naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28900 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
They were launched into densely populated urban areas at 2am when families were sleeping at home, which suggests that those who planned and authorized the attacks anticipated – and likely disregarded – the disproportionate harm to civilians. Intentionally launching disproportionate attacks, a pattern Amnesty International has documented in previous Israeli operations, is a war crime.
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Not all people, not all civilizations, not all tribes, are equal. This is a core conservative conceit, it’s also inherent to ideas like HBD that you yourself agree with. Human progress has always involved the conquest of some peoples by others.
“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here.' They had not the right, nor had they the power.”
Winston Churchill on Palestine (1937)
‘Punching down’, in other words, may be more moral than ‘punching up’. The many settlers of the Americas did what they did and so, perhaps, will the Israelis.
I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it.
This is, of course, a justification that one day may be used against peoples less backward than Palestinians. «You are animals in comparison, so we do not admit any wrong in dispossessing you».
It must be nice to belong to the highest average IQ population on the planet. Whatever ideology wins, your side comes out on top.
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Not a very Christian perspective of Churchill, and not one I agree with, but he's not just saying that there's a hierarchy of races, and if you're lower you have no moral claim against your betters.
Yes, he's not a scrub loser to appeal to some predefined theoretically just table of ranks. He is saying instead that this hierarchy is established in a contest of strength; that might makes right through its very utilization. It's an explicitly Hitlerist argument, ironically enough – except it doesn't presuppose proven superiority of Aryans. But this does explain, to some extent, why Hitler believed in such tender kinship with Anglo-Saxons.
(fuckduck9000 would say that this he is exactly correct, as demonstrated by German loss and British victory).
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Yes. That reply is fundamentally repugnant. Bullets, bombs and other horrors exist to punish such foolishness.
A great and glorious thing it is
To learn, for seven years or so,
The Lord knows what of that and this,
Ere reckoned fit to face the foe —
The flying bullet down the Pass,
That whistles clear: "All flesh is grass."
Three hundred pounds per annum spent
On making brain and body meeter
For all the murderous intent
Comprised in "villanous saltpetre!"
And after — ask the Yusufzaies
What comes of all our 'ologies.
A scrimmage in a Border Station —
A canter down some dark defile —
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail —
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow
Strike hard who cares — shoot straight who can —
The odds are on the cheaper man.
One sword-knot stolen from the camp
Will pay for all the school expenses
Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
Who knows no word of moods and tenses,
But, being blessed with perfect sight,
Picks off our messmates left and right.
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troop-ships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap — alas! as we are dear.
I agree with rafa. I keep telling you Might Morality and Truth are correlated. As are Weakness, Ignorance and Evil. Parent to child, elder to younger sibling, civilised to barbarian, the stronger is often the wiser.
It’s a strange equivalence op is trying to draw. The more obvious one is that with israeli capabilities , hamas would have killed far more jews in a day than jews ever killed palestinians. palestinians owe their lives to jewish clemency, yet are incapable of it. They are ignorant of their own weakness, and morally childish, which is to say, incompetent and cruel .
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Despite the triteness of this platitude, correlation really does not imply causation. There are some tenuous reasons for morality to be weakly correlated with formidability, but overwhelmingly it's just due to the fact that peoples of Western Christian extraction are the strongest, have been for centuries, and have recently developed some queer compunctions. Well, this particular mix of character traits isn't globally optimal, and their exalted status isn't going to last much longer. Technologically advanced Chinese, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Mongols, Africans, whatever, wherever (including in your nations, including in their halls of power) will be as ruthless as they need to, and increasingly prove this as your race decays; first they'll bother with some glib chattering, then they'll stop. You are used to mercy and magnanimity tempering realpolitik. You'll cope about power being self-justifying, inherently beautiful and ultimately more True than any morality when those shackles are cast away.
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Already happened. And my nazi grandfathers had to witness the full extent of their moral, racial, military and epistemologic inferiority. They fought till destruction because they really believed in the correlation, far more than I do. In a way it vindicated the theory while it destroyed them and their particular beliefs.
When you’re living in your bombed-out capital, your conscience sullied, your army destroyed, your reputation infamous, the universe is trying to tell you something. You can immediately exclude the hypothesis of having done anything right, and of your own superiority.
I don't think realpolitik will triumph if the west falls - people have always resisted the athenians, even when it was hopeless - witness the realists anger at Ukraine. If china dominates, they'll just make their own rules russia and the others will have to obey, and the russians will still be grumbling about 'universalism' .
Not necessarily. If Hamas had Israeli capabilities, they would have different incentives than they currently do. It's possible that they would decide "yeah let's kill as many Jews as we can", but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
Perhaps all these shall happen...but not before the end of the world
Given the comments here and elsewhere, I very much doubt any sincerity when it comes to the alleged 'clemency' on Israels part. Apparently, the only reason jews in Israel have not ethnically cleansed, genocided, holocausted or otherwise brutalized their enemy is because it's a bad tactic at the moment. Because, I would suppose from your comment, there are stronger, morally wiser, more competent and actually merciful people out there that prevent the childish and inane racist power fantasies of hateful zionist jews to come to light.
