naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28919 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.
the repeated calls on this board for treating every Gazan as a Hamas terrorist up to the point of advocating for summary execution without evidence or even requirement of specific wrongdoing
Well, there are, uh, a lot of posts happening on this topic so I apologize if this sort of thing is genuinely slipping through. I don't see every comment that gets reported, and there are other moderators, but I, at least, have yet to see a single comment in the queue that meets this description, even though I've seen several comments in the queue claiming that this sentiment is being expressed here, somewhere.
(I don't doubt that some comments might be reasonably interpreted this way, but presentation matters. So long as no one explicitly says "all Gazans should be assumed terrorists and shot on sight," less direct claims like "I just don't see how Israel has clear options when it comes to clearly distinguishing between guilty Hamas and innocent Gazans, here" should be interpreted more charitably.)
(I also tend to object to people making sweeping characterizations of "this board" while themselves disclaiming such characterizations; you are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. The way you've done it here is relatively mild, but still, I don't think it is beneficial for you, or anyone, to approach conversations here as me-against-the-Motte's-hivemind.)
I don't necessarily mind thought experiments that encourage people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, either, but still it would probably be best to not illustrate those thoughts in terms of the direct personal application of an unflattering stereotype of a user's professed identity.
For what it's worth, I think this comment from over the weekend, and its relative lack of pushback, is what may be leading people to believe that people are saying things like this.
I see. Well, thanks for pointing it out--that does give me more context.
No one has actually reported that comment, and probably we wouldn't do anything about it if they did, not least because that user would have several AAQCs every month if they hadn't opted out, and essentially never gets hit with negative reports. I'm not thrilled at reading someone self-describe as having been "radicalized" by footage of these attacks, but given that we are talking about a terror strike reasonably compared to 9/11 (worse, on a per capita basis, to say nothing of the addition of infanticide, hostage-taking, and rapes) I'd be hard pressed to explain why "radicalization" is not a reasonable response. I also note that "summary execution" means without formal trial, which is worrisome but not quite the same thing as "without evidence," and "10,000-30,000 fighting age men" is not quite the same as "every Gazan," either.
In cases of war and terror, the line between "boo outgroup" and "no really, I'm arguing that this is a relatively specific group of people who have clearly caused extreme harm and are not going to stop causing extreme harm until someone puts a forcible stop to it" is maddeningly fuzzy. All the more reason to approach such discussions with maximum charity, I guess.
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 -
Well, there are, uh, a lot of posts happening on this topic so I apologize if this sort of thing is genuinely slipping through. I don't see every comment that gets reported, and there are other moderators, but I, at least, have yet to see a single comment in the queue that meets this description, even though I've seen several comments in the queue claiming that this sentiment is being expressed here, somewhere.
(I don't doubt that some comments might be reasonably interpreted this way, but presentation matters. So long as no one explicitly says "all Gazans should be assumed terrorists and shot on sight," less direct claims like "I just don't see how Israel has clear options when it comes to clearly distinguishing between guilty Hamas and innocent Gazans, here" should be interpreted more charitably.)
(I also tend to object to people making sweeping characterizations of "this board" while themselves disclaiming such characterizations; you are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. The way you've done it here is relatively mild, but still, I don't think it is beneficial for you, or anyone, to approach conversations here as me-against-the-Motte's-hivemind.)
I don't necessarily mind thought experiments that encourage people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, either, but still it would probably be best to not illustrate those thoughts in terms of the direct personal application of an unflattering stereotype of a user's professed identity.
For what it's worth, I think this comment from over the weekend, and its relative lack of pushback, is what may be leading people to believe that people are saying things like this.
I see. Well, thanks for pointing it out--that does give me more context.
No one has actually reported that comment, and probably we wouldn't do anything about it if they did, not least because that user would have several AAQCs every month if they hadn't opted out, and essentially never gets hit with negative reports. I'm not thrilled at reading someone self-describe as having been "radicalized" by footage of these attacks, but given that we are talking about a terror strike reasonably compared to 9/11 (worse, on a per capita basis, to say nothing of the addition of infanticide, hostage-taking, and rapes) I'd be hard pressed to explain why "radicalization" is not a reasonable response. I also note that "summary execution" means without formal trial, which is worrisome but not quite the same thing as "without evidence," and "10,000-30,000 fighting age men" is not quite the same as "every Gazan," either.
In cases of war and terror, the line between "boo outgroup" and "no really, I'm arguing that this is a relatively specific group of people who have clearly caused extreme harm and are not going to stop causing extreme harm until someone puts a forcible stop to it" is maddeningly fuzzy. All the more reason to approach such discussions with maximum charity, I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link