Oh yes they do. Are you generalizing a whole group? There are lots of Conservatives I've had conversations with that do the same things as Liberals, use the same logical fallacies as Liberals, have their own set of biases and ways of thinking, etc.
Do you think the Conservatives do not employ propaganda? Part of propaganda is to rationalize atrocities and gaslight people (regardless if the subject is geopolitics, economics, finance, religion, whatever). Conservatives do it, and Liberals do it.
"glib symbol manipulation games" is not restricted to just "some" ideologies or some hazy definitions of "what exactly a Liberal is" or "what exactly a Conservative is".
Once you understand that the PMC, the front-row kids, the knowledge worker class, the people whose value is based on their credentials, such people are overwhelmingly liberal, all will be revealed.
Conservatives tend to align with local gentry, and their arguments tend to be more meathead, not the too-clever antics of that kid whose hand is always up in class.
not to interfere in an interesting dispute, but have you conversed with (let's say 'pure') conservatives that actually used the 'it's complicated'-line specifically on the subject of the genocide?
For those interested in a convenient list of the top ten lies about Israel, read "Ten Myths About Israel" by Ilan Pappe. From the review on Amazon: The outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. The “ten myths”—repeated endlessly in the media, enforced by the military, and accepted without question by the world’s governments—reinforce the regional status quo and include:
• Palestine was an empty land at the time of the Balfour Declaration.
• The Jews were a people without a land.
• There is no difference between Zionism and Judaism.
• Zionism is not a colonial project of occupation.
• The Palestinians left their Homeland voluntarily in 1948.
• The June 1967 War was a war of ‘No Choice’.
• Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East.
• The Oslo Mythologies
• The Gaza Mythologies
• The Two-State Solution
For students, activists, and anyone interested in better understanding the news, Ten Myths About Israel is another groundbreaking study of the Israel-Palestine conflict from the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
It's never going to happen now. The only way through this is one or the other "state" ceases to exist. My guess, is it will be Israel that will die a slow death in the next decade. Or maybe quickly, if the Israelis are stupid enough to drop a nuke.
Somehow when I tried to click on "Like," I got a message saying that "there was an error on clicking on Like." Possibly you're getting more Likes than Substack will allow. (And I've had comments deleted by Substack, too. It's not free speech here.)
At last someone who has more or less the same problem as I have. I cannot click on "Like" anymore. I don't even get a message as you seem to do. And this only happens on Caitlin's Substack.
Leaving aside our miniscule problem, friends, instead of focusing on a matter of life and death in Gaza, aren't we going off track? Some of our commentators here are fond of splitting hairs - our main concern should be with the on going genocide of the Palestinian people. The unspeakable atrocities they have been subjected to daily for these past nine months - as Caitlin goes to great lengths to remind us.
We need to learn the difference between COMPLICATED and COMPLEX.
COMPLICATED is trying to under the mainstream narrative that doesn’t make sense becuase it contains so many pieces of propaganda to push a certain narrative.
COMPLEX is very simple. It involves multiple steps, but is a very simply process to follow and identity the true narrative.
Nature is complex.
Artificial is complicated.
Once we know the two, we’re much better than where we’ve started from:
I think you've hit an important nail not quite squarely on its head. Neither complex nor complicated is simple. But the former coheres, forms a satisfying whole. It may be intricate, containing many parts, but they fit together. Complicated also has many parts and stages but some are distracting and lead away from a true understanding; some others may also be lies, deliberate obfuscations. I think you got the definition of complicated correct.
Needs to go on a diet as well. Walking is good for you, regulates your blood pressure, burns fat, stengthens muscles, even reduces cholesterol levels. All Boris needs to do is walk 20 minutes a day. Poor guy.
And the other way around as well. Khazaria comes to mind. As does Gingas Khan, Tartars, I’m certain I’ve left off 50 more south to north migratory invasions.
With half the world wealth in the hands of one percent of the population (approximately $$220 trillion) those with evil intent have plenty of funds to penetrate to every level within every government and every government agency around the world with literally no consequence financially to them.
Gaza is complicated only to people who don't want to think, who don't want to commit themselves, who don't want to take any form of responsibility, and who want to be left alone in their nice, comfy little bubble.
Catlin, you write: "If you accept that we all have a responsibility to act in an ethical way..." but, you never define who or what gets to decide the definition of "ethical". I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, ethical and not ethical, maturity and immaturity, shirking "responsibility" and accepting "responsibility". Or, maybe you believe such definitions are "self evident". They are not.
Sorry Catlin, you are entitled to your opines, but you are not the grand wise one that is right, were all others are wrong. You think the spiritual leaders of ISIS would agree with your definition of ethical? How about Xi or Putin? Ever ponder why it is that NO other Arab state bordering or even near Israel will accept Palestinians? Or why Kwait expelled literally 15% of it's population that were Palestinian? Somehow I doubt you have thought much about such questions.
The situation is complicated. The average folks to which you wag your righteous finger didn't create the mess, and those that did don't care what average folks....or you....think.
The uncomplicated part is understanding what you think about the situation doesn't matter. If being righteous and waging your finger at all the wrong thinkers makes you happy, all the power to you. But, you are no different than all the other blowhards on soapboxes lecturing the masses on their opinions of what is and is not.
First, many Arab countries took in Palestinians, but why should they? Why should the need to? Palestinians belong with their land. Why is it even suggested that they leave to make space for Brooklynites and Ukrainians? Why are you even using this as some sort of argument?