This is a real mask off moment. Zionists wish suffering and death on women and children. They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs. Everything they allege a nazi was they wish they could be.
They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs.
Most of your comment falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think, but this line in particular seems like standard-issue hyperbolic propaganda. Like, show me one instance where this looks literally true, a single instance of Israel selecting "the most torturous way possible" to kill "1000 innocents" for any reason at all, much less to "save a single one of theirs."
This is (apparently!) a hotly contested issue, so I was feeling mildly reluctant to moderate you in spite of the overall badness of the comment, but that sentence in particular just struck me as entirely too much heat, directed toward your outgroup, for what looks like no light at all.
Evil is usually a bad tactic. The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort. I wish they'd understood how bad genocide is tactically. They could have achieved more objectives for less blood.
Anyway, who's mask off? rafa is always for culling the young male population anywhere, anytime.
I don't recognize the claims of the indians or palestinians , and I don't even need to call them savages, - all they have are earlier claims of conquest that have been nullified by more recent ones.
The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort.
This is a common idea, but actually the Holocaust barely affected the German war effort. The whole thing used only a very small fraction of the German manpower and logistics capacity, required no rare materials, and may have even paid for itself by providing slave labor.
What do you call a very small fraction? Seems to me large parts of the military were involved in it, or otherwise 'pacifying' to allow the einsatzgruppen to do their work. All of this wouldn't even be necessary if they just played the kind liberators against soviet oppression.
But that's not even the worst waste: Without the antisemitic obsession , jews would be the usual highly productive workforce, like in WWI, and perhaps they could build an atomic bomb for germany, or find another Haber-Bosch, or Fischer-Tropf process. Slave labor benefits, or the value of their gold teeth, are a joke by comparison.
Sorry for the really late reply but yes, I think that you are right that the overall Nazi anti-Jew campaign probably slowed their war effort by, for example, driving a bunch of scientists out of the country. When I wrote my reply, I thought that you were referring specifically to the wartime Holocaust that started around 1941.
That is the only real justification that matters. I have (as I have said many times) great sympathy for the Palestinians; their armed struggle is justified on grounds of self defense and historical humiliation. Their war crimes are brutal, but expected. If they fight to the end, they’ll die with honor, at least by their own standards (the only ones that matter, in that case).
I think if you take a civilizational view, there ought to be some kind of respect for national achievement. But the thing about war is that if you lose, you probably weren’t really as good as you thought. If Israel is defeated, the Jewish political project will be over, and they can be considered a defeated people who wasted their opportunity for statehood, at least for now. A tragedy, perhaps, but one of many in history. So it does go both ways.
Yes "a tragedy perhaps" but one that can be forgoten and bypassed. Promoted by someone like you who are milking grudges constantly. The point here you are promoting is that the defeat of Palestinians which is more likely now can be forgoten. Not about Israel.
If you really cared about forgetting tragedies, you wouldn't be milking the holocaust.
The issue here is that incredibly immoral sociopathic Jewish supremacists and other bad actors are free to destroy as they please instead of being restrained through accountability. Like, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for hate speech, it aint most people you whine about whose rhetoric counters your extremism and therefore promote a valuable service to society even if some can go too far, but the cimarafas of the world are the primary faction of the most malevolent abuse of rights today.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
I don't remember having ever seen 2rafa try to milk the Holocaust. Maybe she has, somewhere, but I'm at least pretty sure I would have noticed by now if she did it on a regular basis.
I have the sense that you might be projecting your mental concept of what Jewish supremacists are like onto everyone who agrees even partially with things that you consider to be Jewish supremacy adjacent, even if those people do not actually express the ideas that you think they are expressing.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
Well no, it's no accident because the mods here ding people for personal attacks, and rafa didn't attack anyone. Besides which, a motte where she can't say what she thinks is a worse motte. It is because I am rational that I allow her shitty argument - so I can argue against it - just as much as it is because of her rationality that she allows my shitty arguments - so she can argue against them.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
Belisarius 7mo ago
You have a bunch of comments in the mod queue. Most of them, like this one, this one, and this one, are just raging ad hominems.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators.
If @2rafa was advocating literal genocide (which I'm pretty sure she's not), people are allowed to argue for abominable things here. That's why going on about how much you hate Jews hasn't gotten you into trouble until now, when you lost your self control and made it personal.
You're being really obnoxious and antagonistic and clearly cruising for a banning. Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
Banned for a week because this is your first formal mod action, but if you come back for another round of "Flame people before I get banned" I'll just delete your posts and permaban you. If you actually want to continue to participate here, get yourself under control.
