(2017-10-01, 02:35 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]On that point - it was just a friendly word of advice: maybe you'd be better to avoid terms like "Zionist Establishment", if you don't want to offend people. You know, it does kind of smack of an idea that there's an establishment that is somehow controlled by Zionists, and people may assume that these Zionists controlling the establishment may be Jewish...
See, that is exactly what I mean. You are adding mud to already muddy waters. Anyone trying to say anything that might be construed as criticism of the State of Israel is made to feel that they are on egg shells! It's wrong. Plain wrong. I believe this is a deliberate ploy by whichever 'establishment' is in charge in that fearful country. Quite frankly I couldn't care less if they are offended!
That having been said, reading Peled's book made me feel very sad for everyone involved. It's a fucking tragedy for them, in fact for all of us. It really is.
Stan
I'm just suggesting it would be better to make it clear that your criticism is directed at the government of Israel. "Zionist Establishment" could very easily be misinterpreted as a reference to something quite different. As I've already said, I dislike the modern notion of "the right not to be offended". But at the same time I think we should avoid giving unnecessary offence, for example by choosing our words carefully. That's just good manners.
(2017-09-30, 04:48 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]I guess that's where we differ.
How is shutting out certain topics, making them off bounds, freedom of speech?
If Dr Bauer is good enough to be interviewed, I just don't see how we can honestly deny him the right to put his point of view about anything at all.
But you're right, I've made my position crystal clear. I'll probably hear about it in my life review? [Image: Smiley17.gif]
Thanks Ian.
We already decided that this is not a "free speech zone" when we put CT in a subforum.
So why do you keep bringing up free speech as if it's a right here on PQ?
(2017-10-01, 02:24 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]As for the world at large - yes, there should be no limits at all. Absolutely no limits. Free speech, expression and inquiry, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts". Period.
No limits of any kind?
Does this exist anywhere in the world?
Seems like it wouldn't work very well.
I think the wisdom of limiting political discussion is amply confirmed by the situation that's developed on Skeptiko, where a poster has quoted with evident approval historical material stipulating that the USA was founded for white people only, and only one other participant seems even to question its applicability to present-day America.
Have been meaning to respond in that thread, Chris, but haven't gotten round to it yet (and might not have the spare energy). Needless to say, I find those views appalling, especially given the historical context in which the land on which the USA was built was stolen - brutally at times - from its indigenous owners.
I see now Vortex is fantasising on Skeptiko about what he could "easily imagine" me doing, and insinuating I am against free speech. Apparently he still can't grasp the difference between wanting to censor other people's speech, and not wanting to participate in a forum where racist and anti-semitic views are being propagated, so I won't waste time trying to explain it again. Of course, if he feels differently that's a decision for him. I only wish he could show a bit more respect for other people's right to decide where and whether to participate.