Let's swing it on back to the topic at hand. Is it part of a holocaust industry to have some concerns when a teacher has taught a false and possibly misleading thing?
Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Indeed.
Moreover, step back for a second and examine the dichotomy S.A.M. attempts to enforce on us: either you have to let every quack with an agenda abuse his position as a public school teacher to indoctrinate children not only in hate, but in actual falsehood, or you're actively supporting the exploitation of Holocaust history to advance nefarious Zionist schemes. You can't be for accurate history and appropriate school cirriculum for your own children without collaborating in the oppression of Palestinians. Nor, for that matter, can you support Palestinian liberation without denigrating the study of history. No space is left for the reasonable moderate who dislikes attempts to exploit emotional reactions to the Holocaust for political ends AND racist kooks telling their kids lies in school.
That sort of attack on any kind of sensible middle ground is the hallmark of extremism. If anyone stakes out such a position, S.A.M. loses the opportunity to tar everyone who thinks this dipshit deserves to be fired as a Zionist sympathizer.
Its part of the Holocaust industry to use the suffering of the holocasut victims as collateral for the profit of American Jews and Israel - and also to stifle any debate on the Holocaust [which is silly, but ingenious it makes any non-mainstream opinion on the holocaust no matter how irrelevant, taboo and hence newsworthy]
Norman Finkelstein for example, has lost tenure over it. As an academic who according to quad's analysis "consistently fails to integrate new knowledge that conflicts with their existing position" he was denied tenure for not keeping on the beaten path of holocaust narrative. The fact that both his parents were survivors of the same Holocaust gave him no latitude in discussing its implications.
This is the holocaust industry at work. Its why he is described as antisemitic ie a "self hating Jew"
Norman Finkelstein for example, has lost tenure over it. As an academic who according to quad's analysis "consistently fails to integrate new knowledge that conflicts with their existing position" he was denied tenure for not keeping on the beaten path of holocaust narrative. The fact that both his parents were survivors of the same Holocaust gave him no latitude in discussing its implications.
This is the holocaust industry at work. Its why he is described as antisemitic ie a "self hating Jew"
Last edited:
So your objection to this incident is more a criticism of the media?
Or maybe he is just wrong, and seeking to profit from the appeal of a radical message. He is engaging in his own form of exploitation.S.A.M. said:
Last edited:
Yes, we all know that.
That doesn't mean that all debate on the Holocaust is legitimate, nor that every non-mainstream opinion deserves to be called "debate" in the first place.
The fact also remains that there's more to the history of the Holocaust than its implications for Israel, regardless of what those might be. You don't seem to be able to see this, presumably because you're only interested in Israel, but that simply points out what a myopic lens that is to view Western civilization through. The Holocaust Industry is a marginal phenomenon, and is not crucial to the persistence of Israel or their relations with the US (if indeed it ever was).
In the grand scheme of things, there are much bigger issues in the world than what becomes of a few million semites fighting over a postage stamp of desert. What sort of civil society and systems of governance powerful industrialized nations are going to sustain for themselves, for example: if the lessons of the Holocaust are forgotten there, you can expect hundreds of millions to die, and possibly the total obliteration of human civilization.
No.
In the first place, I have offered no analysis of Finkelstein. What you're referring to is a working definition of bigotry. If you want to present an analysis of Finkelstein, you can feel free, but do not put words in my mouth.
How would you know? You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of what the lessons of the Holocaust are, despite having been repeatedly informed of such and challenged to provide such a demonstration. Instead you seem to think it comes down to "killing civilians is bad," or maybe "killing civilians over their tribe is bad" (this despite that absence of tribal organization in the societies in question).
Do you also object to R&B or Hip Hop artists who sing about slavery?
Relevance? I'd have to hear the songs.
Its like asking to see the contribution of German society to philosophy while the Holocaust is in progress, I'm not opposed to the mental masturbation but lets keep it for after we address the problems that the holocaust industry is creating, the ongoing nakba is more urgent than the handwringing post mortem.
I remember faintly a similar discussion on civil unrest with Fraggle Rocker, what would it take for American people to stand up and be counted against Abu Ghraib, the wars, Gitmo and he told me Americans believe in change through peaceful means. The torture will have to continue until after the elections. Its like talking to a wall. Imagine if they said that during the holocaust, just hold on till we get around to it, we're still discussing the options.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Permabanning someone based on their views is not kosher.
This is a very grisly move by the moderators to impose sanctity onto an event based on their cultural perspective of it, while not applying that same imposition on other similar events throughout world history that they happen to not culturally identify with.
The people permabanning should themselves be banned.
This is a very grisly move by the moderators to impose sanctity onto an event based on their cultural perspective of it, while not applying that same imposition on other similar events throughout world history that they happen to not culturally identify with.
The people permabanning should themselves be banned.
Last edited:
Aren't they making money by reminding people of past tragedies?
This is a complaint thread directed at me by SAM. I wish to be quite clear about what will occur here and why.