Since you are making a moral arguement condemning me as hateful and defending cimarafa it is fair to ask what cimerafa advocates if it isn't genocide.
It isn't hard to connect the quote from Churchil. Or this quote by cimarafa
The most important thing for Israel is that it moves toward firing squads and summary execution of perhaps 10,000-30,000 fighting age men in Gaza, as well as the entire political leadership, mercilessly but quickly and professionally. But then again, I’m a Zionist.
along with other rhetoric from them and various people here. Bloodthirsty rhetoric is abominable but opposing it and calling for restraint is correct.
And in fact, it is the pervasive view worldwide, was more popular in the USA in the past to an extend. In addition with a decent size of negativity towards Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians but without such negativity leading to the same dehumanization against Israelis than we see against Palestinians. Well except some quarters of the world. And of course, you will find in much of the world plenty of negativity towards Hamas. Anyway, negativity up to a point is a moderating pressure on those who would behave badly without it. But it does require a certain objectivity by those who throw it around.
You attack me of being hateful and I will be defending myself but it is those who have allowed the dehumanization of convenient targets and the advocation of atrocities under racist supremacist ideology while being ban happy to dissenters have genuinely been reprehensible.
And in relevance to the Israel and Gaza conflict, in fact it is precisely because of such decisions by people in control of media and social media that so much blood has been spilled in the middle east for the last 20 years.
Also directly related to the culture war reaching the extreme directions it reached. If there were more responsible and ethical and even handed people in charge, and gatekept out unethical virtue signaling extremists, a lot less blood would have been spilled.
Alas the gatekeeping has been done by the extremists with a manichaistic vision of the world who combine being extreme racists who with the pretensions of being antiracists out to destroy hatred. In fact they hate those who are much more moderate than them and perceive that moderation as hatred.
One that is less hostile on groups than the rhetoric against "inferior peoples". Or is it ok for people to advocate against palestnians and not ok to advocate against people who have influence in media, and social media and forums? Well the later is more in line to being against hatred than for it.
This is not a forum nor has ever been a forum where any political rhetoric goes but one where the moderators have always put a thump on the scales. And while I will be responding in a calmer manner, I will never censor the view that is completely against this ideology I speak about. Plus, it matters what opinion people of influence express. Even in lower importance settings with low inluence. And what views do you express? Well, you have ignored all this bloodthirsty rhetoric even some you linked and more besides and other and you only saw fit to imagine hatred against Jews fitting to comment about. When in a conflict when radicalism in favor of Jews that uses the ideology of Jewish superiority and Jews doing no wrong as an asset, negativity is the necessary antidote.
Even though the actual extreme racist rhetoric and advocation for murder here was obviously not against Jews but Palestinians and other groups deemed inferior by the people promoting said rhetoric.
Personally attacking me as hating the Jews when in response to all of this my view was that Jews have a serious problem of racism is you abusing your position as a moderator to personally attack your outgroup based on your sympathies.
It is actually impressive how with so much provocation my rhetoric towards groups like the Jews was restrained to only condemn pervasive racism as a problem and also outside of Jews in general being critical of those advocating of atrocities without myself siding with those who have abused Jews, like Hamas.
I am actually proud of how even handed my views are in comparison with who I am dealing with and the fact I did push back on their hateful rhetoric that promotes atrocities.
But sure, I will stand for the truth with less personal criticisms against the people who advocate for atrocities here.
Now in regards to the issue of who is the hateful in the current political environment.
The reality is that if virtue signalling racist extremists of the politically correct manner where to deradicalize, stopped their propaganda and moderate and listen to the many reasonable criticisms instead of slandering it all as hatred, the world would be a less racist, and hateful place. The people who are reasonable are never going to be perfect to the standards of extremists who see criticism and negativity towards their ingroup as a sin.
This of course applies also to Israel and Gaza conflict and zionism in general. And yes it does applies to groups like Hamas as well.
Plus, human beings are always going to be emotional beings even those who are reasonable enough to qualify as reasonable people. And for the unreasonable filled with fanaticism to lose, the reasonable need to match them in determination and will.
Less provocative racism which we shouldn't appease to, will lead to less proportionate hostility. And will reduce conflict being inflamed. But this would require to have people in positions of power who put their influence to good use for once and gatekeep those who don't. This is me making an observation about the culture war, certainly less flaming the outgroup than the people calling for commiting attrocities, or inferior peoples deserving it. And pertinent to your condemnation of me as hateful. Which is dangerous rhetoric from you considering the willingness of people to harm those perceived as hateful on the Jews.
Pressure in these directions is necessary for less hatred.