No sir, Caitlin’s perspective is based on a general understanding of what counts as ethical behavior or not. She’s not judging what ethical should be but observing its existence as a measure of humane behavior across all parameters. You’re claiming that she is taking a moral attack
"I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong"
No. She has in common the root values of the vast majority of the human race, i.e. excluding (only) sociopaths and the otherwise mentally ill, and aims to make this vast majority more conscious of those values. (Also, it's spelled "Caitlin".)
I saw yesterday on Times of India where the Chechens are constructing these beautiful apartment buildings for homeless Gazans. Admirable, so long as it’s for TEMPORARY shelter.
Palestinians belong in Palestine. Still, it fills my heart to know someone is doing SOMETHING for these beleaguered people.
Derwood, you make a common mistake in concluding that there's no morality simply because different people have different ideas about what is morally valid. You conclude that morality can only be relative, with no definition that is absolute. You don't seem to understand that many people willfully conduct immoral deeds simply because of self-centered objectives, such as lust for money and power. Why would you let such peoples' views of morality confuse you? Don't you understand that morality is simply based on the universality of us human beings? If you cannot understand what that means, you are morally ill.
I don't think you'd be so confused if someone put a knife to your throat in an attempt to steal the land you live on. I guarantee that you'd cry and bawl and plead for someone to help you in preventing this WRONGFULNESS on your person. What would you say then to an observer who tells you, "Morality is relative"?
Izzatso, you make the common mistake of believing what you want to be so, is so. But, it doesn't work that way. History proves time and again that morality is, indeed, relative. It would be nice if all humankind shared a fundamental set of core values, but, they don't. Look anywhere in the world, at any point in history, and you will find moral standards to vary widely. That's not to say certain cultures, for certain time periods, don't share a common set of moral values ...clearly they do. The West today is an example of multiple cultures sharing similar core moral values. But, at the same time, we see other cultures, living at the same time, that don't share those same moral values. Nazi Germany. Radical religious countries. Tribal based countries. Imo, it is self evident morality is, indeed, relative.
Catlin's posts are about empire, and the morality of empire. I am not defending empire morality. My point is, I don't see how one faults empire morality, whilst turning a blind eye to the morality of empire's adversaries. Is it moral for Hamas, and for those Palestinians and Arabs that subscribe to pushing Israel into the sea? Why does Catlin ignore that morality, which is certainly a rather big part of why the conflict exists in the first place. Or, the morality related to killing 6 million Jews 70 years ago, while the world did nothing to stop it, which thus now becomes the morality of never again. It is complicated, and to claim it's a matter of "growing up" and thinking right thoughts is, imo, sophomoric drivel.
Again, I am not defending empire morality. But over simplifying things to assert there is one, true, morality, and it's just a matter of accepting it, is nonsense.
As for the scenario of someone taking my land at knife point....the morality there, imo, is might makes right, so the one with the knife better hope I don't have a shotgun handy.
"[To Caitlin] you never define who or what gets to decide the definition of "ethical". I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, ethical and not ethical, maturity and immaturity, shirking "responsibility" and accepting "responsibility". Or, maybe you believe such definitions are "self evident". They are not.
And
"As for the scenario of someone taking my land at knife point....the morality there, imo, is might makes right, so the one with the knife better hope I don't have a shotgun handy."
As I predicted, you will invoke morality: "kill in self-defense." You will "decide the definition of" what's moral. You will do what you criticize Caitlin for doing. You will become the "sole arbiter of right and wrong." which you condemn Caitlin for. You will act on what is "self-evident" to you.
You will demonstrate the hypocritical nature of your criticism.
You will demonstrate my claim that in such a situation you will be "not so confused" about the relative or absolute nature of morality.
Quite the contrary. You are totally correct in your analysis that I become the sole arbitar of morality. Where you have it wrong is that I am not lecturing the guy with the knife, or anyone else, that my position is superior. Might makes right is, unfortunately, the way of humankind thru history. Ask yourself....if Hamas/Hezbollah adherents could press a button and eliminate all Jews forevermore....you think they would press the button? Is that immoral? Wrong ? I doubt they would worry too much about the morality of pressing the button.
Catlin, on the other hand, asserts that hers is an absolute truth, and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. That is false. So, no, I am not doing what Catlin is doing, nor am I a hypocrite.
The biggest problem these days is that people are taught to accept the "norms" of whatever society, country, or political group they're affiliated with. You can see how as long as you agree with them, they're agreeable, but if you disagree with them, they become VERY disagreeable. It's because most political groups and societies teach tribalism, and that to be accepted, you must hold to the group's accepted norms and narrative. They distill many complicated ideas into binary choices, and depending on your choices, you're either WITH the group, or you're AGAINST the group. There's little to no discussion on the group's accepted norms because that would require that they have critical thinking skills, which is in far too little supply these days.
If you point out that in certain areas, their ideas are diametrically opposed, their heads explode and they either quit responding, or they block or ignore you. Many can spout off different philosophies, because they have the "book knowledge," but when it comes down to explaining how things work in real life, or within historical context, they are clueless. It's the "educated idiot" syndrome that's so prevalent these days. It's very sad indeed. Cheers!
It’s all part of postmodernism’s claim that essentially nothing is inherently true, it’s only if we “believe” it is and this belief is self-validating. (If a man believes he’s a woman it makes it true.) So when Israel claims they’re only defending themselves and the world calls it genocide, they can dismiss this accusation by accusing others antisemitic. The only reality they will recognize is the one they endorse.
CS Lewis recognized this danger in The Abolition of Man — when universal ethics are ignored, destroyed or manipulated to justify the ends, there are no longer limits on our behavior. He saw this coming in the 1940s and his lecture was a warning about the path Western society was on.
