Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?

[James R]

In response to WillNever:

Permabanning someone based on their views is not kosher.

I have no qualms at all about banning people who repeatedly post hate speech. Several past members have been banned for exactly that. I make no apologies.

sciforums has no obligation to host hate speech, and our policy is not to do so.

SAM, however, is not being banned for her views. If she is banned, it will be for failing to display basic good manners by apologising for her deliberate and knowing libel of another member (namely, myself). Her record of disingenuous trolling over a long period of time also does nothing to suggest she should be treated leniently.

The people permabanning should themselves be banned.

Why? Explain yourself.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

Is there some doubt about the credentials of Norman Finkelstein or the credibility of his work? Why is the "academic" in quotes? Is he no longer considered an academic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein

Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and author, whose primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust. A graduate of SUNY Binghamton, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and, most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

Amidst considerable public debate, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year. Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to derail Finkelstein's tenure bid.[1] On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms.[2][3] An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, and asserted that outside influence played no role in their decision. The statement also praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."[4]

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.

Which is what exactly? That the holocaust did not result in the Jewish state and is not used to justify its actions?

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.

No, I merely follow the ensuing discussion. And provide my sources.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I'm amazed. Its amazing that Sciforums has been pussy-footing around this for so long. Other members have been banned for less. She accuses others of what she is guilty of herself. Her interest is in pushing her agenda not intellectual inquiry and debate. She will muddy the waters of any debate if it suits her (straw men and red herrings galore). The fact that she has edited the pm's to her advantage is only an example of what she does on a consistent basis here on this site. Its not as if she hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt nor is it that she hasn't been given a lot of slack she knows exactly what she is doing on this site.

 

[James R]

Response to SAM's post #39:

Whenever you quote something to make a point or raise an issue, you are making a selection from a multitude of available materials and sources. Your choices, SAM, invariably show the kinds of biases I just pointed out. There are plenty of unbiased sources out there, but you never use them. Or, if you do, you go quote-mining for parts of them that put the matter into the hateful light you always wish to emphasise.

Obviously, everything I said there still applies.

In the current thread, we have another quote-mined source from SAM, this time from an "academic" who SAM says agrees with her that there is a "holocaust industry".

Now, I haven't read the full article (why bother?), but let's assume that this author does in fact think the Holocaust is nothing more than an "industry" for the advancement of Jews, as SAM herself apparently thinks. It doesn't matter that SAM can find snippets to support her position. There's an entire "industry" devoted to anti-semitism out there. All SAM has to do is tap into that to find people who agree with her.

This is no way excuses SAM's bigotry.

 

[James R]

20 hours left, SAM.

 

[S.A.M.]

the Holocaust is nothing more than an "industry" for the advancement of Jews,

I would be very surprised if he said that since I in no way implied this.

Check out the my words in this very thread:

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

 

[James R]

Splitting hairs, SAM. I'm really not interested. I just want your apology for your libel of me.

 

[S.A.M.]

Splitting hairs, SAM. I'm really not interested. I just want your apology for your libel of me.

My libel of you? James you quoted the words of another person to label me as a hater, the words of an anti-war American who sympathised with the victims of the war. You should be apologising to me for libel and for falsely attributing the words of another person to me

Note that I have quoted your words here and do not own them.

 

[James R]

And as James has clearly said, sympathising with the victims of American invasions and occupations is bigotry.

I never "clearly said" what you attribute to me. Therefore, your statement is blatantly libellous. It doesn't get any clearer than that, SAM. You will not squirm around this one. You will apologise or you will leave.

 

[S.A.M.]

I asked you if the anti-war Americans words meant the same to you after i disclosed they were not mine. You said

Of course

Your opinion of those words, when you quoted them as mine was:

Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

IOW, for an American to sympathise with the victims of American wars is Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

You gave me complete ownership of all his quoted words [which would be plagiarism], I am merely holding you to your own.

 

[James R]

James you quoted the words of another person to label me as a hater...

Regarding the exchange you detail above, where you posted an article and I mistakenly attributed the author's words to you, I admit I was mistaken in thinking they were your words. I freely apologise for that mistake.

The rest of what I said there, however, stands. In particular, the point I made about your selection of sources and quote-mining stands. I mean, look at the current thread. Here we have yet another blatant example. You quote a guy whose application for tenure at a university was controversial, presumably because of his published views. The fact that you constantly resort to sources that present a one-eyed and biased point of view is there for anybody to see.