I am very much willing to accept the groups I complain about moderating, and have no problem with consistent standards but it would make me happy and consider it a victory for my position. I reject your framing. If those I call progressive supremacists or Jewish supremacists (which excludes Jews who aren't Jewish supremacists and includes non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who I have been quite negative about) abadoning their ideology and accepting that their rights ends where others begins, and vice versa, that their rights also exist, is a great general compromising point. In Israel it would along with far more restraint in dealing with Palestinians (although opposing Hamas is in line with protecting their own rights) and acceptance of how warcrimes of past, present and future are a sin also include of course ending settlements. And I would rather that the racist ideology of Jews did no wrong, Christians and Europeans or non Jews are to blame for interethnic conflict to be abadoned and not tolerated, but without pushing the opposite extreme.
Obviously this position is more moderate and pro Israeli and Jews , than the people I have been arguing with are pro Palestinian. And more pro Jewish than those promoting the Jews didn't do or are doing wrong position. But what makes you angry?
Less "It isn't happening its all in your hateful conspiring head and it is good that it is happening". More "I aknowledge that we or the progressive stack group might have erred in this manner and this isn't how things ought to go and here is how things should change, but lets be fair about it and not go to the other extreme".
Of course, not only many of their critics are reasonable people who are opposing the most pervasive extremism in our time but also even those who are similarly extreme which I am also not a fan of, can in fact make legitimate points too. Indeed, even with the people I complain about, I wouldn't say they are wrong to note that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting it are radicalized too. Which I funnily enough, got zero pushback in observing that fact. It's because people willing to advocate aggressively in favor of Palestinians mistreating Jews are rare here over the opposite.
As far as the more pervasive extremism of the day in western countries, this applies to both racist tribalists for their own groups in line with progressive stack groups and we observe the groups where it is taboo to object to their racism, but not taboo for them to be racist to naturally behave the worse. This is not going to lead to reasonable people objecting being zen monks, and rightfully so.
If it is taboo and racist to oppose the racism of Jews but not taboo for Jews or even non Jews to be racists in favor of Jews, then you got a problem of racism in favor of Jews. Naturally you will get much more of what you incentivize.
Not that complicated and not that hard for people to have a more even handed norm than that, in line with the golden rule. Not hard if people want to do that and much easier if they are incentivized to do that and we put might in service of right instead of defining what is right by might.
And it applies also to the phenomenon I have spent some time talking about which is racist supremacists for a different ethnic group. Note, that I got only a problem with any sort of tribalists for any group if it is above a certain point. It is reasonable for people to like their group. Even handedness is about avoiding certain massive bad behavior, about putting red lines respected reciprocally. It isn't about eliminating racism in an utopian manner that predictably leads to people forgiving the massive and obsessing over the irrelevant.
Not tolerating big problems does include not tolerating the view that inferior peoples should be destroyed.
And it isn't a personal attack but simply a fact that various posters here promote said racist supremacist rhetoric. Completely fair in discussing the culture war to note this fact and acknowledge it as a negative development. How is that radicalized rhetoric not provocative and attention worthy but only the response to it?
Personally I find that it isn't virtuous, or praiseworthy to be silent in line with the more pervasive racist extremism. Nor is it courageous to condemn and punch down on the politically correct targets.
And it is also fair to see the rhetoric in line of mass murder, or carpet bombing the area and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as genocide.
Is there a room in opposition to this ideology and rhetoric? Or are you going to cover with it as a moderator because you sympathize with that faction and paint opposition as hateful? Will you use the position as moderator to impose your perspective?
If you can paint me as hateful, and call this fair, I can only fairly completely reject this framing and say just as fairly as your statement that I stand against hatred you sympathize with, so that is what I advocated here for. So I explain my position over the easy slander.
And I have important reason to do so, because you can get away with your sympathies in the current political environment, for now. While those who are rather more reasonable than you can find themselves mistreated. And you know it. Of course things can change and change in a reasonable direction than the opposite extreme.
Obviously, when we got rather extreme rhetoric against general outgroups here and people promoting extreme rhetoric of their ingroups doing no wrong, others should respond.
Still, in a calmer manner, so there is less of an excuse. So I will change the way I express my values, I won't compromise on being critical of what I ought to be criticizing.
By the way, I don't see the point of you deleting my few posts when you attack me. Isn't this a way for you to paint me in any manner as you please?
Criticism that opposes bloodthirsty fanaticism in fact it is incredibly important to do so and censoring it is feeding a dangerous crocodile. And lack of it has lead to repeated tragedies, while those doing so might be arrogant and contemptuous of those wiser, not knowing what they are doing, when they create interesting times they too will be affected.
As for the general problem of hatred of our times. Those who need to change their ways and behave in a an ethical manner, to avoid their gigantic bias and to stop advocating for attrocities, won't do it when those who are in charge also share their ideology and participate, or enable it. When pushback doesn't exist and in fact it is opposed. So, the key issue here and is to gatekeep better and have ethical people be those in charge who are intolerant of this kind of behavior.