"Nothing is true" is a literally half-baked vision of reality, which reasonably accepts that
(1) humans are universally, unavoidably, and perpetually imperfect and limited, and that therefore no claim can *permanently* be settled as true (and is a reason democracy, open science, adversarial justice, free speech, etc. exist);
while unreasonably rejecting that
(2) humans universally, unavoidably, and perpetually *must*, nevertheless, anywhere and everywhere make (provisional) judgments about truth in order to live and to act (but, per (1), allow those judgments always to be tested when confronted in good faith).
My understanding is that point (2) was first famously promoted by Protagoras ("Man is the measure..."), while point (1) was later famously (implicitly) recognized by Socrates ("I know that I know nothing"), but (to my knowledge) never compared side-by-side. Postmodernists seem to reject point (2) for some reason, while sneakily inserting their own supposedly unassailable claims, as if those claims are coming from gods, not humans. In our age, it looks as it it's high time to piece back together the two sides of the coin.
It's funny how in every epoch of human reasoning, you always get a bunch of loud, obnoxious doofuses who insist their "claims are unassailable", and will go to any lengths to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
I've always found it morally hollow to accept responsibility for a universe you believe is just an accident, and you are just a flashbulb in eternity. So rationally, it's easy to see why so many people drug out, fade out, drop out ... who come to believe it's all just some random, cruel joke. But there is the mystery of really not knowing if it is actually true. Is the universe just a giant reducible machine? Churning away for no real reason at all - that has no real meaning for a single individual living his/her "flash-in-the-pan" life? So there still may be a glimmer of hope, assuming the mystery remains. Not to mention, the psyche appears to be a tremendous, unexplainable fact of our existence. The psyche also has the peculiar nature of not being reducible to anything else.
I simply do not know why it is deemed so *essential* that human beings have a "why" for their existence. Can't we just recognize that humans can't, and thus don't, know everything? Just push the envelope as far as we can, but then stop beating ourselves up when we hit a/the wall. It's psychologically much healthier to be unpretentious.
I think the 'why' comes in when one must endure a good amount of suffering. Carl Jung wrote somewhere in his autobiography that a good number of his patients who came to him later in life were not suffering from any kind of neurosis, but simply had lost any sense of meaning in their lives.
Also, interesting to note: although Jung is well-known to borrow many of his concepts from Eastern thought, he does deal with the question of suffering in a more "Christian" like approach. Quoting Aniela Jaffe, in her book, "Jung's Last Years":
"Suffering is a challenge, enforcing self-transformation; joy is not, and it does so much more rarely." #p104
My own personal approach to finding meaning in the "mystery" Caitlin writes about, does primarily (at least currently) lie with Jungian psychological theory, which is much broader than many people suspect.
And that lecture is part of a 25-part lecture series, if you are interested. Sapolsky is brilliant and there is much to learn from him, so I would recommend the full semester course.
"People act like they’re being humble about their own intellect and understanding, but really they’re just lying and psychologically compartmentalizing away from self-evident reality. It’s not humility, it’s just another kind of dishonesty."
Yeah, hamas is going to lead the Palestinians into thriving. Wait, they already didn't... I am not a suporter if Israel's disproportionate response, but guess what not acknowledging complexity gets you.... shitty solutions. You are the one who sounds like a child who can only read 150 words before your brain gets tired.
I believe reading and understanding history is a vital part of understanding what is happening now.
Understanding what has happened to Palestine (by what ever name was assigned to it) over the past several centuries is key to understanding the turmoil in the Middle East over the last century. We are the “Great Satan of the West”. That would include Briton, US, Australia, and others. We know the British masterminded the mess with the Zionists during and after WWI with the Balfour Declaration,
British government statement of 1917. After WWII, the US took over from Briton.
We can’t change the past. The Zionists control the narrative which to a large extent controls the public.
The future, what needs to be done: cut off ALL funding to Israel. How do We The People make that happen? If that can happen, it will be under the Democrats. We know damn well that the MAGA-Republican/Evangelical/Catholic fascist theocrats are all for the Zionists exterminating all Palestinian Arabs.
When I was in Australia years ago, it was mentioned that Australia is a suburb of the USA. We are all in this together.
What makes you think the Democrats will have any ability or willingness to do so. That has been the captive party since the beginning. It was Eisenhower who said no to the Israelis. It was LBJ who couldn't say no to the Israelis even when they were bombing our own ship.
It's the Zionists, whether Christians or Jews, who are driving this project. Trying to put the onus on one without the other, not only is a false analysis, but makes scapegoating easier when the beast goes belly up. Is that what you are promoting?
Joy, if you have respect for facts, please know that the Christian organizations that lobby for Israel contribute minuscule influence on our government in comparison to the influence coming from the US Jewish Community and Israel. Those facts can be seen in the following link, which lists both the Jewish and Christian organizations that lobby in favor of Israel, with a discussion of funding levels:
Do you respect facts? Especially when the facts are overwhelmingly in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs? If you can document other facts that dispel the facts of the above link, please do. If not, might you consider that you need to think and study more about this?
But apart from the monies, I ask you, why would you think the Jewish Community and Israel would cede control of governmental influence to such a knucklehead, bungling bunch of Christian Right creeps? Have you heard any Hagee talks? Do you think Jews would allow such a nut to lead them, especially government influence involving their beloved fascist state? I have much more respect for Jewish intelligence than that.
Do you realize that Israel is now the Sacred Cow of Judaism? That virtually all of Judaism, behaving as a political cult, is worshipping this fascist state, without nary a bow to traditional Jewish teachings about right and wrong? I agree that the Talmud does show a despicable side to Judaism, but there are also some values there that have made it into "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. Some Orthodox Jewish groups are teaching us about some of this.
