[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

Whose interests are served by making it a rule that a recent generation of
> European politics may never be mentioned?


It's not a rule, Carl.  It's a phenomenon, like gravity.  In a political
debate, sooner or later someone always mentions Hitler.  I personally
thought that your reference to Hitler and anti-semitism was crudely
illustrative.




> Perhaps we're not to mention fascism on the rule that one doesn't mention
> rope in the house of a hanged man.


This is a rule I'm not familiar with.  Whose interests are served by not
mentioning rope in the house of a hanged man?




> John W. wrote:


>  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<mailto:
>> 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 <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
>>        <mailto: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/dbbf6f30/attachment.htm