3 ms·

It was just such an eye-poppingly bad analogy that I felt I had to chime in. Also, you seemed perplexed at where the term "colonization" fits in. Well, the po

It was just such an eye-poppingly bad analogy that I felt I had to chime in. Also, you seemed perplexed at where the term "colonization" fits in. Well, the post-1948 situation in Jaffa (and certain other places I'm sure you know all about as well) arguably fits the dictionary definition of the term by any objective measure (give or take some fine-grained nuances we really don't need to litigate). Before you picked this scab, I'd go on perhaps, but with that statement I can't say I appreciate your tone. Be civil to me and I'll be civil with you, if you wish.

tptacek 2y ago
The point of the analogy was to relate Jaffa and Tel Aviv to another comparable "Twin City". It wasn't to compare the history of the two cities. Again, my overarching point is: you're not going to ligate your way to a Jaffa that is part of a sovereign Palestine. It's simply not going to happen. Work on decolonizing Texas instead. You have a better chance. And a clearer moral argument!
- racional 2y ago
  You're not going to ligate your way to a Jaffa that is part of a sovereign Palestine. That's not what I'm doing or even suggesting. You'll have to pick that scab with someone else.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I believe that if you read back up the thread, you'll see that the comment you're replying to was making that point. You chose to engage and push back, which is fine, but I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing. If, in the future, you read something I wrote, think I'm broadly right but importantly wrong about some details, you can write something like "I think I broadly agree with you, but you have some of these details very wrong", rather than "You are aware of this history, right?" Or you can not, but roll with it when I infer that you disagree with me completely.
    - racional 2y ago
      I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing. To my eyes it does read as a misattribution on your part (especially given that my commentary was explicitly timeboxxed, and unlike the other commenter's posts on the matter, didn't make reference to the current situation at all). I wasn't so much taken aback, as simply declining your invitation to pursue the matter further. "You are aware of this history, right?" Even though I've been somewhat puzzled by some of the things you've been saying (given that they just don't seem historically grounded) -- I acknowledge that the above statement of mine was lame and inappropriate. So I do apologize (and I did proactively remove it before I saw your response to that post).
      - tptacek 2y ago
        You're doing fine. I'm being serious. I'm just pointing out where the disconnect is between us. I'm not trying to dunk on you. If you think I'm flat-out wrong about something, obviously you should say so. But I think most of what you're seeing is me limiting the surface area of what I'm discussing on HN, because I think it is basically unreasonable to expect to resolve Israel/Palestine on a forum like HN. I get involved in these things when pro-Israel people claim that Gazans are equivalent to Hamas, and I get involved when pro-Palestine people claim that Israelis are all European. I'll pop up when people try to valorize the Houthis, and, if it comes up in a thread I'm already involved in, I'll probably go ham on post-2017 Hamas. Otherwise: my views on Israel are complicated. Internet forums are rife with fundamental attribution errors, which makes those complications hard to perceive. I've already done that to you once already!
        racional 2y ago
        You're doing fine. Hey, thanks. As to views of the regional situation, I'm in the "actually, it's not that complicated" camp. But on the whole, I think we're good for now.

tptacek 2y ago

The point of the analogy was to relate Jaffa and Tel Aviv to another comparable "Twin City". It wasn't to compare the history of the two cities. Again, my overarching point is: you're not going to ligate your way to a Jaffa that is part of a sovereign Palestine. It's simply not going to happen. Work on decolonizing Texas instead. You have a better chance. And a clearer moral argument!

racional 2y ago
You're not going to ligate your way to a Jaffa that is part of a sovereign Palestine. That's not what I'm doing or even suggesting. You'll have to pick that scab with someone else.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I believe that if you read back up the thread, you'll see that the comment you're replying to was making that point. You chose to engage and push back, which is fine, but I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing. If, in the future, you read something I wrote, think I'm broadly right but importantly wrong about some details, you can write something like "I think I broadly agree with you, but you have some of these details very wrong", rather than "You are aware of this history, right?" Or you can not, but roll with it when I infer that you disagree with me completely.
  - racional 2y ago
    I don't think you can reasonably be taken aback by the suggestion that that's what you're doing. To my eyes it does read as a misattribution on your part (especially given that my commentary was explicitly timeboxxed, and unlike the other commenter's posts on the matter, didn't make reference to the current situation at all). I wasn't so much taken aback, as simply declining your invitation to pursue the matter further. "You are aware of this history, right?" Even though I've been somewhat puzzled by some of the things you've been saying (given that they just don't seem historically grounded) -- I acknowledge that the above statement of mine was lame and inappropriate. So I do apologize (and I did proactively remove it before I saw your response to that post).
    - tptacek 2y ago
      You're doing fine. I'm being serious. I'm just pointing out where the disconnect is between us. I'm not trying to dunk on you. If you think I'm flat-out wrong about something, obviously you should say so. But I think most of what you're seeing is me limiting the surface area of what I'm discussing on HN, because I think it is basically unreasonable to expect to resolve Israel/Palestine on a forum like HN. I get involved in these things when pro-Israel people claim that Gazans are equivalent to Hamas, and I get involved when pro-Palestine people claim that Israelis are all European. I'll pop up when people try to valorize the Houthis, and, if it comes up in a thread I'm already involved in, I'll probably go ham on post-2017 Hamas. Otherwise: my views on Israel are complicated. Internet forums are rife with fundamental attribution errors, which makes those complications hard to perceive. I've already done that to you once already!
      - racional 2y ago
        You're doing fine. Hey, thanks. As to views of the regional situation, I'm in the "actually, it's not that complicated" camp. But on the whole, I think we're good for now.