I will consider it a success against hatred if the rhetoric of those who can't coexist with other ethnic groups and don't tolerate their continued existence and are greedy to dominate others are drowned out by those opposing it. Therefore those who would support destroying and oppressing the other ethnic groups stay silent, or actually through incentives never arrive in positions that they are more psychologically susceptible to fall into.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
Amadan 7mo ago
Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
There's also the possibility of just reading through a thread and responding to everything that drew his ire as he read it.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Not all people, not all civilizations, not all tribes, are equal. This is a core conservative conceit, it’s also inherent to ideas like HBD that you yourself agree with. Human progress has always involved the conquest of some peoples by others.
‘Punching down’, in other words, may be more moral than ‘punching up’. The many settlers of the Americas did what they did and so, perhaps, will the Israelis.
This is, of course, a justification that one day may be used against peoples less backward than Palestinians. «You are animals in comparison, so we do not admit any wrong in dispossessing you».
It must be nice to belong to the highest average IQ population on the planet. Whatever ideology wins, your side comes out on top.
Eh, I think the use of the word "race" in that quote misleads a bit. All Churchill is really getting across is the old reply to Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Not a very Christian perspective of Churchill, and not one I agree with, but he's not just saying that there's a hierarchy of races, and if you're lower you have no moral claim against your betters.
Yes, he's not a scrub loser to appeal to some predefined theoretically just table of ranks. He is saying instead that this hierarchy is established in a contest of strength; that might makes right through its very utilization. It's an explicitly Hitlerist argument, ironically enough – except it doesn't presuppose proven superiority of Aryans. But this does explain, to some extent, why Hitler believed in such tender kinship with Anglo-Saxons.
(fuckduck9000 would say that this he is exactly correct, as demonstrated by German loss and British victory).
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. That reply is fundamentally repugnant. Bullets, bombs and other horrors exist to punish such foolishness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with rafa. I keep telling you Might Morality and Truth are correlated. As are Weakness, Ignorance and Evil. Parent to child, elder to younger sibling, civilised to barbarian, the stronger is often the wiser.
It’s a strange equivalence op is trying to draw. The more obvious one is that with israeli capabilities , hamas would have killed far more jews in a day than jews ever killed palestinians. palestinians owe their lives to jewish clemency, yet are incapable of it. They are ignorant of their own weakness, and morally childish, which is to say, incompetent and cruel .
I'd gladly witness your culling by a militarily superior race in its quest for Lebensraum, so long as it's explicitly justified with this inane correlational logic.
Despite the triteness of this platitude, correlation really does not imply causation. There are some tenuous reasons for morality to be weakly correlated with formidability, but overwhelmingly it's just due to the fact that peoples of Western Christian extraction are the strongest, have been for centuries, and have recently developed some queer compunctions. Well, this particular mix of character traits isn't globally optimal, and their exalted status isn't going to last much longer. Technologically advanced Chinese, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Mongols, Africans, whatever, wherever (including in your nations, including in their halls of power) will be as ruthless as they need to, and increasingly prove this as your race decays; first they'll bother with some glib chattering, then they'll stop. You are used to mercy and magnanimity tempering realpolitik. You'll cope about power being self-justifying, inherently beautiful and ultimately more True than any morality when those shackles are cast away.
Already happened. And my nazi grandfathers had to witness the full extent of their moral, racial, military and epistemologic inferiority. They fought till destruction because they really believed in the correlation, far more than I do. In a way it vindicated the theory while it destroyed them and their particular beliefs.
When you’re living in your bombed-out capital, your conscience sullied, your army destroyed, your reputation infamous, the universe is trying to tell you something. You can immediately exclude the hypothesis of having done anything right, and of your own superiority.
I don't think realpolitik will triumph if the west falls - people have always resisted the athenians, even when it was hopeless - witness the realists anger at Ukraine. If china dominates, they'll just make their own rules russia and the others will have to obey, and the russians will still be grumbling about 'universalism' .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not necessarily. If Hamas had Israeli capabilities, they would have different incentives than they currently do. It's possible that they would decide "yeah let's kill as many Jews as we can", but it's also possible that they would decide "you know what, given that the Jews aren't actually an existential threat to us, maybe we should chill out instead of turning most of the world against us by massacring people".
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
Perhaps all these shall happen...but not before the end of the world
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given the comments here and elsewhere, I very much doubt any sincerity when it comes to the alleged 'clemency' on Israels part. Apparently, the only reason jews in Israel have not ethnically cleansed, genocided, holocausted or otherwise brutalized their enemy is because it's a bad tactic at the moment. Because, I would suppose from your comment, there are stronger, morally wiser, more competent and actually merciful people out there that prevent the childish and inane racist power fantasies of hateful zionist jews to come to light.
This is a real mask off moment. Zionists wish suffering and death on women and children. They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs. Everything they allege a nazi was they wish they could be.
Most of your comment falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think, but this line in particular seems like standard-issue hyperbolic propaganda. Like, show me one instance where this looks literally true, a single instance of Israel selecting "the most torturous way possible" to kill "1000 innocents" for any reason at all, much less to "save a single one of theirs."