I suggest you get a stronger grip on reality and use your intelligence to help wake people up to these simple, obvious truths.
Joy, I think you'd agree that the US justifies its wrongdoings on certain principles, such as "freedom," or "democracy." Right? But in describing those wrongdoings, we don't say for instance that "freedomers" are the perpetrators. Right? We always acknowledge the true culprit, for instance, the "US committed war crimes in Vietnam, or Afghanistan, etc." We aren't fooled by that, when it comes to the US or to any other group that conducts wrongdoing. For instance, "Hamas committed war crimes on Oct. 7." We don't say that "freedomers" committed those war crimes. We say, "Russia attacked Ukraine," not "Defenders against NATO" did this crime. Right? We don't substitute the identity of the perpetrator with the ideological principles that those perpetrators act with.
So why do you say that Zionists are conducting those crimes that we know belong to Israeli Jews, as if Jews are an entirely different group of people? Those Jews are only using the beliefs and arguments of Zionism, in the same way that the US uses the beliefs and arguments of "freedomers." Why do you hold the US accountable and not the Jews? If you were well-read in the history of the Arab-Jew conflict, you'd never make such an error. Before the current propaganda success that Jews accomplished, this conflict was always the "Arab-Jew conflict. Even Golda Meir and most other earlier Jewish leaders recognized that.
This is a serious error, because we cannot bring a perpetrator to justice if we don't identify who it is. All of Germany was brought to justice for the crimes of the Nazis, because the allies were not fooled by the same kind of propaganda that you are. Since both Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews are all making possible the wrongdoings we're talking about and well over 90% of these Jews work on this effort, we are justified and accurate to say that Judaism is the perpetrator to the same extent we now say that Germany was responsible for their war crimes.
The point I was trying to make is that there is absolutely no chance of any change happening, except change for the worse, under MAGA. The Zionist issue is to a large extent religious dogma. There is some hope of countering that under the Democrats.
the democrats are in charge now, they are not cutting off all funding to israel, although there's an obvious genocide going on that their president is enabling. defunding israel is not on their platform for the next election (and even then ...). it might happen under the dnc in some far away future, but only if they lose elections because of it, imo. if one votes for them now, without it being on their platform, one will legitimize what has been done and more of the same will follow. the dnc/demparty will have a chance to rehabilitate in the struggle to save palestinians after they lost.
The author is right. Gaza isn’t complicated. When a society acts correctly it is not subjected to protective measures other societies might deem necessary. And when a society attacks - say, kills 1200 citizens of a neighboring society, or takes so many more hostage - then the attacker does not get to choose the consequences of its actions.
Under the current state of affairs, If the Dems lose, they might not have another chance with the MAGAs gearing up to make the presidency into a dictatorship if they get back in the White House. The Dems are not in charge since they don't have the House. They have the Senate by such a tight margin they can't accomplish much other than a few bipartisan bills.
Cutting off Israel financially is not a spectator sport. We The People will have to get involved to make that happen. It most certainly won't be easy.
When used by liberals, "It's complicated" and that accursed word "nuanced" simply mean."please allow me to bullshit you."
Oh so the conservatives have a complete understanding and acceptance of Gaza? GTFU
How many conservatives have you heard use the word, "complicated," or the word, "nuanced?"
Nobody said that they did, so don't strawman.
You said, "when used by liberals." You named a particular group.
That's why Neil O'Keeffe came back with his rebuttal. And I agree with him.
Both of you miss the point. Conservatives typically don't play the glib symbol manipulation games to try and rationalize their support for atrocities.
Oh yes they do. Are you generalizing a whole group? There are lots of Conservatives I've had conversations with that do the same things as Liberals, use the same logical fallacies as Liberals, have their own set of biases and ways of thinking, etc.
Do you think the Conservatives do not employ propaganda? Part of propaganda is to rationalize atrocities and gaslight people (regardless if the subject is geopolitics, economics, finance, religion, whatever). Conservatives do it, and Liberals do it.
"glib symbol manipulation games" is not restricted to just "some" ideologies or some hazy definitions of "what exactly a Liberal is" or "what exactly a Conservative is".
Once you understand that the PMC, the front-row kids, the knowledge worker class, the people whose value is based on their credentials, such people are overwhelmingly liberal, all will be revealed.
Conservatives tend to align with local gentry, and their arguments tend to be more meathead, not the too-clever antics of that kid whose hand is always up in class.
not to interfere in an interesting dispute, but have you conversed with (let's say 'pure') conservatives that actually used the 'it's complicated'-line specifically on the subject of the genocide?
Ugh two smart guys arguing, see I'm smarter, no I am, no I am,no I am.
Wow what a worthless masturbation of word salad
I like dolphins.
Agreed!
For those interested in a convenient list of the top ten lies about Israel, read "Ten Myths About Israel" by Ilan Pappe. From the review on Amazon: The outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. The “ten myths”—repeated endlessly in the media, enforced by the military, and accepted without question by the world’s governments—reinforce the regional status quo and include:
• Palestine was an empty land at the time of the Balfour Declaration.
• The Jews were a people without a land.
• There is no difference between Zionism and Judaism.
• Zionism is not a colonial project of occupation.
• The Palestinians left their Homeland voluntarily in 1948.
• The June 1967 War was a war of ‘No Choice’.
• Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East.
• The Oslo Mythologies
• The Gaza Mythologies
• The Two-State Solution
For students, activists, and anyone interested in better understanding the news, Ten Myths About Israel is another groundbreaking study of the Israel-Palestine conflict from the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
Things antisemites say for the win.
It's never going to happen now. The only way through this is one or the other "state" ceases to exist. My guess, is it will be Israel that will die a slow death in the next decade. Or maybe quickly, if the Israelis are stupid enough to drop a nuke.
