On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:08 PM, ravi wrote:
>
>> Any argument that relies on accusations of "exoticising" is not a
>> serious o
>
> Yes it is. The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of people on
> this list and elsewhere on the Ahmadinejad-defending left treat
> Iranians as if they're somehow really special, and not at all
> concerned with the kinds of personal freedoms that Westerners take
> for granted. That's crap.
>
There are several problems with the above, and I will throw out a couple:
a) Even if you are right, it still does not address entirely the content of what they say.
b) But that is not what I hear them saying at all. They seem to be saying that unless you assume that Iranians care about all the freedoms you take for granted, you have to think about which ones they do or might, and more importantly, which ones could be insignificant (w.r.t universal norms).
You are making the following jump: [I have certain freedoms], [Iranians do not have them], [X says Iranians may not care for some of those freedoms] === therefore ==> [X is exoticising Iranians].
This inference works only if you can take the [I] out of the first item and treat all of those freedoms as universally justified/ accepted, etc. In other words, the choice for Iranians is not just the two options: be concerned with all the personal freedoms of the West or be exotic. The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume that if someone is not concerned with some of your freedoms that makes them or implies that they are special or exotic.
On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> At 09:23 AM 6/30/2009, ravi wrote:
>
>> Exactly! But I am not doing the reducing. Like Michael Smith pointed
>> out, and you are doing now, why not eschew the bikinis and talk about
>> substantive issues?
>
> Horseshit. It's you and Doss who have been trivializing these
> arguments by talking about freedom to wear bikinis.
>
I guess I should find it unsurprising that my talking about "the talk preferably not being about bikinis" is interpreted as me talking about bikinis. Brilliant. And I have already quoted your "non-serious" contributions, so I won't repeat them.
On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> The jock attitude turned it into a non-discussion discussion about
> bikinis.
Who hands out these talking points? Is there a secret lbo-talk- diversion mailing list? Should I turn around and start calling you racists?
--ravi