This is (apparently!) a hotly contested issue, so I was feeling mildly reluctant to moderate you in spite of the overall badness of the comment, but that sentence in particular just struck me as entirely too much heat, directed toward your outgroup, for what looks like no light at all.
More options
Context Copy link
Evil is usually a bad tactic. The holocaust really slowed down the german war effort. I wish they'd understood how bad genocide is tactically. They could have achieved more objectives for less blood.
Anyway, who's mask off? rafa is always for culling the young male population anywhere, anytime.
I don't recognize the claims of the indians or palestinians , and I don't even need to call them savages, - all they have are earlier claims of conquest that have been nullified by more recent ones.
This is a common idea, but actually the Holocaust barely affected the German war effort. The whole thing used only a very small fraction of the German manpower and logistics capacity, required no rare materials, and may have even paid for itself by providing slave labor.
What do you call a very small fraction? Seems to me large parts of the military were involved in it, or otherwise 'pacifying' to allow the einsatzgruppen to do their work. All of this wouldn't even be necessary if they just played the kind liberators against soviet oppression.
But that's not even the worst waste: Without the antisemitic obsession , jews would be the usual highly productive workforce, like in WWI, and perhaps they could build an atomic bomb for germany, or find another Haber-Bosch, or Fischer-Tropf process. Slave labor benefits, or the value of their gold teeth, are a joke by comparison.
Sorry for the really late reply but yes, I think that you are right that the overall Nazi anti-Jew campaign probably slowed their war effort by, for example, driving a bunch of scientists out of the country. When I wrote my reply, I thought that you were referring specifically to the wartime Holocaust that started around 1941.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is the only real justification that matters. I have (as I have said many times) great sympathy for the Palestinians; their armed struggle is justified on grounds of self defense and historical humiliation. Their war crimes are brutal, but expected. If they fight to the end, they’ll die with honor, at least by their own standards (the only ones that matter, in that case).
I think if you take a civilizational view, there ought to be some kind of respect for national achievement. But the thing about war is that if you lose, you probably weren’t really as good as you thought. If Israel is defeated, the Jewish political project will be over, and they can be considered a defeated people who wasted their opportunity for statehood, at least for now. A tragedy, perhaps, but one of many in history. So it does go both ways.
Yes "a tragedy perhaps" but one that can be forgoten and bypassed. Promoted by someone like you who are milking grudges constantly. The point here you are promoting is that the defeat of Palestinians which is more likely now can be forgoten. Not about Israel.
If you really cared about forgetting tragedies, you wouldn't be milking the holocaust.
The issue here is that incredibly immoral sociopathic Jewish supremacists and other bad actors are free to destroy as they please instead of being restrained through accountability. Like, if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for hate speech, it aint most people you whine about whose rhetoric counters your extremism and therefore promote a valuable service to society even if some can go too far, but the cimarafas of the world are the primary faction of the most malevolent abuse of rights today.
It is no accident that all your genocidal racist supremacist rhetoric and even advocating actual warcrimes has not gotten you in trouble by the moderators. Birds of a feather and reveals the fake nature of rationalism which underneath lies hypocritical extreme tribalism. Like the other israel firster and backers of the racist supremacist democrats the fraudster Sam Bankman Fried.
I don't remember having ever seen 2rafa try to milk the Holocaust. Maybe she has, somewhere, but I'm at least pretty sure I would have noticed by now if she did it on a regular basis.
I have the sense that you might be projecting your mental concept of what Jewish supremacists are like onto everyone who agrees even partially with things that you consider to be Jewish supremacy adjacent, even if those people do not actually express the ideas that you think they are expressing.
More options
Context Copy link
Well no, it's no accident because the mods here ding people for personal attacks, and rafa didn't attack anyone. Besides which, a motte where she can't say what she thinks is a worse motte. It is because I am rational that I allow her shitty argument - so I can argue against it - just as much as it is because of her rationality that she allows my shitty arguments - so she can argue against them.
More options
Context Copy link
You have a bunch of comments in the mod queue. Most of them, like this one, this one, and this one, are just raging ad hominems.
If @2rafa was advocating literal genocide (which I'm pretty sure she's not), people are allowed to argue for abominable things here. That's why going on about how much you hate Jews hasn't gotten you into trouble until now, when you lost your self control and made it personal.
You're being really obnoxious and antagonistic and clearly cruising for a banning. Since you posted so many comments like this in such a short time, I'm guessing you knew you'd get modded and figured you'd get your attacks in while you can.
Banned for a week because this is your first formal mod action, but if you come back for another round of "Flame people before I get banned" I'll just delete your posts and permaban you. If you actually want to continue to participate here, get yourself under control.
Since you are making a moral arguement condemning me as hateful and defending cimarafa it is fair to ask what cimerafa advocates if it isn't genocide.
