This was in response to a number of things. My post was excerpted, to wit:
She says "yes, but..." to the condemnation of human suffering if the government responsible for such massive crimes just happens to be run by communist socialists rather than national socialists.
I should point out that my comments referred only this article, since I do not have the time to research and read what else a given writer might have put to paper in the last decade. In this article, Young inferred that Gibson had discounted the severity of the offense of Nazi Germany by daring to refer to the horrors of communist Russia in the same breath. My point was that she projected her own sentiments upon Gibson's, and in so doing invalidated her assertion. She implicitly discounts the severity of the offenses of communists, who inflicted far more evil upon the world and its citizens, than did Hitler, in order to paint Gibson with foul innuendo that cannot be sustained with fact.
I did not insult her: I asserted that, based upon the point of view of her article, one intimating much proving little, she must have an agenda to advance that she cannot sustain with facts. I concluded that she wished to suppress viewing of the movie. My pivotal conclusion, one derived from the apparent intellectual dishonesty displayed in crafting the article, was that she fears piety and Christian religious sentiment, or believe them to be impossible or dishonest. She implicitly doubts Gibson's piety by implying him to be insincere (the "yes, but" accusation). In that, I may have erred. On the other hand, Young may have erred in authoring an article charged with innuendo and potentially, with intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that she might be more careful in her condemnations, if she wishes to avoid criticism, in the future. I do not owe her an apology. That my comments were taken out of context - and called simple-minded as a result of that - might suggest that I am owed one.
By the by, I am still proud to be a Freeper, more than ever. Regards.
Another good post, thanks. I'm running out the door right now (see my previous post) but I'll respond to your post when I return, it deserves thoughtful consideration.
Fair enough.
In this article, Young inferred that Gibson had discounted the severity of the offense of Nazi Germany by daring to refer to the horrors of communist Russia in the same breath.
No, actually, she didn't. She pointed out that by giving the same sort of answer that Holocaust deniers use to discount the severity of the Holocaust, Gibson managed to raise more concerns about what his beliefs might be instead of soothing concerns, right when he had been given an engraved invitation to do so.
I expanded on this in the post I made right before this one, if you'd like to read it.
My point was that she projected her own sentiments upon Gibson's, and in so doing invalidated her assertion.
On what grounds do you claim to know "her own sentiments"?
She implicitly discounts the severity of the offenses of communists, who inflicted far more evil upon the world and its citizens, than did Hitler,
Okay, I'll bite -- exactly where do you think she did this?
On the contrary, she makes a point of pointing out the hypocrisy of people who *do* "discount the severity of the offenses of communists. Consider again the following passage from her essay:
The double standard applied to Nazi and communist crimes has long been a sore point among critics of the Western left, and it's a legitimate charge -- made, among others, by British writer Martin Amis in the 2002 book about Stalin's reign of terror, "Koba the Dread."This is a clear statement *condemning* a double standard, and *explicitly* stating that "the Soviet regime engaged in mass murder on a Nazi-like scale".Gulag revisionism is not stigmatized the way Holocaust revisionism is. Historian Robert Thurston's 1996 book, "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia," which argued that bad things happened but there was no systematic deliberate terror, was published by Yale University Press and received blurbs from respected scholars hailing it as "thought-provoking" and "original." Meanwhile, "The Black Book of Communism," a 1999 book documenting communism's bloody record, was widely criticized as sensationalist and biased.
So yes, there is a double standard because communism is seen as having "progressive" goals. And yes, the Soviet regime engaged in mass murder on a Nazi-like scale.
So again I ask, how do you manage to arrive at the conclusion that "her own sentiments" are somehow to "implicitly discount the severity of the offenses of communists"?
in order to paint Gibson with foul innuendo that cannot be sustained with fact.
Which "foul innuendo" would that be -- that he blew his chance to clear things up and managed to make it worse? Seems pretty unarguable to me.
I did not insult her: I asserted that, based upon the point of view of her article, one intimating much proving little, she must have an agenda to advance that she cannot sustain with facts.
Maybe you don't consider it an insult to falsely accuse someone of excusing mass murder when communists do it, but *I* would sure be insulted if you made such a false claim about me -- and I suspect you would to were you the subject of such a charge.
In fact, you present it *as* a condemnation of her, so why do you now say that it would be no insult?
I concluded that she wished to suppress viewing of the movie.
Based on...? This "conclusion" seems to have arrived out of the blue, even taking into account your misreading of her comments about the Soviet mass murders.
My pivotal conclusion, one derived from the apparent intellectual dishonesty displayed in crafting the article,
Would you care to revise that assessment after taking another look at what she *actually* wrote about the Soviet mass murders?
was that she fears piety and Christian religious sentiment, or believe them to be impossible or dishonest.
Yet another conclusion which appears to have been pulled out of a hat, instead of built upon a logical progression founded upon facts in evidence. Would you care to spell out the missing steps?
She implicitly doubts Gibson's piety by implying him to be insincere (the "yes, but" accusation).
No, she doubts Gibson's PR-savvy when he sticks his foot that far into his own mouth when he should have been staying on topic (topic: Attitudes towards Jews, not a global review of warfare over the past century.)
In that, I may have erred.
I suggest that you have.
On the other hand, Young may have erred in authoring an article charged with innuendo and potentially, with intellectual dishonesty.
Or you may have misread it.
I suggest that she might be more careful in her condemnations, if she wishes to avoid criticism, in the future. I do not owe her an apology.
Not even for accusing her of excusing murders by communists, when she explicitly condemned the double standard by which some on the left do so?
That my comments were taken out of context - and called simple-minded as a result of that - might suggest that I am owed one.
I think I'll stand by that assessment unless you can salvage your argument.
By the by, I am still proud to be a Freeper, more than ever.
I'm glad to hear that, as am I most of the time.
Regards.
And to you.