SAM, ever the anti-semite, has ramped up her anti-semitism and general trolling over the past couple of days, especially in the following threads:
[thread=98416]Why are Muslims have in a science forum?[/thread]
[thread=98401]Vegas teacher accused of denying holocaust[/thread]
and, leading on from the first one and a couple of warnings I gave to her is (quoted by her in post #1, is the current thread.
SAM has taken to actually lying about statements other members have made - inventing positions for them that they do not hold and claiming that they have stated they hold them. She did this with quadraphonics and she has done it in relation to me.
Now, I have been very tolerant of SAM's bigotry, disingenuity, and general trolling, but when it comes to telling lies, particularly about me, I say enough is enough.
I note that SAM, lacking basic good manners, has posted private communications that I sent to her. I therefore post the entire string of relevant PMs.
---
It appears to me that SAM would prefer to stand by her lie than to make a simple apology. So be it.
I have started a thread in the Moderators forum, calling for a permanent ban for SAM if she has not apologised within 24 hours.
I will ban her permanently if there is a 2/3 majority from the moderators on this vote. If a 2/3 majority is not achieved, and SAM has not apologised, SAM will be banned for 1 month from sciforums.
I will respond to further allegations and statements made by SAM in posts to follow this one.
SAM, ever the anti-semite, has ramped up her anti-semitism and general trolling over the past couple of days, especially in the following threads:
[thread=98416]Why are Muslims have in a science forum?[/thread]
[thread=98401]Vegas teacher accused of denying holocaust[/thread]
and, leading on from the first one and a couple of warnings I gave to her is (quoted by her in post #1, is the current thread.
SAM has taken to actually lying about statements other members have made - inventing positions for them that they do not hold and claiming that they have stated they hold them. She did this with quadraphonics and she has done it in relation to me.
Now, I have been very tolerant of SAM's bigotry, disingenuity, and general trolling, but when it comes to telling lies, particularly about me, I say enough is enough.
I note that SAM, lacking basic good manners, has posted private communications that I sent to her. I therefore post the entire string of relevant PMs.
James R said:
SAM said:
James R said:
SAM said:
---
It appears to me that SAM would prefer to stand by her lie than to make a simple apology. So be it.
I have started a thread in the Moderators forum, calling for a permanent ban for SAM if she has not apologised within 24 hours.
I will ban her permanently if there is a 2/3 majority from the moderators on this vote. If a 2/3 majority is not achieved, and SAM has not apologised, SAM will be banned for 1 month from sciforums.
I will respond to further allegations and statements made by SAM in posts to follow this one.
SAM has misinterpreted a post of mine and made an issue of it here.
In particular, she bases an "assessment" of me on bolded sections in her post. In particular, she relies on the following paragraph posted by me:
The original thread that this is from is here:
[thread]95939[/thread]
The first paragraph quoted here is a reference to SAM's first post in the thread, explaining how this is part of SAM's ongoing agenda of antisemitism and anti-Americanism. But SAM's complaint is about the bolded part (bolded by SAM).
SAM misinterprets the bolded section as an expression of my opinion. It is not, as any intelligent reader should be able to tell from the sentence immediately preceding it. The bolded section is my interpretation of SAM's position in that thread.
Ironically, SAM thinks that her misinterpretation of this is an example of my "history of incomprehension". In fact, all that happened here was that I highlighted SAM's own bigotry.
In particular, she bases an "assessment" of me on bolded sections in her post. In particular, she relies on the following paragraph posted by me:
James R said:
The original thread that this is from is here:
[thread]95939[/thread]
The first paragraph quoted here is a reference to SAM's first post in the thread, explaining how this is part of SAM's ongoing agenda of antisemitism and anti-Americanism. But SAM's complaint is about the bolded part (bolded by SAM).
SAM misinterprets the bolded section as an expression of my opinion. It is not, as any intelligent reader should be able to tell from the sentence immediately preceding it. The bolded section is my interpretation of SAM's position in that thread.
Ironically, SAM thinks that her misinterpretation of this is an example of my "history of incomprehension". In fact, all that happened here was that I highlighted SAM's own bigotry.
A response to Doreen's comments in the "Muslims" thread linked above:
The opening poster of that thread was banned for one week. The thread was unacceptable.
It is untrue that I had "no problem" with the thread. I left it open because I had posted comments in it and wanted to give a right of reply. Following SAM's lies about me, and my issuing of a demand for an apology from her, I left it open a little longer to give her an opportunity to do the honourable thing and apologise for her blatant and hurtful lie. When she started this thread, I closed it.
Doreen said:
The opening poster of that thread was banned for one week. The thread was unacceptable.
Doreen said:
It is untrue that I had "no problem" with the thread. I left it open because I had posted comments in it and wanted to give a right of reply. Following SAM's lies about me, and my issuing of a demand for an apology from her, I left it open a little longer to give her an opportunity to do the honourable thing and apologise for her blatant and hurtful lie. When she started this thread, I closed it.