It isn't hard to connect the quote from Churchil. Or this quote by cimarafa
https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/145883?context=8#context
along with other rhetoric from them and various people here. Bloodthirsty rhetoric is abominable but opposing it and calling for restraint is correct.
And in fact, it is the pervasive view worldwide, was more popular in the USA in the past to an extend. In addition with a decent size of negativity towards Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians but without such negativity leading to the same dehumanization against Israelis than we see against Palestinians. Well except some quarters of the world. And of course, you will find in much of the world plenty of negativity towards Hamas. Anyway, negativity up to a point is a moderating pressure on those who would behave badly without it. But it does require a certain objectivity by those who throw it around.
You attack me of being hateful and I will be defending myself but it is those who have allowed the dehumanization of convenient targets and the advocation of atrocities under racist supremacist ideology while being ban happy to dissenters have genuinely been reprehensible.
And in relevance to the Israel and Gaza conflict, in fact it is precisely because of such decisions by people in control of media and social media that so much blood has been spilled in the middle east for the last 20 years.
Also directly related to the culture war reaching the extreme directions it reached. If there were more responsible and ethical and even handed people in charge, and gatekept out unethical virtue signaling extremists, a lot less blood would have been spilled.
Alas the gatekeeping has been done by the extremists with a manichaistic vision of the world who combine being extreme racists who with the pretensions of being antiracists out to destroy hatred. In fact they hate those who are much more moderate than them and perceive that moderation as hatred.
One that is less hostile on groups than the rhetoric against "inferior peoples". Or is it ok for people to advocate against palestnians and not ok to advocate against people who have influence in media, and social media and forums? Well the later is more in line to being against hatred than for it.
This is not a forum nor has ever been a forum where any political rhetoric goes but one where the moderators have always put a thump on the scales. And while I will be responding in a calmer manner, I will never censor the view that is completely against this ideology I speak about. Plus, it matters what opinion people of influence express. Even in lower importance settings with low inluence. And what views do you express? Well, you have ignored all this bloodthirsty rhetoric even some you linked and more besides and other and you only saw fit to imagine hatred against Jews fitting to comment about. When in a conflict when radicalism in favor of Jews that uses the ideology of Jewish superiority and Jews doing no wrong as an asset, negativity is the necessary antidote.
Even though the actual extreme racist rhetoric and advocation for murder here was obviously not against Jews but Palestinians and other groups deemed inferior by the people promoting said rhetoric.
Personally attacking me as hating the Jews when in response to all of this my view was that Jews have a serious problem of racism is you abusing your position as a moderator to personally attack your outgroup based on your sympathies.
It is actually impressive how with so much provocation my rhetoric towards groups like the Jews was restrained to only condemn pervasive racism as a problem and also outside of Jews in general being critical of those advocating of atrocities without myself siding with those who have abused Jews, like Hamas.
I am actually proud of how even handed my views are in comparison with who I am dealing with and the fact I did push back on their hateful rhetoric that promotes atrocities.
But sure, I will stand for the truth with less personal criticisms against the people who advocate for atrocities here.
Now in regards to the issue of who is the hateful in the current political environment.
The reality is that if virtue signalling racist extremists of the politically correct manner where to deradicalize, stopped their propaganda and moderate and listen to the many reasonable criticisms instead of slandering it all as hatred, the world would be a less racist, and hateful place. The people who are reasonable are never going to be perfect to the standards of extremists who see criticism and negativity towards their ingroup as a sin.
This of course applies also to Israel and Gaza conflict and zionism in general. And yes it does applies to groups like Hamas as well.
Plus, human beings are always going to be emotional beings even those who are reasonable enough to qualify as reasonable people. And for the unreasonable filled with fanaticism to lose, the reasonable need to match them in determination and will.
Less provocative racism which we shouldn't appease to, will lead to less proportionate hostility. And will reduce conflict being inflamed. But this would require to have people in positions of power who put their influence to good use for once and gatekeep those who don't. This is me making an observation about the culture war, certainly less flaming the outgroup than the people calling for commiting attrocities, or inferior peoples deserving it. And pertinent to your condemnation of me as hateful. Which is dangerous rhetoric from you considering the willingness of people to harm those perceived as hateful on the Jews.
Pressure in these directions is necessary for less hatred.
I am very much willing to accept the groups I complain about moderating, and have no problem with consistent standards but it would make me happy and consider it a victory for my position. I reject your framing. If those I call progressive supremacists or Jewish supremacists (which excludes Jews who aren't Jewish supremacists and includes non Jews who are Jewish supremacists who I have been quite negative about) abadoning their ideology and accepting that their rights ends where others begins, and vice versa, that their rights also exist, is a great general compromising point. In Israel it would along with far more restraint in dealing with Palestinians (although opposing Hamas is in line with protecting their own rights) and acceptance of how warcrimes of past, present and future are a sin also include of course ending settlements. And I would rather that the racist ideology of Jews did no wrong, Christians and Europeans or non Jews are to blame for interethnic conflict to be abadoned and not tolerated, but without pushing the opposite extreme.
