’s anti-semitism.

Now for Aristophanes’ response:

@Aristophanes

Ah, the weakness of your intellect is displayed.

I KNEW this is where you were going to go with it. Pathetic.

I refered to “the state” of “Israel” being run by “racists and demons.”

The plural “they” (in my original statement) was clearly referring back to the only plural objects from the previous sentence.

I referred to the State, not the Nation of Israel (they are different in denotation and connotation).

And If I were racist, would I have a disdain in my voice for other racists? Or would I understand their subjective preference?

You’re just as bad as a partisan; impossible to have conversations with due to the political correctness required for controversial subjects with you.

AHA! Now we see that all along Aristophanes claimed to know what the purpose of my question was. He just knew it all along? Okay, so then why wouldn’t he just clarify what he meant? I don’t see Clayton pull this nonsense. I don’t see you, Marko, pull this crap either. And of course, in a later post, Aristophanes insinuates the possibility that he has been trolling me.

@Marko

Strange how I never felt he needed to clarify anything as he had been perfectly clear from the start. He said “the racist demons running the state of Israel”. So it is clear who he did mean and who he did not mean. I do not believe every single Israeli is in the business of running the state of Israel.

As I have no explained above, that is not why I asked Aristophanes to clarify. I asked him to clarify because of his statement regarding certain people getting what they deserve. I wanted to know who those certain people were.

@Marko

Aristophanes has a point here. He uses profanities, but your accusing him of racism is much worse because it is dishonest and because of the consequence it could have. Him using a profanity just makes him look silly, but unjustly branding a person a racist could create real problems for them. Just because he stakes out a position you do not like and is passionate about it does not somehow prove he is a racist.

I will not accuse you of dishonesty even though I think you are mistaken. I do not think you read the thread that sparked this ridiculousness. As I have now pointed out above, what lead me to believing that Aristophanes is an antisemite is the fact that he delibrately created a smokescreen so as to not respond to my question.

Then again, perhaps he was trolling me as he insinuated. But then he really shouldn’t cry foul, as he would have delibrately gone out of his way to make it seem that he was an antisemite so as to call me out for false accusations.

@Marko

It does not sound to me like you would be terribly interested in discovering a competing interpretation like that.

I gave Aristophanes the benefit of the doubt originally. He abused that by thoroughly insulting both me and Malachi. I’m done giving him the benefit of the doubt.

@Marko

That isn’t a valid argument. You can not complain that someone makes the argument A, without also making the argument B alongside it. Some kind of demand to only be able to criticize Israel when one also criticizes the PLO and to the exact same extent is very silly. (So I couldn’t criticize Romney/Johnson without also criticizing Johnson/Romney even if I really wanted to write about just the one on this particular day?) Also to do so would make one’s critiques completly irrelevant as Rothbard warned when he wrote against sectarianism and irrelevancy in the War Guilt in the Middle East.

It is true that one does not have to criticize both at the same time. I viewed his criticisms as additional signals to his previous behavior.

@Marko

Since he readily conceeds the point Palestians are guilty of some aggression, he probably used it as a shorthand simplification since ‘in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression’.

Again, normally I would give someone the benefit of the doubt, but after Aristophanes’ massive tangents about grammar, I decided to take him at his written word.

Regarding Rothbard, you will note that Rothbard states “thus launching a series of aggressions against the Arabs of the Middle East.” He does not say that the state of Israel is the aggressor. He states that the state of Israel is an aggressor.

Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. The point of this post was to explain why I believe that Aristophanes is either an antisemite or a troll. Obviously, you all may disagree, but I will emphasize that it was absolutely not because Aristophanes criticizes the state of Israel. Aristophanes’ general behavior is what lead me to believe it. If any of you want to PM me about it, that is fine. But I think I will not fuel this anymore in public. Obviously, Aristophanes can have the last word in public on this matter.