02.12.2011 08:11 AM

We don’t need no stinkin’ racists

…wherein Dawg shines a light on the cockroaches.

15 Comments

  1. R says:

    SDA is under trauma of terrorism and fear of multicultural ideas and no change ideology of conservative and under pressure of party in racism hate talk they end up brain damage for delusion of cut tax recession deficit kind of ideas and not help welfare poor group.
    SDA even scared of comments said from public so they can not handle of truth because

    Liberal vs. Conservative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIHRGUMr3Ak&feature=fvsr

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d777eIByIlM&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTNnI90Zxw&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9nKSBykygA&feature=fvwrel

  2. The Other Jim says:

    I don’t hold any truck or trade for the SDA crowd, but Dawg’s opinions on Israel (at least those in the comments of the linked article) don’t seem any more enlightened than those of the dumb animals blog.

    • Warren says:

      He and I disagree on Israel, mostly. But he’s no racist.

      • The Other Jim says:

        He may not be racist, but he certainly has a worrisome double standard. His exchanges with “MarkyMark” seem to be as follows:

        1) The Israeli blockade is racist because it targets a population that is overwhelmingly of a specific ethnic and religious group. No other factors matter. He believes that the blockade is wrong, and any justification is simply ground cover for racism. He also defines the blockade as a form of collective punishment, and sees such punishment as wrong.
        2) The only reason why someone could support the Israeli blockade is due to their own racism.

        On the other hand, Dawg supports various boycotts against Israel, even though they target a population that is overwhelmingly of a specific ethnic and religious group. I can’t imagine how things like banning professors from teaching in European or North American universities simply because of their nationality could be described as anything but collective punishment.

        The two initiatives are very similar in both intent and effect (although obviously the naval blockade has far, far greater implications for the Palestinian people than the various boycotts have on the Israelis). Why is one blatantly racist, and the other apparently benign? Because Dawg supports one and not the other.

        I’m sorry, but that’s the sort of willful blindness that is constantly on display at SDA, and nothing to be proud of.

        Again, I base this entirely on the linked discussion, as I’m not otherwise familiar with Dawg’s work.

        For the record, I’m generally sympathetic towards Israel, however my support is not blind, and there are clearly times when Israel is very, very wrong (certainly more so when the Rightist parties are in power). The country by no means deserves a free pass, however they are certainly not the villains in this piece and the constant attempts by people such as Dawg to portray them as such worry me.

        Criticism of Israel is both fair and necessary – treating them as the Great Pariah in a world full of rogue, criminal, nasty states is both worrisome and suspect.

        • Derek Pearce says:

          This is probably the best summation of the Israeli/Palestinian issue I have ever read. Wanting Israel to flourish and succeed as a true non-apartheid democracy is not the same thing as anti-Semitism.

        • Dr.Dawg says:

          Some actual links might be helpful here. I have just read this caricature of my position and am simply amazed. I didn’t take much part in the thread, as it happens, and don’t recall addressing Gaza at all, although I oppose the blockade for humanitarian reasons. Nor did I say a word about banning academics.

          It seems impossible to debate ME questions without this kind of intellectual dishonesty on the part of defenders of Israeli state policy. Is it too much to ask that straw men, like the settlements, cease to be built, and that words not be crammed into my mouth?

          Thank you.

          • The Other Jim says:

            Dr. Dawg – I certainly apologize if I have mixed up your statements with those of other commentators in the thread from your blog.

          • The Other Jim says:

            Having just gone back to Dr. Dawg’s blog, I can see that I have clearly intermingled his responses with those of another commentator (Steve C) in the thread. This was very sloppy on my part and, while it does not change my opinion of the overall debate that occurred in the comments section, it certainly undermines the point that I was trying to make.

            I am sorry for, and embarrassed by, this mistake.

  3. smelter rat says:

    You have to wonder what’s in the drinking water in Deslile Saskatchewan to create such a fear of the Muslim hoardes.

  4. Derek Pearce says:

    I have visted SDA maybe once in my life. I guess I’m naive, but I figure if she’s just ignored she’ll wither away and go silent. It’s good that people are willing to actively refute her but gawd life’s too short to pay attention to sad sad trolls like Kathy.

    • The Other Jim says:

      I have SDA in my newsfeed. I find many of the links that are shared make for interesting reads. I participated in the comments section a few times, and it is a bizarre echo chamber full of some pretty vile opinions.

  5. Dr.Dawg says:

    @The Other Jim

    No problem, this happens. I was too hasty in calling you dishonest, and I apologize.

    In the thread in question, I preferred to let various disputants hammer it out, for the most part. But I hope you would agree that none of the various commenters reached the level of hatred that I referenced at SDA.

  6. The Other Jim says:

    Thanks, Dawg.

    The discussion on your blog was certainly more civil than that on SDA and certainly didn’t include the outright slurs that so often crop up over there. Where the discussions were similar, though, was in the refusal to acknowledge that any good will or merit could possibly exist amongst those “on the other side”. “Steve C’s” comment that only a racist could support the blockade was a perfect example of such. I realize that the web thrives on instantly polarized opinions, but it drives me nuts when debate is knee-capped because people want/need to assume that those who hold a different opinion must be racist/crazy/stupid/corrupt/whatever instead of just discussing the merits/lack of merits of their stand. The newspaper comments sections are the worst for that sort of thing but, thankfully, WK’s blog is a wonderful exception in that regard.

    Anyway, thanks for being gracious about my goof. I’ll certainly check out more of your writing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*