3 ms·

So then what is wrong with me saying "barbaric Israelis" taking land in the West bank or "barbaric blacks" shooting each other in cities? There is no difference

So then what is wrong with me saying "barbaric Israelis" taking land in the West bank or "barbaric blacks" shooting each other in cities? There is no difference here, I never said I was describing all Israelis or black either, just the ones who engage in this behaviour. What bamboozled said was: > If there’s a lot of snow and temps at the ground are above zero, it’s a worse situation for the Russian barbarians. Scroll up and you can see for yourself.

Etherlord87 5y ago
> There is no difference here "Scroll up and you can see for yourself" my previous comment where I argued the difference. I honestly don't know if Israeli forces should be called barbaric. It is a narration common enough that it motivated me to investigate - where I quickly discovered many facts speaking in favor of the Israel. Again, I don't support what Israel is doing, but the initial fire of my outrage got quickly quenched by facts. As soon as it turned out to be quite an intricate conflict, I humbly switched my interests on the basis of being too stupid to judge either side. Meanwhile in case of russian invasion, I just see nothing in defense of the invader. The moral aspect of the conflict is ridiculously asymmetric - like in a Disney movie. On one side there's a small country, with its president risking life in Kiev, on another a Goliath country run by a coward hiding in a bunker, shamelessly lying to his citizens, with the world almost unanimously condemning his war crimes. So, to sum it up, without defending Israeli forces in Palestine, I see a huge difference between them and the russian barbarism in Ukraine. I don't know if the former is barbaric, but the latter is as barbaric as it gets.
- TapWaterBandit 5y ago
  Well I was arguing against the use of the phrase "russian barbarians". If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. It does sadden me to see how little has been learnt from post-9/11 where muslims or even people wearing turbans were subject to increased demonisation and abuse while everyone applauded. Individuals should not be targetted and demonising groups based on ethnicity with comments of "Russian barbarians" is a big way this type of thing starts. Anyway, plenty of people seem hellbent on reserving their "right" to demonise whole ethnic groups when the opportunity arises so going to leave it here. Thank you for the discussion in any case although the outcome very much saddens me.
  - Etherlord87 5y ago
    > If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. I feel like I'm talking with a wall. No, we don't agree, we disagree. I've put some effort to formulate specific arguments and I didn't see a response to them. To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: > The individual voice does matter if it's expressed by a large enough group https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq/comment/dfy9n0x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq...
    - TapWaterBandit 5y ago
      > To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: So then what is your problem with the term "Israeli Barbarians" or would it be better if I used the phrase "Israeli Occupiers"? And I presume you also have no issue with "Black savages" or "Black barbarians"? And I'm guessing you also have no problem with "Muslim barbarians" either? Because remember, it is "ridiculous" to say the plural form describes individuals. So there is no coherent logical standard that makes "Russian barbarians" okay but not those other examples. In these types of cases you need to think about what the norm you are establishing will mean when it is turned against you, and it won't be pretty.
      - Etherlord87 5y ago
        > I feel like I'm talking with a wall. You repeat questions I already answered.
- TapWaterBandit 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/DemocratMama/status/1499227978537988101 https://twitter.com/DemocratMama/status/1499227978537988101 A Russian barbarian calling his mom.

Etherlord87 5y ago

> There is no difference here "Scroll up and you can see for yourself" my previous comment where I argued the difference. I honestly don't know if Israeli forces should be called barbaric. It is a narration common enough that it motivated me to investigate - where I quickly discovered many facts speaking in favor of the Israel. Again, I don't support what Israel is doing, but the initial fire of my outrage got quickly quenched by facts. As soon as it turned out to be quite an intricate conflict, I humbly switched my interests on the basis of being too stupid to judge either side. Meanwhile in case of russian invasion, I just see nothing in defense of the invader. The moral aspect of the conflict is ridiculously asymmetric - like in a Disney movie. On one side there's a small country, with its president risking life in Kiev, on another a Goliath country run by a coward hiding in a bunker, shamelessly lying to his citizens, with the world almost unanimously condemning his war crimes. So, to sum it up, without defending Israeli forces in Palestine, I see a huge difference between them and the russian barbarism in Ukraine. I don't know if the former is barbaric, but the latter is as barbaric as it gets.

TapWaterBandit 5y ago
Well I was arguing against the use of the phrase "russian barbarians". If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. It does sadden me to see how little has been learnt from post-9/11 where muslims or even people wearing turbans were subject to increased demonisation and abuse while everyone applauded. Individuals should not be targetted and demonising groups based on ethnicity with comments of "Russian barbarians" is a big way this type of thing starts. Anyway, plenty of people seem hellbent on reserving their "right" to demonise whole ethnic groups when the opportunity arises so going to leave it here. Thank you for the discussion in any case although the outcome very much saddens me.
- Etherlord87 5y ago
  > If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. I feel like I'm talking with a wall. No, we don't agree, we disagree. I've put some effort to formulate specific arguments and I didn't see a response to them. To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: > The individual voice does matter if it's expressed by a large enough group https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq/comment/dfy9n0x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq...
  - TapWaterBandit 5y ago
    > To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: So then what is your problem with the term "Israeli Barbarians" or would it be better if I used the phrase "Israeli Occupiers"? And I presume you also have no issue with "Black savages" or "Black barbarians"? And I'm guessing you also have no problem with "Muslim barbarians" either? Because remember, it is "ridiculous" to say the plural form describes individuals. So there is no coherent logical standard that makes "Russian barbarians" okay but not those other examples. In these types of cases you need to think about what the norm you are establishing will mean when it is turned against you, and it won't be pretty.
    - Etherlord87 5y ago
      > I feel like I'm talking with a wall. You repeat questions I already answered.
TapWaterBandit 5y ago
https://twitter.com/DemocratMama/status/1499227978537988101 https://twitter.com/DemocratMama/status/1499227978537988101 A Russian barbarian calling his mom.