On 10/23/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > I started prowling back through
> > it to see what terrible thing she's done this time. As usual,
> > I took away the impression that she's taking a lot more personal
> > insults than she's handing out, and in general, her tone is
> > much more temperate and on-topic that her detractors'.
>
> Saying Andie, someone I know fairly well in the real world, and not
> just as a dotcomrade (a word I just learned today, thanks to the
> Urban Dictionary's word of the day), is just like Phyllis Chesler and
> Little Green Footballs - repulsive entities, both of them - is a
> slur, and a desperate one at that. She's said similar things to me
> many times.
Yoshie wrote of Andie: " If you posted what you wrote to www.freerepublic.com or www.littlegreenfootballs.com, it wouldn't be out of place there -- far from it, it would no doubt receive many cheers from right-wingers who have too much time on their hands."
This may be right or wrong but it is not an insult. Let's assume that what Yoshi says is correct. Then the question should be asked: What is the significance of the fact that leftists can write in ways that can be part of the "Islamo-fascist" hysteria, even if we don't intend to write or think in such a way?
Maybe there is no significance. In other words what Yoshi said is true but there is no reason why Andie or Yoshie should care about this truth. For example is there any significance in the coincidence that I say racism is bad and should be opposed and George Bush also says that racism is bad and should be opposed. Well no. But if I say racism is bad and should be opposed by opposing affirmative action programs and George Bush says the same then there might be some significance in this coincidence, especially if it is during a time that affirmative action programs are being attacked as a broad attack on minorities.
Counterfactual: Or let's turn it around another way. It is during the time period of the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union. I am a Russian intellectual. All that I talk about during this time period is the Catholic Church and how bad it was during the German occupation of Hungary. I then say that we must do everything we can to avoid the crimes of the Catholic Church and all that they do to oppress Jews and other minorities, and women and homosexuals. During the whole period during the run up to the Soviet Invasion of Hungary that is what I talk about. Well I think that if I were this intellectual, I should be condemned.
This counterfactual is _not_ directly analogous to Andie's position. Andie's position is that we should concentrate on condemning the crimes of the U.S. but if we don't condemn the crimes of the Islamic fundamentalist clerics "we" are giving up on the people in Iran. I think Yoshie's mistake is to treat Andiie's position as if he is in the same position as the Soviet intellectual in the counterfactual. If there is an insult, it is Yoshie's slight of hand here, which Andie feels deeply.
But there is something that is actually worth thinking about in Yoshie's argument. Everyday that we talk about the crimes of Iran we are ignoring the crimes of the U.S. the crimes that "we" commit. Andie does not mean to ignore "our" crimes in his even handed dealing of the truth. He does not mean or intend to give backhanded support to the people screaming and yelling about "Islamo-fascist." But quite frankly I find it quite disgusting that the focus of discussion is Yoshie's (sometimes silly) apologetics for Iran and the focus is Iran's crimes, when everyday single day we are perpetrating much worse crimes, even against Iran.
Maybe Yoshie's point can be construed along the lines of the following _if-then_ statement.
"__If someone says what Andie is saying _and_ it can be published by David Horrowitz and Company, then what Andie is saying is _objectively_ warmongering for the Iran bashers."
If this is what Yoshie meant then I think her way of thinking needs to be (partially) rejected. This old Jesuitical-Bolshevik way of condemning somebody for being "objectively" on the wrong side of history is wrong headed and yet I think half-correct... During times of war fever condemning the official enemy can often contribute to the war fever even if the condemnations are true. That does not mean that the official enemy has to be praised. In the constant war fever of the Bush regime it seems this applies everywhere and always, to all "official" enemies. _If_ the kind of language that Andie uses to condemn the Iran regime is also the kind of language used by our own much more violent and threatening Bush regime when condemning Iran, then "we" leftists should think about our role in helping to create a climate of war. We live under a system that constantly creates "New Hitlers" faster than the creation of new Bob Dylans. The only reason that "we" leftists focus on the crimes of (Andie?) or make apologies for (Yoshie?) the regime of what-ever New Hitler" is on the agenda is because of the state of permanent war fever that the U.S. empire seems to need to keep itself moving forward. Here I think is a core kernel of a good set of questions. Why do either Andie or Yoshie talk about these regimes in the first place instead of talking about the threat to humanity of our own State? Yoshie could take more responsibility in framing those questions in a coherent way. But no matter how insulted Andie feels there is some bit of correctness in what she says about Andie. (And now that I have said _that_ will Andie demand an apology from me? And should I be kicked off the list?)
Yoshie's provocations should be thought through and argued about. Kicking her off the list is not the way of going about it. In general I agree with Michael Smith and Shane Mage.
In the end Doug, it is your list and you should do what makes you feel less irritated about the world. But many of us have been called worse on this list -- "stupid" "genocidal" etc. -- and the people who said such things have never been threatened with being booted off the list.
Jerry Monaco
On 10/23/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:37 AM, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > Even suggesting anything else is defamation. It is
> > vile. You owe me a public and unqualified apology, no
> > hedges, no ifs and or buts, just, I'm really sorry and
> > I was wrong to suggest anything else. I am waiting for
> > you to come forward with it.
>
> Ha. Good luck. You will wait an eternity.
>
> Yoshie thrives on pissing people off, which is almost inevitable
> (except for a few sad fellow travelers). It's her oxygen. It makes
> her feel radical and important. Many times I've been tempted to boot
> her, but I haven't yet. But her sort of trolling is very bad for list
> ecology. If the apology isn't forthcoming, that might be a good time
> to get out the steel-toed boots.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>