Somehow when I tried to click on "Like," I got a message saying that "there was an error on clicking on Like." Possibly you're getting more Likes than Substack will allow. (And I've had comments deleted by Substack, too. It's not free speech here.)
Susan Mercurio,
At last someone who has more or less the same problem as I have. I cannot click on "Like" anymore. I don't even get a message as you seem to do. And this only happens on Caitlin's Substack.
Leaving aside our miniscule problem, friends, instead of focusing on a matter of life and death in Gaza, aren't we going off track? Some of our commentators here are fond of splitting hairs - our main concern should be with the on going genocide of the Palestinian people. The unspeakable atrocities they have been subjected to daily for these past nine months - as Caitlin goes to great lengths to remind us.
I think, to be fair to substack, which might change. There are many people who do not want to read comments.
I have had the same problems too. I am getting very bored with substack mainly because there is always only one point of view.
I have noticed with Caitlin that people come and go after a few months. This does NOT mean that I disagree with her in any way.
Someone needs to keep the plight of the Palestinians going.
We have many wars on the horizon and the Palestinian people are the ones who have suffered GENOCIDE.
Susan - it's just a temporary glitch (Substack has many of them - and they often don't publicize them (for obvious reasons)).
Technically: sometimes Front-End API calls to the Back-End fail (this is normal).
Usual solution: try again after a few minutes.
NO. It was a temporary 'glitch.' Some people do not want to read answers to their comments because they reply so many times and move on.
We need to learn the difference between COMPLICATED and COMPLEX.
COMPLICATED is trying to under the mainstream narrative that doesn’t make sense becuase it contains so many pieces of propaganda to push a certain narrative.
COMPLEX is very simple. It involves multiple steps, but is a very simply process to follow and identity the true narrative.
Nature is complex.
Artificial is complicated.
Once we know the two, we’re much better than where we’ve started from:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/exploring-complexity-and-spirituality
I think you've hit an important nail not quite squarely on its head. Neither complex nor complicated is simple. But the former coheres, forms a satisfying whole. It may be intricate, containing many parts, but they fit together. Complicated also has many parts and stages but some are distracting and lead away from a true understanding; some others may also be lies, deliberate obfuscations. I think you got the definition of complicated correct.
WHO cares>>>>>>>>>>>>.complicated or complex?
The Fact is that GENOCIDE is happening and you want to discuss complicated or complex?
JennyStokes, I like your comment- this is exactly what I was trying to say. You say it beautifully with one sentence.
Conflicts in the Middle East exist because the United States is involved.
Mostly true for the last century. But not true for the last few thousand years.
Says Lamenta who knows nothing about history… ;-))
You need to lay off that champagne a bit Boris.
You have exposed yourself as one who knows little to nothing about history.
Your response to Boris Petrov is childish.
Susan Mercurio - one of a number of returning trolls, we haven't seen in awhile.
Needs to go on a diet as well. Walking is good for you, regulates your blood pressure, burns fat, stengthens muscles, even reduces cholesterol levels. All Boris needs to do is walk 20 minutes a day. Poor guy.
And the other way around as well. Khazaria comes to mind. As does Gingas Khan, Tartars, I’m certain I’ve left off 50 more south to north migratory invasions.
Thx. Learn something new every day. Best
Meanwhile, here in the UK on the Gaza genocide " beat" we are dealing with a Labour Party that is hiring former Israeli intelligence agents to spy on electoral reform groups: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/a-former-israeli-intelligence-officer
Don't be surprised if those "spies" are also minders, police informants and agents provocateurs.
With half the world wealth in the hands of one percent of the population (approximately $$220 trillion) those with evil intent have plenty of funds to penetrate to every level within every government and every government agency around the world with literally no consequence financially to them.
Yes I saw this! What can save us all?
Gaza is complicated only to people who don't want to think, who don't want to commit themselves, who don't want to take any form of responsibility, and who want to be left alone in their nice, comfy little bubble.
Catlin, you write: "If you accept that we all have a responsibility to act in an ethical way..." but, you never define who or what gets to decide the definition of "ethical". I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, ethical and not ethical, maturity and immaturity, shirking "responsibility" and accepting "responsibility". Or, maybe you believe such definitions are "self evident". They are not.
Sorry Catlin, you are entitled to your opines, but you are not the grand wise one that is right, were all others are wrong. You think the spiritual leaders of ISIS would agree with your definition of ethical? How about Xi or Putin? Ever ponder why it is that NO other Arab state bordering or even near Israel will accept Palestinians? Or why Kwait expelled literally 15% of it's population that were Palestinian? Somehow I doubt you have thought much about such questions.
The situation is complicated. The average folks to which you wag your righteous finger didn't create the mess, and those that did don't care what average folks....or you....think.
The uncomplicated part is understanding what you think about the situation doesn't matter. If being righteous and waging your finger at all the wrong thinkers makes you happy, all the power to you. But, you are no different than all the other blowhards on soapboxes lecturing the masses on their opinions of what is and is not.
Bullshit. Caitlin tells it like it is and is on the side of truth, fairness and above all, PEACE.
Now YOU tell ME. WTF is “complicated” about a rabid-dog quasi-nation committing GENOCIDE? Unless you’re a western apologist for Israhell-Heil?
First, many Arab countries took in Palestinians, but why should they? Why should the need to? Palestinians belong with their land. Why is it even suggested that they leave to make space for Brooklynites and Ukrainians? Why are you even using this as some sort of argument?
