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.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.
"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.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.