> i think the original question about tibet (from doug?) raised exactly
> the opposite point. u.s. liberals, hollywood-types in particular, have
> rallied to the tibet cause because of some perceived mystical
> specialness of tibet and of the dali lama. where was/is the cavalcade
> of concerts/movies/benefits to aid east timor? so it's not the
> reflexive support of self-determination for timor but rather the
> unreflective romantic rallying to the cry for 'independence for Tibet' << that causes everyone's computers to instantly reboot. >>
Max Sawicky wrote:
Right. Doug was dissing celebrity crusaders, which is easier than shooting fish in a barrel, and I was citing left unwillingness to extend support for self- determination to Tibet in a consistent way, an unwillingness that is reflected in your own post.
uh, whatever. you have no idea where i stand in re extending support for self-determination to Tibet. i have only indicated what i think about unreflective romantic rallying to the cry for 'independence for Tibet'. these two positions are not indistinguishable, though your willingness to conflate them is refelcted in your own post.