No sir, Caitlin’s perspective is based on a general understanding of what counts as ethical behavior or not. She’s not judging what ethical should be but observing its existence as a measure of humane behavior across all parameters. You’re claiming that she is taking a moral attack
on people when her point is the absence of
true understanding and concern of human
beings at events of moral transgression.
Dear derwood - you are just another piece of shit
"I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong"
No. She has in common the root values of the vast majority of the human race, i.e. excluding (only) sociopaths and the otherwise mentally ill, and aims to make this vast majority more conscious of those values. (Also, it's spelled "Caitlin".)
"Ever ponder why it is that NO other Arab state bordering or even near Israel will accept Palestinians?"
This was a favorite justification used by antisemites.
Hi Feral
I saw yesterday on Times of India where the Chechens are constructing these beautiful apartment buildings for homeless Gazans. Admirable, so long as it’s for TEMPORARY shelter.
Palestinians belong in Palestine. Still, it fills my heart to know someone is doing SOMETHING for these beleaguered people.
May the Goddess bless the Russian Federation.
Derwood, you make a common mistake in concluding that there's no morality simply because different people have different ideas about what is morally valid. You conclude that morality can only be relative, with no definition that is absolute. You don't seem to understand that many people willfully conduct immoral deeds simply because of self-centered objectives, such as lust for money and power. Why would you let such peoples' views of morality confuse you? Don't you understand that morality is simply based on the universality of us human beings? If you cannot understand what that means, you are morally ill.
I don't think you'd be so confused if someone put a knife to your throat in an attempt to steal the land you live on. I guarantee that you'd cry and bawl and plead for someone to help you in preventing this WRONGFULNESS on your person. What would you say then to an observer who tells you, "Morality is relative"?
Izzatso, you make the common mistake of believing what you want to be so, is so. But, it doesn't work that way. History proves time and again that morality is, indeed, relative. It would be nice if all humankind shared a fundamental set of core values, but, they don't. Look anywhere in the world, at any point in history, and you will find moral standards to vary widely. That's not to say certain cultures, for certain time periods, don't share a common set of moral values ...clearly they do. The West today is an example of multiple cultures sharing similar core moral values. But, at the same time, we see other cultures, living at the same time, that don't share those same moral values. Nazi Germany. Radical religious countries. Tribal based countries. Imo, it is self evident morality is, indeed, relative.
Catlin's posts are about empire, and the morality of empire. I am not defending empire morality. My point is, I don't see how one faults empire morality, whilst turning a blind eye to the morality of empire's adversaries. Is it moral for Hamas, and for those Palestinians and Arabs that subscribe to pushing Israel into the sea? Why does Catlin ignore that morality, which is certainly a rather big part of why the conflict exists in the first place. Or, the morality related to killing 6 million Jews 70 years ago, while the world did nothing to stop it, which thus now becomes the morality of never again. It is complicated, and to claim it's a matter of "growing up" and thinking right thoughts is, imo, sophomoric drivel.
Again, I am not defending empire morality. But over simplifying things to assert there is one, true, morality, and it's just a matter of accepting it, is nonsense.
As for the scenario of someone taking my land at knife point....the morality there, imo, is might makes right, so the one with the knife better hope I don't have a shotgun handy.
"[To Caitlin] you never define who or what gets to decide the definition of "ethical". I guess your assumption is you, Catlin, are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, ethical and not ethical, maturity and immaturity, shirking "responsibility" and accepting "responsibility". Or, maybe you believe such definitions are "self evident". They are not.
And
"As for the scenario of someone taking my land at knife point....the morality there, imo, is might makes right, so the one with the knife better hope I don't have a shotgun handy."
As I predicted, you will invoke morality: "kill in self-defense." You will "decide the definition of" what's moral. You will do what you criticize Caitlin for doing. You will become the "sole arbiter of right and wrong." which you condemn Caitlin for. You will act on what is "self-evident" to you.
You will demonstrate the hypocritical nature of your criticism.
You will demonstrate my claim that in such a situation you will be "not so confused" about the relative or absolute nature of morality.
Q.E.D.
Quite the contrary. You are totally correct in your analysis that I become the sole arbitar of morality. Where you have it wrong is that I am not lecturing the guy with the knife, or anyone else, that my position is superior. Might makes right is, unfortunately, the way of humankind thru history. Ask yourself....if Hamas/Hezbollah adherents could press a button and eliminate all Jews forevermore....you think they would press the button? Is that immoral? Wrong ? I doubt they would worry too much about the morality of pressing the button.
Catlin, on the other hand, asserts that hers is an absolute truth, and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. That is false. So, no, I am not doing what Catlin is doing, nor am I a hypocrite.
The biggest problem these days is that people are taught to accept the "norms" of whatever society, country, or political group they're affiliated with. You can see how as long as you agree with them, they're agreeable, but if you disagree with them, they become VERY disagreeable. It's because most political groups and societies teach tribalism, and that to be accepted, you must hold to the group's accepted norms and narrative. They distill many complicated ideas into binary choices, and depending on your choices, you're either WITH the group, or you're AGAINST the group. There's little to no discussion on the group's accepted norms because that would require that they have critical thinking skills, which is in far too little supply these days.
If you point out that in certain areas, their ideas are diametrically opposed, their heads explode and they either quit responding, or they block or ignore you. Many can spout off different philosophies, because they have the "book knowledge," but when it comes down to explaining how things work in real life, or within historical context, they are clueless. It's the "educated idiot" syndrome that's so prevalent these days. It's very sad indeed. Cheers!
A SOCIAL LIBERAL! 😳
My gods , she should be SHOT!
Yes, that’s sarcasm folks.
