naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28921 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.
Apparently some left wing organizations are revealing themselves. Here is an X account claiming to represent “BLM Chicago” implicitly (but very nearly explicitly) declaring their support for the terrorist attacks: https://x.com/BLMChi/status/1711793142742073573?s=20
My questions are:
Who actually runs this account?
Have they tried to articulate what they actually mean by this?
I’ll be honest that my opinion of BLM, especially after the 2020 riots, is quite low. This seems to fit a little too well into the right wing hatred of them.
Ok the other hand: are there any stories in Jewish folklore about creating a monster and then having it turn on you?
I saw this right before reading @Stefferi claiming that "the right (apart from the explicit Nazis, of course) and at least parts of the center-left immediately smells blood in the water and starts trawling the social medias for any far-left comments that either are pro-Hamas or can be presented that way"
Not really sure what else to say. Just seems like whatever happens someone will be playing the "deflect, minimize, Republicans Pounce" game to get people to ignore it.
Yes, there are far-left comments that are pro-Hamas. However, from what I've seen in online discussions, they also get a large amount of pushback, including from fellow leftists, in ways that violent "decolonization" rhetoric would have not received, previously. It feels like a vibe shift; of course the thing about vibe shifts is that they're very hard to quantify.
I've also observed, for a long time, that there exists a right-wing tendency to use Israel/Palestine conflict and related accusations of antisemism for tit-for-tat attacks on the Left for avenging left-wing attacks on right (justified or not) for racism. This includes a tendency to vastly exaggerate the reach and importance of anti-semitic attitudes on the Left, including implying that any and all condemnations of Israel, the occupation etc. are antisemism. Again, this is not something that is limited to this conflict but a longer observation. If that's something I've noticed, that's something I'm going to say, "Republicans pounce" memery notwithstanding. Weakmanning, guilt by association etc. are basic rhetorical tactics used by all sides, after all.
As I linked elsewhere, probably the most high-profile example of pushback was this. Your particular linked example noted that the person in question had been placed on administrative leave.
The vibe shift is currently harder to quantify due to the extraordinary harshness of the Israeli response balancing the scales, but I'd still say that "decolonization" rhetoric has taken a hit (see eg this), that an Israeli campaign against Gaza of this magnitude would have left to considerably bigger left-wing counter-reaction if it hadn't been for 10/7, and that, yes, the right has smelled blood in the water and is painting with a wide brush to tar a much larger crowd with the "pro-Hamas", antisemitic image than the actual pro-Hamas anti-semitic fraction.
I really don't know why it would be so controversial to say that the Right does that. It's a faction in the culture war! That's what factions in the culture war do! Am I supposed to go with the assumption that the Right is just too damn gentlemanly to not use such a tactic when an opportunity arises?
I'm slightly agreed with you there seems to be a vibeshift among the academic left. It's coming at the same time as a lot of emboldened explicit antisemitism from non-institutional actors of course, and it remains to be seen if it sticks. But e.g. our local Greens party put out a statement that was a lot more equivocal and both-sides-ist than I would normally expect from them (they have long championed BDS and routinely call Israel an apartheid state, for example).
it is a problem because you can always find someone who is associated with cause X but also has unsavory opinion Y. of course it seems like its fine to use these tactics to smear other causes.
Nick Reimer, president of the faculty union at the University of Sydney in Australia,
The union representing teaching assistants and part-time instructors at McMaster University, CUPE local 3906
I have no qualms about tarring that entire university and all of CUPE with the same brush. If they didn't want those people speaking for them, they shouldn't have made them leaders.
Is the article supposed to go against the claim that right-wingers will trawl the social media for any and all pro-Hamas far left comments in situations like this? Because that's certainly the impression you get when you include operators like "Sarah Shahid, freelancer for Now Toronto and Spring magazine" and "At Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, assistant professor of social work Dr. Jessica Hutchison".
No, it's supposed to go against the implication that it's (only) unfairly highlighting crazies. When you're representing thousands of staff at an organization with an endowment in the billions of dollars, you're a genuine public figure and your actions are newsworthy.
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 -
Apparently some left wing organizations are revealing themselves. Here is an X account claiming to represent “BLM Chicago” implicitly (but very nearly explicitly) declaring their support for the terrorist attacks: https://x.com/BLMChi/status/1711793142742073573?s=20
My questions are:
Who actually runs this account?
