8 ms·

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 s

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.

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.