It’s all part of postmodernism’s claim that essentially nothing is inherently true, it’s only if we “believe” it is and this belief is self-validating. (If a man believes he’s a woman it makes it true.) So when Israel claims they’re only defending themselves and the world calls it genocide, they can dismiss this accusation by accusing others antisemitic. The only reality they will recognize is the one they endorse.
CS Lewis recognized this danger in The Abolition of Man — when universal ethics are ignored, destroyed or manipulated to justify the ends, there are no longer limits on our behavior. He saw this coming in the 1940s and his lecture was a warning about the path Western society was on.
"Nothing is true" is a literally half-baked vision of reality, which reasonably accepts that
(1) humans are universally, unavoidably, and perpetually imperfect and limited, and that therefore no claim can *permanently* be settled as true (and is a reason democracy, open science, adversarial justice, free speech, etc. exist);
while unreasonably rejecting that
(2) humans universally, unavoidably, and perpetually *must*, nevertheless, anywhere and everywhere make (provisional) judgments about truth in order to live and to act (but, per (1), allow those judgments always to be tested when confronted in good faith).
My understanding is that point (2) was first famously promoted by Protagoras ("Man is the measure..."), while point (1) was later famously (implicitly) recognized by Socrates ("I know that I know nothing"), but (to my knowledge) never compared side-by-side. Postmodernists seem to reject point (2) for some reason, while sneakily inserting their own supposedly unassailable claims, as if those claims are coming from gods, not humans. In our age, it looks as it it's high time to piece back together the two sides of the coin.
It's funny how in every epoch of human reasoning, you always get a bunch of loud, obnoxious doofuses who insist their "claims are unassailable", and will go to any lengths to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Take Wikipedia for example. Run by the know-it-all doofus Jimbo Wales. Wikipedia: The Internet's Devil Island of unassailable character assassination, CIA propaganda, and lies: https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/wikipedia-internets-devils-island/
I'm not so sure Jimmy Wales runs it, it's more likely that The Blob runs him.
I don't believe he's blameless or unaware of what is going on.
I can agree with that. Those are not incompatible with being a captured entity.
In the 1960s, we hippies saw the path that Western society was on and warned you about it and you didn't listen to us, either.
You laughed at us and called us crazy.
I've always found it morally hollow to accept responsibility for a universe you believe is just an accident, and you are just a flashbulb in eternity. So rationally, it's easy to see why so many people drug out, fade out, drop out ... who come to believe it's all just some random, cruel joke. But there is the mystery of really not knowing if it is actually true. Is the universe just a giant reducible machine? Churning away for no real reason at all - that has no real meaning for a single individual living his/her "flash-in-the-pan" life? So there still may be a glimmer of hope, assuming the mystery remains. Not to mention, the psyche appears to be a tremendous, unexplainable fact of our existence. The psyche also has the peculiar nature of not being reducible to anything else.
I simply do not know why it is deemed so *essential* that human beings have a "why" for their existence. Can't we just recognize that humans can't, and thus don't, know everything? Just push the envelope as far as we can, but then stop beating ourselves up when we hit a/the wall. It's psychologically much healthier to be unpretentious.
I think the 'why' comes in when one must endure a good amount of suffering. Carl Jung wrote somewhere in his autobiography that a good number of his patients who came to him later in life were not suffering from any kind of neurosis, but simply had lost any sense of meaning in their lives.
Also, interesting to note: although Jung is well-known to borrow many of his concepts from Eastern thought, he does deal with the question of suffering in a more "Christian" like approach. Quoting Aniela Jaffe, in her book, "Jung's Last Years":
"Suffering is a challenge, enforcing self-transformation; joy is not, and it does so much more rarely." #p104
My own personal approach to finding meaning in the "mystery" Caitlin writes about, does primarily (at least currently) lie with Jungian psychological theory, which is much broader than many people suspect.
The psyche also has the talent of creating fictional labyrinths, which elevate the psychic holder, and then getting lost inside them.
"You would not find out the boundaries of the soul, even by traveling along every path: so deep a measure does it have." ~Heraclitus
Quote from the preface of June Singer's, 'Boundaries of the Soul'.
You're going to want to watch Dr. Robert Sapolsky talk about gender and the brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ
That's part of a longer lecture, "Human Sexual Behavior," which can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE
And that lecture is part of a 25-part lecture series, if you are interested. Sapolsky is brilliant and there is much to learn from him, so I would recommend the full semester course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PLqeYp3nxIYpF7dW7qK8OvLsVomHrnYNjD
(There's a couple of bonus lectures in there at the end as well.)
But definitely watch the first one, to understand the science. Gender does not have to do with belief, with or without quotation marks.
(And I explore the nature of this bad-faith use of 'anti-semitic' as an accusation pretty regularly on my Substack. I invite you to take a look.)
"People act like they’re being humble about their own intellect and understanding, but really they’re just lying and psychologically compartmentalizing away from self-evident reality. It’s not humility, it’s just another kind of dishonesty."
Really cuts to the core there. Well put.
yes!
thank you.
Yeah, hamas is going to lead the Palestinians into thriving. Wait, they already didn't... I am not a suporter if Israel's disproportionate response, but guess what not acknowledging complexity gets you.... shitty solutions. You are the one who sounds like a child who can only read 150 words before your brain gets tired.
That is one of the most content-free things I’ve ever read. Green Eggs and Ham is more thought provoking than this weightless blob of words.
Humans are complex beings.
You can love/you can hate but NOT ONE person here has mentioned "touch."
You can walk down a street and view all sorts of people..............some know about love and touching.
You take the hand of an old woman who you instantly love.......because you know she has been through hell.
Touch people and help them. PLEASE
I believe reading and understanding history is a vital part of understanding what is happening now.