Obviously this position is more moderate and pro Israeli and Jews , than the people I have been arguing with are pro Palestinian. And more pro Jewish than those promoting the Jews didn't do or are doing wrong position. But what makes you angry?
Less "It isn't happening its all in your hateful conspiring head and it is good that it is happening". More "I aknowledge that we or the progressive stack group might have erred in this manner and this isn't how things ought to go and here is how things should change, but lets be fair about it and not go to the other extreme".
Of course, not only many of their critics are reasonable people who are opposing the most pervasive extremism in our time but also even those who are similarly extreme which I am also not a fan of, can in fact make legitimate points too. Indeed, even with the people I complain about, I wouldn't say they are wrong to note that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting it are radicalized too. Which I funnily enough, got zero pushback in observing that fact. It's because people willing to advocate aggressively in favor of Palestinians mistreating Jews are rare here over the opposite.
As far as the more pervasive extremism of the day in western countries, this applies to both racist tribalists for their own groups in line with progressive stack groups and we observe the groups where it is taboo to object to their racism, but not taboo for them to be racist to naturally behave the worse. This is not going to lead to reasonable people objecting being zen monks, and rightfully so.
If it is taboo and racist to oppose the racism of Jews but not taboo for Jews or even non Jews to be racists in favor of Jews, then you got a problem of racism in favor of Jews. Naturally you will get much more of what you incentivize.
Not that complicated and not that hard for people to have a more even handed norm than that, in line with the golden rule. Not hard if people want to do that and much easier if they are incentivized to do that and we put might in service of right instead of defining what is right by might.
And it applies also to the phenomenon I have spent some time talking about which is racist supremacists for a different ethnic group. Note, that I got only a problem with any sort of tribalists for any group if it is above a certain point. It is reasonable for people to like their group. Even handedness is about avoiding certain massive bad behavior, about putting red lines respected reciprocally. It isn't about eliminating racism in an utopian manner that predictably leads to people forgiving the massive and obsessing over the irrelevant.
Not tolerating big problems does include not tolerating the view that inferior peoples should be destroyed.
And it isn't a personal attack but simply a fact that various posters here promote said racist supremacist rhetoric. Completely fair in discussing the culture war to note this fact and acknowledge it as a negative development. How is that radicalized rhetoric not provocative and attention worthy but only the response to it?
Personally I find that it isn't virtuous, or praiseworthy to be silent in line with the more pervasive racist extremism. Nor is it courageous to condemn and punch down on the politically correct targets.
And it is also fair to see the rhetoric in line of mass murder, or carpet bombing the area and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as genocide.
Is there a room in opposition to this ideology and rhetoric? Or are you going to cover with it as a moderator because you sympathize with that faction and paint opposition as hateful? Will you use the position as moderator to impose your perspective?
If you can paint me as hateful, and call this fair, I can only fairly completely reject this framing and say just as fairly as your statement that I stand against hatred you sympathize with, so that is what I advocated here for. So I explain my position over the easy slander.
And I have important reason to do so, because you can get away with your sympathies in the current political environment, for now. While those who are rather more reasonable than you can find themselves mistreated. And you know it. Of course things can change and change in a reasonable direction than the opposite extreme.
Obviously, when we got rather extreme rhetoric against general outgroups here and people promoting extreme rhetoric of their ingroups doing no wrong, others should respond.
Still, in a calmer manner, so there is less of an excuse. So I will change the way I express my values, I won't compromise on being critical of what I ought to be criticizing.
By the way, I don't see the point of you deleting my few posts when you attack me. Isn't this a way for you to paint me in any manner as you please?
Criticism that opposes bloodthirsty fanaticism in fact it is incredibly important to do so and censoring it is feeding a dangerous crocodile. And lack of it has lead to repeated tragedies, while those doing so might be arrogant and contemptuous of those wiser, not knowing what they are doing, when they create interesting times they too will be affected.
As for the general problem of hatred of our times. Those who need to change their ways and behave in a an ethical manner, to avoid their gigantic bias and to stop advocating for attrocities, won't do it when those who are in charge also share their ideology and participate, or enable it. When pushback doesn't exist and in fact it is opposed. So, the key issue here and is to gatekeep better and have ethical people be those in charge who are intolerant of this kind of behavior.
I will consider it a success against hatred if the rhetoric of those who can't coexist with other ethnic groups and don't tolerate their continued existence and are greedy to dominate others are drowned out by those opposing it. Therefore those who would support destroying and oppressing the other ethnic groups stay silent, or actually through incentives never arrive in positions that they are more psychologically susceptible to fall into.
You weren't modded for hating Jews, you were modded for ad hominem attacks on other posters. End of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's also the possibility of just reading through a thread and responding to everything that drew his ire as he read it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where did you get the info that 2rafa and the moderators are """birds of a feather"""?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link