Re: [Pen-l] A velvet revolution in Iran?

[ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 28, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:27 PM, ravi wrote:
>
> > Over on lbo-talk, dismissing an argument using the term "anti- 
> > imperialist" in an ill-reasoned pejorative way has come to pass for  
> > serious debate (a luxury of those who have lived on the right side  
> > of imperialism, I guess)
>
> Bullshit. Could you provide a quote or two to back up this  
> preposterous assertion?



Ping me tomorrow if I forget (I just set myself a reminder as well).  
If you wish to search the archives: I think Shane had some fancy bits  
about shibboleths and so on. Essentially, arguments that attribute  
anti-imperialist pretensions or such to anyone doubting the doubters  
is a weak rhetorical move. This is not a new point I have raised. In  
general, I tend to believe that within the community (as opposed to  
against the common enemy, against whom almost all tactics are  
justified) arguments based on divining the ulterior thoughts, motives,  
sentiments and so on of the opponent are fundamentally an admission of  
inability to offer a substantive and logical rejoinder. Michael Pollak  
(on the same list) shows how it really should be done.

Me, I am sensitive to people dissing anti-imperialism in any manner.  
Hence the paranthetical comment.

	--ravi


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l