And just to be clear (not that it is relevant), I myself sympathise with innocent civilians who are bombed in a war. For me, it doesn't matter whether they are bombed by Pakistan, Israel, India or the US. For you, it is obviously central to your self identity.

 

[WillNever]

I never "clearly said" what you attribute to me. Therefore, your statement is blatantly libellous. It doesn't get any clearer than that, SAM. You will not squirm around this one. You will apologise or you will leave.

But you did mispresent the words of journalist as belonging to SAM in front of other people. You at least made it appear that way to the uninvolved. If mispresentation is wrong in one situation, then it's wrong in ALL situations. If you don't want someone to do it to you, then don't do it. If you're going to do it, then dont' get mad when someone else does it. Either stick to your values consistently or don't stick to any at all.

EDIT: I see you just apologized. That is fair.

 

[S.A.M.]

James R:

??? Quote mining? I asked a question in that thread.

What should be the position of Americans regarding these wars? The article which I posted almost in its entirety and not by selecting only one point of view out of several others[which I could have done, its not taboo to only present one opinion of out many for discussion], have one opinion. Others were free to add theirs. How is this "quote mining"? Did I misrepresent the position of the article? The author? Anyone? My position? The position of Americans in general?

I find your arguments sloppy, frivolous and disingenuous. Perhaps I am mistaken in what you wish to convey since your thinking process resembles your arguments. If so I apologize for misunderstanding your position. I cannot read your mind, only your words.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Do you never stop? Once again you misrepresent what I wrote.

I asked you if the anti-war Americans words meant the same to you after i disclosed they were not mine. You said "of course".

But that's not what happened, is it, SAM? It's one thing to try to pull the wool over other readers' eyes, but I was there, SAM. I was in that conversation.

You did not ask me "if the anti-war Americans words meant the same...". You asked me:

Also I would be curious to know, now that you know its written by a leftist American opinion website, do you still have the same opinion about it?

and to that I said "Of course".

Now, you seem to have a clear problem of comprehension. And, by the way, I note that you ignored my post above pointing out one other such error of yours. That is typical of you, too. When put on the spot, you ignore or try to change the topic. It's like you have a mental blankness that kicks in so that you just don't see things you find inconvenient. Or else it's simple and deliberate evasion, which is just dishonest, not to mention rude.

In case you misunderstood my "of course", I meant "Of course I hold the same opinion of that piece, no matter whether it was written by you, by a left-wing American, by an Israeli General, by Adolph Hitler or by Mahatma Gandhi." To do otherwise would be to put personality above what was written.

Your opinion of those words, when you quoted them as mine was:

"Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

[/quote]

Correct.

IOW, for an American to sympathise with the victims of American wars is Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

For this particular American to write a biased piece as he did, whether in sympathy with victims or not, was not objective.

You gave me complete ownership of all his quoted words [which would be plagiarism], I am merely holding you to your own.

I already admitted I made a mistake in attributing his words to you.

You, on the other hand, make no mistake in maintaining your libel of me. You are deliberately continuing to refuse to apologise to me for knowingly attributing views to me that I never expressed.

 

[S.A.M.]

For this particular American to write a biased piece as he did, whether in sympathy with victims or not, was not objective.

I never claimed it was, no opinion, by definition, is objective

But you still maintain that his position is anti-American propoganda, Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.

So whats the libel, I agree that you called sympathisers of victims of American wars as bigots.

his position:

How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11?

 

[James R]

??? Quote mining? I asked a question in that thread. [snip]

This is not about that thread. This is about your refusal to apologise to me for your libel. Your attempt to derail the conversation will not work.

 

[James R]

So whats the libel, I agree that you called sympathisers of victims of American wars as bigots.

I see you choose to compound your libel.

There is no statement from me anywhere to the effect: "Sympathisers of victims of American wars are bigots."

 

[S.A.M.]

This is not about that thread. This is about your refusal to apologise to me for your libel. Your attempt to derail the conversation will not work.

I am merely responding to your accusations James, you can choose whichever post you like.

Quote mining:

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]

Libel, again.

 

[James R]

SAM:

If you wish to use that definition of "quote mining", that's fine. Please read all references by me to "quote mining" in this thread as "selective quoting".

 

[S.A.M.]

I have to take my cat to the vet now, so I will leave it here.

Please read through the thread and if you feel, I have been mistaken or wrong in my attribution, accept my sincere apologies. This is not to put off any banning, I am quite honestly puzzled by what you intend here.

I will chalk it up to stress and the pleasure of my company and bid adieu in the hope that you may work through it.

If I do get banned, no hard feelings :thankyou:

Ciao.