Formerly Known as Leo's Blind Tasting Group - April 2019

i agree, generally. And maybe we each have our own breaking point and persuasive ability. For me, if I've tried the talking 2 or 3 times and don't get the sense i'm doing (or receiving) any persuading, I accept the L and just don't show up next time.
 
"What about a person who clicks the like button on Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib tweets?"

Another thread drift. I'd say about 75% of the tweets that reach the newspapers (where I read them) I find completely unobjectionable or I agree with them (I'm no particular fan of Netanyahu). My guess is, therefore, that I'd find 99.9% of their tweets in whole unobjectionable. So I probably wouldn't shun the person who liked them (setting aside the couple of things Omar said that were genuinely anti-semitic). If I were the shunning type, I might shun the people who objected to them by misquoting or editing them. Fortunately, I'm not.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by kirk wallace:

I also think there is a question here of what is the "shunning" supposed to accomplish.
Click to expand...
Yep - useful question. The answer is generally to punish, not to persuade. You change minds by talking to people, not by refusing to.
Especially when organized exclusions tend to feed persecution complexes that cause people to dig in even deeper.
Click to expand...

For me shunning would be neither for punishing nor persuading, it would be to spare myself the choice of containing the bile or being unpleasant if the subject comes up. But it's true that if I have built up a wine-based relationship with someone by avoiding a subject, I may continue to do so. I have some very right-wing wine buddies with whom I never discuss politics.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
"What about a person who clicks the like button on Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib tweets?"

Another thread drift. I'd say about 75% of the tweets that reach the newspapers (where I read them) I find completely unobjectionable or I agree with them (I'm no particular fan of Netanyahu). My guess is, therefore, that I'd find 99.9% of their tweets in whole unobjectionable. So I probably wouldn't shun the person who liked them (setting aside the couple of things Omar said that were genuinely anti-semitic). If I were the shunning type, I might shun the people who objected to them by misquoting or editing them. Fortunately, I'm not.
Click to expand...
The people objecting to them characterized them more accurately than you just did - none of the ones that caused a fuss had anything to do with Netanyahu. But that's beside the point. I'm simply pointing out that once we get into the business of un-personing people on account of beliefs or statements in verboten categories, defining the boundaries of those categories is never as clear-cut as everyone seems to assume and people have an uncanny ability to cook up rationalizations for why their own beliefs absolutely, positively, conveniently, never ever qualify. It's an unproductive type of intellectual labor.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have some very right-wing wine buddies with whom I never discuss politics.
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting observation. Does wine trump politics then? When does it become objectionable to break bread and pop bottles with people who have done bad deeds, like Kim Jung Un or MSB? We like to keep our little sphere of hedonism off-limits to politics and such but at some point shouldn't a moral stand be taken (and admittedly, this would be different and individual) or do we simply wash our hands like Caesar?
 
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have some very right-wing wine buddies with whom I never discuss politics.
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting observation. Does wine trump politics then? When does it become objectionable to break bread and pop bottles with people who have done bad deeds, like Kim Jung Un or MSB? We like to keep our little sphere of hedonism off-limits to politics and such but at some point shouldn't a moral stand be taken (and admittedly, this would be different and individual) or do we simply wash our hands like Caesar?
Click to expand...

I think you mean Pilate, though I don't doubt that Caesar washed his hands from time to time.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have some very right-wing wine buddies with whom I never discuss politics.
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting observation. Does wine trump politics then? When does it become objectionable to break bread and pop bottles with people who have done bad deeds, like Kim Jung Un or MSB? We like to keep our little sphere of hedonism off-limits to politics and such but at some point shouldn't a moral stand be taken (and admittedly, this would be different and individual) or do we simply wash our hands like Caesar?
Click to expand...

I'd say that personal history supercedes how awful the person may be. "I knew them before they espoused all that...."

Oswaldo: Me, too. One of them recently turned to me to observe how Muslims are so different from past immigrant communities, more resistant to change and treat their women badly. I was desperate not to have this conversation with him but I responded that everybody everywhere dislikes their immigrants, No Irish Need Apply, etc. And he went on: jobs flowing to other countries, America First is a good idea, etc.
 
I wonder if we could have a gentlepersons' agreement to steer away from discussion, even in passing, of contemporary politics. I follow them avidly, but have yet to see a board where they are talked about that doesn't devolve into incredible vitriol, and not a little BS. For example, naming two members of congress in the same breath as holocaust deniers is a bit rich. And, yes, Keith, I understand the point you were making.

I don't know Leo, but he sounds like the kind of guy you'd want to keep talking to, especially if he's bought into anti-vaccine views - if not for fellowship, then to persuade him he's making a mistake. Sounds like he'd be worth the effort.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
For example, naming two members of congress in the same breath as holocaust deniers is a bit rich. And, yes, Keith, I understand the point you were making.
Click to expand...
What makes it "a bit rich"? How does being a "member of congress" make a person's views any less noxious?
 
Since neither you nor I have quoted specific tweets or statements, would you like to? I will stipulate that Omar's remarks about Jews' double loyalty and buying adherence with Benjamin's were classically anti-Semitic. That is the one percent I referred to. I find the Republican.characterizations of remarks about 9/11 and the holocaust absurd. If you are really going to defend those. characterizations, please quote whole sentences.

Neither of them, to my knowledge has denied that the holocaust occurred. Again, please quote if you have evidence to the contrary. To be fair, it was Oswaldo who raised the general category of holocaust deniers. Your original post did not accuse either Omar or Tlaib of that. But you do seem to assent to Ian's statement that you did.

And finally, both of them in various tweets were talking about Israel's policies toward Palistinians. Is Netanyahu not the present head of Israel? Did I miss something?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Since neither you nor I have quoted specific tweets or statements, would you like to? I will stipulate that Omar's remarks about Jews' double loyalty and buying adherence with Benjamin's were classically anti-Semitic. That is the one percent I referred to. I find the Republican.characterizations of remarks about 9/11 and the holocaust absurd. If you are really going to defend those. characterizations, please quote whole sentences.

Neither of them, to my knowledge has denied that the holocaust occurred. Again, please quote if you have evidence to the contrary. To be fair, it was Oswaldo who raised the general category of holocaust deniers. Your original post did not accuse either Omar or Tlaib of that. But you do seem to assent to Ian's statement that you did.

And finally, both of them in various tweets were talking about Israel's policies toward Palistinians. Is Netanyahu not the present head of Israel? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

To take a page from your book, can you cite the remarks that you found to be classically anti-Semitic?
 
I did: her remarks on Jews having loyalty to a foreign state and buying adherence with money can find their progenitors in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I did: her remarks on Jews having loyalty to a foreign state and buying adherence with money can find their progenitors in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Click to expand...

I meant the actual remarks (like you asked others to provide).
 
It's really better not to go further down this road for the reasons Ian correctly mentioned. If you're curious about the comments that stirred controversy, you can quickly google for them. For present purposes, all that's relevant is that 1) some people found them hateful, bigoted, and ignorant, and 2) other people didn't. I am in bucket #1 and have friends in bucket #2 who are, as the saying goes, very fine people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top