[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

Roughly 50 posts into the thread, this appears to be an example of the
Hitler Phenomenon.


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

Q: Was Hitler an anti-semitic candidate in the election of 1933, or wasn't
> he?
> It's not difficult to say accurately that there were anti-semitic
> candidates in
> France and even in the US.  (See, e.g., Arendt, "Origins of
> Totalitarianism.")
>
> A: "Now, as you well know, we are playing word games among other things. It
> all depends on how one defines "anti-semitic," and who is defining it. Aside
> from the fact that Hitler did not in so many words claim to be The
> Anti-Semitic Candidate and in fact said or implied in some of his talks that
> he was not literally anti-semitic or the anti-semitic candidate (it was
> supporters who typically made that claim about him), he may very well have
> legitimately considered himself to be anti-semitic and the anti-semitic
> candidate as he understands the labels - not as you understand them.  So was
> he or wasn't he is a relative question unless one imposes that they have
> some special insight and knowledge that is clearer and better than others
> who have different viewpoints.
>
> "Moreover, do we use words or actions as grounds upon which we make our
> interpretations and attributions; if we use both, in what proportion do we
> use each in deciding on the accuracy and truth of an attribution?  Moreover,
> even if everyone but me agreed with you and your attributions of
> anti-semitism to Hitler, that does not make it true; it might suggest a
> consensus of opinion or illusion but not truth, accurate knowledge, or clear
> understanding."
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>> Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say
>>> accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war
>>> candidates.  Look at what they said...
>>>
>>
>> Now, as you well know, we are playing word games among other things. It
>> all
>> depends on how one defines "anti-war," and who is defining it. Aside from
>> the
>> fact that Obama did not in so many words claim to be The Anti-War
>> Candidate
>> and in fact said or implied in some of his talks that he was not literally
>> anti-war or the anti-war candidate (it was supporters who typically made
>> that
>> claim about him), he may very well have legitimately considered himself to
>> be
>> anti-war and the anti-war candidate as he understands the labels - not as
>> you
>> understand them.  So was he or wasn't he is a relative question unless one
>> imposes that they have some special insight and knowledge that is clearer
>> and
>> better than others who have different viewpoints.  Moreover, do we use
>> words
>> or actions as grounds upon which we make our interpretations and
>> attributions; if we use both, in what proportion do we use each in
>> deciding
>> on the accuracy and truth of an attribution?  Moreover, even if everyone
>> but
>> me agreed with you and your attributions, that does not make it true; it
>> might suggest a consensus of opinion or illusion but truth, accurate
>> knowledge, or clear understanding.
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:
>> galliher at uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:52 PM To: LAURIE
>> SOLOMON Cc: 'Morton K.
>> Brussel'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
>> Bellicose rhetoric???
>>
>> Of course truth is better than illusion -- and the truth of that statement
>> hardly depends on my having a "clearer and more accurate knowledge and
>> understanding than those who do not agree with [me]."
>>
>> Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say
>> accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war
>> candidates.  Look at what they said...
>>
>> If you really want to know whether Mort has attributed opinions to me that
>> I've denied -- and I'm not quite sure why you would -- look at the
>> archives.
>>
>> What do you want to "balance"?  Time spent exposing McCain's position and
>> Obama's? But one was easier to do, and the audience for this list already
>> recognized that one was untenable.  --CGE
>>
>>
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted
>>>> to convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he
>>>> clearly wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better
>>>> than illusion.
>>>>
>>> Even granting that it was the people who convinced themselves of this and
>>> not Obama who convinced them of this, how can you assume a self-righteous
>>> position of saying that for them truth is better than illusion?  I can
>>> understand how you might say that it is better for you personally but to
>>> suggest that this is the case for others is sheer projection based on your
>>>  assuming that you have clearer and more accurate knowledge and
>>> understanding than those who do not agree with you, which comes down to
>>> egotism clear and simple.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081112/5eb2beb3/attachment.htm