Have they tried to articulate what they actually mean by this?
I’ll be honest that my opinion of BLM, especially after the 2020 riots, is quite low. This seems to fit a little too well into the right wing hatred of them.
Ok the other hand: are there any stories in Jewish folklore about creating a monster and then having it turn on you?
I saw this right before reading @Stefferi claiming that "the right (apart from the explicit Nazis, of course) and at least parts of the center-left immediately smells blood in the water and starts trawling the social medias for any far-left comments that either are pro-Hamas or can be presented that way"
Not really sure what else to say. Just seems like whatever happens someone will be playing the "deflect, minimize, Republicans Pounce" game to get people to ignore it.
Well, how am I supposed to respond?
Yes, there are far-left comments that are pro-Hamas. However, from what I've seen in online discussions, they also get a large amount of pushback, including from fellow leftists, in ways that violent "decolonization" rhetoric would have not received, previously. It feels like a vibe shift; of course the thing about vibe shifts is that they're very hard to quantify.
I've also observed, for a long time, that there exists a right-wing tendency to use Israel/Palestine conflict and related accusations of antisemism for tit-for-tat attacks on the Left for avenging left-wing attacks on right (justified or not) for racism. This includes a tendency to vastly exaggerate the reach and importance of anti-semitic attitudes on the Left, including implying that any and all condemnations of Israel, the occupation etc. are antisemism. Again, this is not something that is limited to this conflict but a longer observation. If that's something I've noticed, that's something I'm going to say, "Republicans pounce" memery notwithstanding. Weakmanning, guilt by association etc. are basic rhetorical tactics used by all sides, after all.
Hi, curious if you have further thoughts about this given the events of the last few weeks, especially things like this: https://twitter.com/RachelJessWolff/status/1719901617305084373
Have you seen any pushback from fellow leftists? Can you link examples of any?
As I linked elsewhere, probably the most high-profile example of pushback was this. Your particular linked example noted that the person in question had been placed on administrative leave.
The vibe shift is currently harder to quantify due to the extraordinary harshness of the Israeli response balancing the scales, but I'd still say that "decolonization" rhetoric has taken a hit (see eg this), that an Israeli campaign against Gaza of this magnitude would have left to considerably bigger left-wing counter-reaction if it hadn't been for 10/7, and that, yes, the right has smelled blood in the water and is painting with a wide brush to tar a much larger crowd with the "pro-Hamas", antisemitic image than the actual pro-Hamas anti-semitic fraction.
I really don't know why it would be so controversial to say that the Right does that. It's a faction in the culture war! That's what factions in the culture war do! Am I supposed to go with the assumption that the Right is just too damn gentlemanly to not use such a tactic when an opportunity arises?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No one needs only look at major population centers where large amounts of people support genocide (eg Sydney, Chicago, London) of the Israelis.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm slightly agreed with you there seems to be a vibeshift among the academic left. It's coming at the same time as a lot of emboldened explicit antisemitism from non-institutional actors of course, and it remains to be seen if it sticks. But e.g. our local Greens party put out a statement that was a lot more equivocal and both-sides-ist than I would normally expect from them (they have long championed BDS and routinely call Israel an apartheid state, for example).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
it is a problem because you can always find someone who is associated with cause X but also has unsavory opinion Y. of course it seems like its fine to use these tactics to smear other causes.
There's a difference between finding "someone", and finding leaders in large and prestigious organizations.
From here:
I have no qualms about tarring that entire university and all of CUPE with the same brush. If they didn't want those people speaking for them, they shouldn't have made them leaders.
Well I didn't vote for them.
More options
Context Copy link
Is the article supposed to go against the claim that right-wingers will trawl the social media for any and all pro-Hamas far left comments in situations like this? Because that's certainly the impression you get when you include operators like "Sarah Shahid, freelancer for Now Toronto and Spring magazine" and "At Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, assistant professor of social work Dr. Jessica Hutchison".
No, it's supposed to go against the implication that it's (only) unfairly highlighting crazies. When you're representing thousands of staff at an organization with an endowment in the billions of dollars, you're a genuine public figure and your actions are newsworthy.
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