WatDabney

joined 11 months ago
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago

No surprise there. Trump and his acolytes and sycophants have clearly signaled that they're eager to be Putin's lap dogs, so if Trump wins, Coke and the rest will have pulled out of Russia for nothing.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That said, it’s difficult to see people’s homes targeted by protests like this with the rise of the Neo-Nazi right as it is in America.

That sentence neatly sums up a whole raft of issues.

First - yes - this sort of protest is and always will be problematic at best. I understand the impetus (intellectually at least - I'n far too old and cynical to feel that sort of fervor, and I was never that reckless), but even though the cause is just, there's a point beyond which protest becomes counter-productive, since it alienates people who would otherwise support it.

And there is a very real looming spectre of antisemitism in the US.

But the thing is that protesting the war in Gaza or zionism broadly is NOT part of that threat, and every bit of (self-serving) effort expended on that is diverted from the real threat, which comes from an ever-growing subculture of stock-standard (neo) nazi antisemites - people who are specifically targeting Jews, collectively and individually and even using much of the same rhetoric and stereotypes that the Third Reich used. And notably, that threat doesn't come from the left, but from the right.

That said though there is a potential threat inherent in the (almost entirely left-wing) protests against the war - the risk that it could expand to a broader condemnation of Israelis in general, or even Jews in general. I've actually been sort of half-expecting to see someone try to make a case similar to ACAB regarding Israelis or even Jews - that they're all [pejoratives] because they're all, necessarily, either murderous xenophobes or at best enablers of the murderous xenophobes in their midst.

And that then leads back to where you started. That was actually part of the impetus for my first response, though I ended up spinning it a bit different way.

The ongoing efforts to conflate opposition to the war or to zionism with antisemitism are, and I would say rather obviously, not only simply dishonest, but actually a threat to Jews. They invite antisemitism, and to some degree actually are antisemitic, insofar as they assign a particular set of beliefs that many find noxious and worthy of hatred to Jews collectively and individually, entirely regardless of and in many cases directly contrary to the actual beliefs and preferences of individual Jews.

And... I'm yet again, as I am on pretty much a daily basis, reminded of the purported old Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times." We certainly do.

Thanks for the response.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 10 points 5 months ago

Perhaps there is some context this article doesn’t touch on

There is.

This is the most concise and complete summation I could find of the (early) history of the protests against Brooklyn Museum and Anne Pasternak.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/anne-pasternak-brooklyn-museum-interview-part-2-1409434

Note too that there's another controversy - regarding the hiring of a white curator for African art - that likely provides the context for the "white supremacist" part of the graffito.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

just because they’re Jewish

Actually, a bit of quick research reveals that Brooklyn Museum, and Anne Pasternak specifically, have been the targets of protests since at least 2016, when the museum, under her directorship, put on a show called "This Place" that purported to be an unbiased look at Israel and Palestine, but was backed by pro-occupation funders.

In fact, the group that was organized in response to that show, called "Decolonize This Place," still exists and is still active.

So it's exceedingly safe to assume that she wasn't targeted "just because (she's) Jewish" but because for at least the past eight years, she, and the museum more broadly, have been seen to be sympathetic to colonialism broadly, and zionism specifically - so much so that at least one organization was formed and still exists specifically to protest them.

Here's the most concise source for that - an interview with Pasternak from 2018

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (18 children)

Funny thing:

The idea that protesting the slaughter of Palestinians equals antisemitism requires starting from the position that slaughtering Palestinians is a fundamental part of the Jewish identity.

There's really no alternative way to interpret that. If slaughtering Palestinians is not a fundamental part of the Jewish identity, then protesting such slaughter has nothing to do with Judaism, and thus cannot be antisemitic. It'd be like trying to claim that protesting cars is anti-Amish.

So all these people quoted here are essentially saying that slaughtering Palestinians is not just fundamental to being Jewish, but so deeply and uniquely fundamental - so much a part of Jewishness - that opposing such slaughter automatically equals opposing Jews.

Doesn't that sound sort of... antisemitic?

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 months ago

Well damn.

No - I very deliberately used round peg in the square hole, initially just to avoid the cliche, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

Conservatives pound on round/natural/organic/smooth pegs to try to force them into square/artificial/contrived/rigid holes.

I liked it anyway....

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 59 points 5 months ago (7 children)

In all seriousness, I sort of pity conservatives.