Understanding what has happened to Palestine (by what ever name was assigned to it) over the past several centuries is key to understanding the turmoil in the Middle East over the last century. We are the “Great Satan of the West”. That would include Briton, US, Australia, and others. We know the British masterminded the mess with the Zionists during and after WWI with the Balfour Declaration,
British government statement of 1917. After WWII, the US took over from Briton.
We can’t change the past. The Zionists control the narrative which to a large extent controls the public.
The future, what needs to be done: cut off ALL funding to Israel. How do We The People make that happen? If that can happen, it will be under the Democrats. We know damn well that the MAGA-Republican/Evangelical/Catholic fascist theocrats are all for the Zionists exterminating all Palestinian Arabs.
When I was in Australia years ago, it was mentioned that Australia is a suburb of the USA. We are all in this together.
What makes you think the Democrats will have any ability or willingness to do so. That has been the captive party since the beginning. It was Eisenhower who said no to the Israelis. It was LBJ who couldn't say no to the Israelis even when they were bombing our own ship.
Joy, you need to substitute "Jews" for "Israelis." Only then will you show sufficient understanding of this issue.
It's the Zionists, whether Christians or Jews, who are driving this project. Trying to put the onus on one without the other, not only is a false analysis, but makes scapegoating easier when the beast goes belly up. Is that what you are promoting?
Joy, if you have respect for facts, please know that the Christian organizations that lobby for Israel contribute minuscule influence on our government in comparison to the influence coming from the US Jewish Community and Israel. Those facts can be seen in the following link, which lists both the Jewish and Christian organizations that lobby in favor of Israel, with a discussion of funding levels:
The Jewish Lobby
https://open.substack.com/pub/iwasathought/p/the-jewish-lobby?r=3kqrek&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Do you respect facts? Especially when the facts are overwhelmingly in contradiction to your erroneous beliefs? If you can document other facts that dispel the facts of the above link, please do. If not, might you consider that you need to think and study more about this?
But apart from the monies, I ask you, why would you think the Jewish Community and Israel would cede control of governmental influence to such a knucklehead, bungling bunch of Christian Right creeps? Have you heard any Hagee talks? Do you think Jews would allow such a nut to lead them, especially government influence involving their beloved fascist state? I have much more respect for Jewish intelligence than that.
Do you realize that Israel is now the Sacred Cow of Judaism? That virtually all of Judaism, behaving as a political cult, is worshipping this fascist state, without nary a bow to traditional Jewish teachings about right and wrong? I agree that the Talmud does show a despicable side to Judaism, but there are also some values there that have made it into "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. Some Orthodox Jewish groups are teaching us about some of this.
I suggest you get a stronger grip on reality and use your intelligence to help wake people up to these simple, obvious truths.
Joy, I think you'd agree that the US justifies its wrongdoings on certain principles, such as "freedom," or "democracy." Right? But in describing those wrongdoings, we don't say for instance that "freedomers" are the perpetrators. Right? We always acknowledge the true culprit, for instance, the "US committed war crimes in Vietnam, or Afghanistan, etc." We aren't fooled by that, when it comes to the US or to any other group that conducts wrongdoing. For instance, "Hamas committed war crimes on Oct. 7." We don't say that "freedomers" committed those war crimes. We say, "Russia attacked Ukraine," not "Defenders against NATO" did this crime. Right? We don't substitute the identity of the perpetrator with the ideological principles that those perpetrators act with.
So why do you say that Zionists are conducting those crimes that we know belong to Israeli Jews, as if Jews are an entirely different group of people? Those Jews are only using the beliefs and arguments of Zionism, in the same way that the US uses the beliefs and arguments of "freedomers." Why do you hold the US accountable and not the Jews? If you were well-read in the history of the Arab-Jew conflict, you'd never make such an error. Before the current propaganda success that Jews accomplished, this conflict was always the "Arab-Jew conflict. Even Golda Meir and most other earlier Jewish leaders recognized that.
This is a serious error, because we cannot bring a perpetrator to justice if we don't identify who it is. All of Germany was brought to justice for the crimes of the Nazis, because the allies were not fooled by the same kind of propaganda that you are. Since both Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews are all making possible the wrongdoings we're talking about and well over 90% of these Jews work on this effort, we are justified and accurate to say that Judaism is the perpetrator to the same extent we now say that Germany was responsible for their war crimes.
The point I was trying to make is that there is absolutely no chance of any change happening, except change for the worse, under MAGA. The Zionist issue is to a large extent religious dogma. There is some hope of countering that under the Democrats.
This is much bigger than one person. It will take an uprising among the American people to accomplish anything.
the democrats are in charge now, they are not cutting off all funding to israel, although there's an obvious genocide going on that their president is enabling. defunding israel is not on their platform for the next election (and even then ...). it might happen under the dnc in some far away future, but only if they lose elections because of it, imo. if one votes for them now, without it being on their platform, one will legitimize what has been done and more of the same will follow. the dnc/demparty will have a chance to rehabilitate in the struggle to save palestinians after they lost.
The author is right. Gaza isn’t complicated. When a society acts correctly it is not subjected to protective measures other societies might deem necessary. And when a society attacks - say, kills 1200 citizens of a neighboring society, or takes so many more hostage - then the attacker does not get to choose the consequences of its actions.
Under the current state of affairs, If the Dems lose, they might not have another chance with the MAGAs gearing up to make the presidency into a dictatorship if they get back in the White House. The Dems are not in charge since they don't have the House. They have the Senate by such a tight margin they can't accomplish much other than a few bipartisan bills.
Cutting off Israel financially is not a spectator sport. We The People will have to get involved to make that happen. It most certainly won't be easy.