While in your world (and mine) genocide is evil, why?
I cannot imagine a more moral man than Chris Hedges. Listen as he lists the many genocides of the past. How easily men can be convinced that murder is God's Will.
>>"I cannot imagine a more moral man than Chris Hedges"
Morality is subjective (not objective). YOU may consider Chris Hedges to be the most moral person in the world (or history), but other people will worship their own heroes and their qualities (such as morality or others).
>>"Whose story do you want to tell?"
I don't want to tell any stories. I want people to think critically ABOUT stories (told by others and themselves) regardless of the author/spreader of stories (i.e. narratives).
Whose stories/facts/fictions? EVERYONE's (throughout history). Ask "WHAT skills do I need to believe/prove the veracity of stories (i.e. narratives)?"
Does not seem to be Chang's point. I imagine Hedges would agree with the need for critical thinking. Dehumanization of a people is a first step toward genocide. Israelis have been brainwashed for decades (77 years) that Palestinians are their enemy. Many facets to the history, such as the Eastern European Jew treating Arab Jews as second class or worse. After WW2, the British Jews didn't want the poor Eastern European Jews. There was a classist element within the diaspora. BTW, Netanyahu's name was Milekowski, as all of the Israeli PMs changed their European names to West Asia-sounding names.
I just caught the documentary The Bibi Files. Check it out if you get a chance. Helps understand what happened in Israel the last few years with the corruption investigation. And YIKES on Smotrich and Ben Givr.
DEFUND THE ISRAELI HOLOCAUST IN GAZA PALESTINE. LET GAZA LIVE. FREE PALESTINE. PEACE
When one demands "critical thinking" it most often means, "recite my narrative or else."
That is what Chang wants. His superiority complex in demeaning Hedges and Good accomplished nothing and is an example of Caitlin's fictional illness which he projects on others.
Like I've said before, those who have WEAK critical thinking skills (like yourself) often find ways to disparage critical thinking.
Thank you for acknowledging your incompetence in this area. (Of course, you'll twist this comment to mean that I am implying something about MY critical thinking abilities. No, this has nothing to do with me, it's ALL about you - or should I say "John Zwiebel"?)
Is THAT what you got out of my comment? Maybe read my comment again. My comment does not mention a single thing about Israelis or Palestinians or Genocide.
Subjective morality is the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions rather than on objective facts or universal principles. It implies that there is no absolute right or wrong, but rather that morality is relative to each individual or culture. It can be contrasted with objective morality, which holds that moral judgments are grounded in some external reality or rationality that transcends human subjectivity.
For most of us, our personal moral codes are shaped by factors like:
(1) Our upbringing and life experiences: The moral values instilled in us by our parents and communities often stick with us.
(2) Cultural influences: The society and culture we live in significantly impact our views on moral. issues. What is acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another.
(3) Personal values: Things like compassion, fairness, and harm reduction are common moral values, but we don’t all prioritize them the same way.
(4) Context: Moral judgments are often highly dependent on context. For example, killing another person is usually considered wrong, but not if done in self-defense or during war.
The subjective view stands in contrast to moral objectivism,, which holds that certain moral truths are universal and unchanging. However, subjective morality does not mean “anything goes.” Most of us share some basic moral intuitions and principles in common. But there is no consensus on many moral issues, and reasonable people can disagree.
If you want to know my moral stances on Israel/Palestine/Genocide, you can either ASK me or read my comments on Caitlin's substack instead of JUMPING to conclusions and ASSUMING things based on your 'inadequate critical thinking skills'. This isn't a vitriolic statement, it is an observational assessment based on your comments and responses.
I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
Whose story do you want to tell?
Whose Facts?
Whose Fictions?
While in your world (and mine) genocide is evil, why?
I cannot imagine a more moral man than Chris Hedges. Listen as he lists the many genocides of the past. How easily men can be convinced that murder is God's Will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCgQ5pehHqg
>>"I cannot imagine a more moral man than Chris Hedges"
Morality is subjective (not objective). YOU may consider Chris Hedges to be the most moral person in the world (or history), but other people will worship their own heroes and their qualities (such as morality or others).
>>"Whose story do you want to tell?"
I don't want to tell any stories. I want people to think critically ABOUT stories (told by others and themselves) regardless of the author/spreader of stories (i.e. narratives).
Whose stories/facts/fictions? EVERYONE's (throughout history). Ask "WHAT skills do I need to believe/prove the veracity of stories (i.e. narratives)?"
"Morality is subjective"
Yep. The Israelis think genociding Palestinians is moral.
I didn't realize you supported that subjective position.
Does not seem to be Chang's point. I imagine Hedges would agree with the need for critical thinking. Dehumanization of a people is a first step toward genocide. Israelis have been brainwashed for decades (77 years) that Palestinians are their enemy. Many facets to the history, such as the Eastern European Jew treating Arab Jews as second class or worse. After WW2, the British Jews didn't want the poor Eastern European Jews. There was a classist element within the diaspora. BTW, Netanyahu's name was Milekowski, as all of the Israeli PMs changed their European names to West Asia-sounding names.
I just caught the documentary The Bibi Files. Check it out if you get a chance. Helps understand what happened in Israel the last few years with the corruption investigation. And YIKES on Smotrich and Ben Givr.
DEFUND THE ISRAELI HOLOCAUST IN GAZA PALESTINE. LET GAZA LIVE. FREE PALESTINE. PEACE
When one demands "critical thinking" it most often means, "recite my narrative or else."
That is what Chang wants. His superiority complex in demeaning Hedges and Good accomplished nothing and is an example of Caitlin's fictional illness which he projects on others.
Like I've said before, those who have WEAK critical thinking skills (like yourself) often find ways to disparage critical thinking.
Thank you for acknowledging your incompetence in this area. (Of course, you'll twist this comment to mean that I am implying something about MY critical thinking abilities. No, this has nothing to do with me, it's ALL about you - or should I say "John Zwiebel"?)
Is THAT what you got out of my comment? Maybe read my comment again. My comment does not mention a single thing about Israelis or Palestinians or Genocide.
Subjective morality is the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions rather than on objective facts or universal principles. It implies that there is no absolute right or wrong, but rather that morality is relative to each individual or culture. It can be contrasted with objective morality, which holds that moral judgments are grounded in some external reality or rationality that transcends human subjectivity.
For most of us, our personal moral codes are shaped by factors like:
(1) Our upbringing and life experiences: The moral values instilled in us by our parents and communities often stick with us.
(2) Cultural influences: The society and culture we live in significantly impact our views on moral. issues. What is acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another.
(3) Personal values: Things like compassion, fairness, and harm reduction are common moral values, but we don’t all prioritize them the same way.
(4) Context: Moral judgments are often highly dependent on context. For example, killing another person is usually considered wrong, but not if done in self-defense or during war.
The subjective view stands in contrast to moral objectivism,, which holds that certain moral truths are universal and unchanging. However, subjective morality does not mean “anything goes.” Most of us share some basic moral intuitions and principles in common. But there is no consensus on many moral issues, and reasonable people can disagree.
If you want to know my moral stances on Israel/Palestine/Genocide, you can either ASK me or read my comments on Caitlin's substack instead of JUMPING to conclusions and ASSUMING things based on your 'inadequate critical thinking skills'. This isn't a vitriolic statement, it is an observational assessment based on your comments and responses.
Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments.
Your inability to concisely, coherently and explicitly express yourself is not my problem.
>>"Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments."
Yes, and you get what you get because you LACK adequate critical thinking skills.
I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
I know what ad hominem is.
Do you?
It is used when you've lost an argument.