They're sort of like the one kid in kindergarten who could never manage to figure out which plastic peg went in which hole and would just get frustrated and throw things. Except that they never grew out of it. Here they are, twenty or thirty or sixty years later, still unable to grasp the simple fact that the world just is what it is and the round peg isn't going to go in the square hole no matter how much you pound on it, and still angry over it, as if it's some sort of vast conspiracy rather than just the fact that they're fucking morons.

That has to be an unpleasant way to live.

Of course, they're such vile and loathsome and destructive assholes that my pity is short-lived, but still...

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 107 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Just another step toward making used-to-be-Twitter a safe space for cowardly fascists.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 64 points 5 months ago (4 children)

How is anybody even surprised by this?

This is exactly the sort of thing Beth has been moving towards ever since their first ham-handed attempt to monetize mods deservedly blew up in their faces.

They didn't give up on the idea - they just shifted to a strategy of doing it incrementally.

And this is just the latest step in that ongoing process.

Think about how bad it's (very deliberately) going to be by the time TES 6 finally comes out...

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It strikes me that I went on at great length but didn't directly answer your main question.

Targeted emotions felt via affective empathy (at least for me and presumably for others) aee generally either directed at the same target as they are for the source or untargeted. Though sometimes, they can end up being directed at the wrong target.

I think the way it generally works is that if I both feel affective empathy and experience cognitive empathy, then the emotion ends up aimed at the same target, since the cognitive empathy provides a framework for it. For instance, I feel someone else's anger and understand who they're angry at and why and agree that it's justified, so I end up angry at that target too.

And yes - if I'm the target and I grasp the idea behind it, so experience cognitive empathy, then I do become my own target.

If I don't have the context for cognitive empathy though, the emotion is just sort of there. I'm just aware that being in this place or around these people or whatever is putting me on edge. I don't quite feel the full sense of the emotion then, presumably because it needs context and a target to fully manifest. Instead, I feel a vaguer, less directed form of it - like being around angry people without really focusing on it, so not getting cognitive empathy, just leaves me feeling unaccountably stressed and cranky. Or being around sad people makes me feel unaccountably melancholy.

And along with that, one thing it definitely does is prime me to find something to direct it at. It's not just that I feel unaccountably cranky or melancholy or whatever, but that I'm likely going to (over)react to the first thing that happens that provides something like justification for the full-blown emotion. Like once it starts, it has to find a way to fully manifest.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For myself, other people's anger makes me really uncomfortable, and I avoid it as much as possible, in part specifically because if I don't, I end up sharing in it, but without a reason or a target. It's really unpleasant because in a sense, it's not real.

Real anger - my own anger - feels complete. Not that it's pleasant or anything - it's still anger. But in a way, it's a sort of relief to feel it, since it at least makes sense. I have a reason for it and a target for it, so it fits. Empathetic anger is weird and unsettling, since it's just there, but it's not a complete, sensible thing.

And you're right about targeted emotions, at least in my experience, and while anger is a good example, it's not the worst.

Grief is awful, because it's such a horrible, desolate feeling, and just that much worse when it doesn't even really mean anything.

Jealousy is another bad one - in fact, thinking about it, I'm tempted to say it's the worst of them all, because it's so unpleasant, and in multiple ways, and it's so entirely pointless without an actual reason or target (it's arguably fairly pointless even with both).

On a somewhat different note, just because I'm thinking about the trials and tribulations of affective empathy - embarrassment is weirdly bad. Partly it's that it's unpleasant, but more it's that it's such a common aspect of other people's enjoyment - there's a great deal of comedy that hinges on laughing at other people's embarrassment, and it's all completely lost on me, because I'm stuck just feeling pointlessly vicariously embarrassed.

Broadly, the way I have to deal with all of it is to try to avoid situations in which I'm going to be subjected to other people's unpleasant emotions, and if I find myself in one, to try to shut myself off from whatever they're feeling. I'm okay up to a point, but I can feel it coming if I'm getting to the point that it's going to suck me in, and pretty much all I can do then is resign myself to it or throw up a barricade and just shut it out. Which sort of ironically makes me come across as aloof - as if I'm insensitive rather than overly sensitive. That gnaws at me, but there really isn't much I can do about it, since I already have enough to deal with with my own emotions, and just don't have the fortitude to deal with everyone else's as well.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 months ago

This is what an utter lack of integrity, ethics, scruples and reason looks like.

view more: ‹ prev next ›