SAM dishonestly claims that a distinction is made regarding images of violence posted on sciforums - particularly images of dead people who have suffered violent deaths from things such as gunshot wounds.
Our policy here is to allow the posting of links to such images, with text warning that the image is graphic. Where such images are embedded in posts, those posts are edited by moderators to change the images to links, in accordance with policy, when the moderators become aware of their existence.
Our policy here is to allow the posting of links to such images, with text warning that the image is graphic. Where such images are embedded in posts, those posts are edited by moderators to change the images to links, in accordance with policy, when the moderators become aware of their existence.
Apparently we are now in Site Feedback:
Here are the relevant posts which led me to conclude that James's position is that support for the victims of American occupation is bigotry
I will post them more expansively here, than I did in the thread on muslims by fellow traveller [who I also feel was unfairly banned, since he was saying the same things that James usually does about me]
In the thread James R: the SAM issue, in response to a query by Gustav:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95939&highlight=James
He was asked to justify his position by Gustav:
His very first example was this :
Gustav requoted my alleged first post and asked:
Following this tiassa, an American of liberal bent [I think?] posted his opinion of my "examples of SAM as a hater post" from James thread. To remain on topic I will quote his response to the above quoted alleged post made by me:
I could have popped in at this moment but I was waiting for someone to point out that James was quoting the words from an article I had posted, as my words, so I held my response.
James came next in response to Gustav's query, why it was hatred and propaganda - he is still acting under the assumption that he is responding to my words, rather than an Americans
I'm not sure why the issue was Palestinians in Pakistan, but never mind, all Muslims look same under a cloud of missiles.
Still this was his opinion of what Americans who sympatise with Palestinians or Pakistanis are really saying
At this point I jumped in:
I was embarassed for James and thought it best to let him know that he was addressing someone elses words as mine
Imagine my surprise when James retorts back with:
So by presenting the views of an anti-war liberal American who sympathised with the civilian victims of the war I was owning his views and presenting a bigoted view of the war.
I also asked him:
And he said, quite clearly
So a left leaning American who describes the position of the Pakistanis and thinks Obama is doing a poor job of it, is essentially the same as I, a hater.
This conclusion is from the steps I outlined above. What other interpretation is there of this?
Here are the relevant posts which led me to conclude that James's position is that support for the victims of American occupation is bigotry
I will post them more expansively here, than I did in the thread on muslims by fellow traveller [who I also feel was unfairly banned, since he was saying the same things that James usually does about me]
In the thread James R: the SAM issue, in response to a query by Gustav:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95939&highlight=James
James R said:
He was asked to justify his position by Gustav:
Gustav said:
His very first example was this :
James said:
Gustav requoted my alleged first post and asked:
Gustav said:
Following this tiassa, an American of liberal bent [I think?] posted his opinion of my "examples of SAM as a hater post" from James thread. To remain on topic I will quote his response to the above quoted alleged post made by me:
tiassa said:
I could have popped in at this moment but I was waiting for someone to point out that James was quoting the words from an article I had posted, as my words, so I held my response.
James came next in response to Gustav's query, why it was hatred and propaganda - he is still acting under the assumption that he is responding to my words, rather than an Americans
James R said:
I'm not sure why the issue was Palestinians in Pakistan, but never mind, all Muslims look same under a cloud of missiles.
Still this was his opinion of what Americans who sympatise with Palestinians or Pakistanis are really saying
At this point I jumped in:
I was embarassed for James and thought it best to let him know that he was addressing someone elses words as mine
Imagine my surprise when James retorts back with:
So by presenting the views of an anti-war liberal American who sympathised with the civilian victims of the war I was owning his views and presenting a bigoted view of the war.
I also asked him:
SAM said:
And he said, quite clearly
James said:
So a left leaning American who describes the position of the Pakistanis and thinks Obama is doing a poor job of it, is essentially the same as I, a hater.
This conclusion is from the steps I outlined above. What other interpretation is there of this?
SAM, in post #1, claims to justify her bigoted comment that there is a "holocaust industry" by citing an "academic" work that uses the term. This in no way excuses her bigotry.
In post #2, SAM disingenuously claims that her bigoted anti-semitism is not a form of racism, but just a "non western European perspective on the holocaust". This thin veneer in no way excuses her bigotry.
SAM changes tack a little later in the thread in an attempt to divert attention from herself, as usual. Instead of honestly apologising for the offence she gave to victims of the holocaust, she tries to argue that the existence of other genocides somehow gets her off the hook and allows her to be as bigoted as she likes. This tangential self-justification in no way excuses her bigotry.
In post #2, SAM disingenuously claims that her bigoted anti-semitism is not a form of racism, but just a "non western European perspective on the holocaust". This thin veneer in no way excuses her bigotry.
SAM changes tack a little later in the thread in an attempt to divert attention from herself, as usual. Instead of honestly apologising for the offence she gave to victims of the holocaust, she tries to argue that the existence of other genocides somehow gets her off the hook and allows her to be as bigoted as she likes. This tangential self-justification in no way excuses her bigotry.
- Status