naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30632 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed 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.
There were a lot of very young children killed, along with adults, in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, including some photos that were released and I'm not linking to that were baby-sized bodies that had been both burned and their heads removed. This was initially reported as 40 babies decapitated, but it's likely that this was a conflation of different ages of children, and different causes of death; given the total population of the Kibbutz it's very unlikely that there were 40 <3-year-old infants there.
There's a lot of mid-information social media users that don't really get updates as they come around, and it hasn't helped that a lot of the initial pushback came as complete denial (Hamas spokesman saying that their soldiers wouldn't hurt women or children) or in ludicrous ways (that LA Times moron). A lot of more casual observers just saw the initial confused claim, then people getting dunked on for a bizarre claim that the photos of some of the baby corpses were a photoshopped live dog, without the intermediate bit bringing the specific claim from "40 decapitated babies" to "at least some decapitated babies and a lot of children killed in other ways".
It wasn’t an initial confused claim, though, it was atrocity propaganda, which requires a stable phrase to repeat and a visual image. An IDF spokesperson doesn’t accidentally say “40 babies decapitated”.
You should read up on atrocity propaganda before you make suggestions about “winning arguments”. Since the Congo Propaganda War of the 1800s nations have used atrocity propaganda to manufacture public support and/or outcry. They do that to win arguments, by creating a sticky grotesque visual image that can be repeated ad nauseam. Like, you know, beheading babies.
No war is fought with bullets and bombs alone. For as long as enemies have taken up arms against each other, propaganda has proven a robust weapon. During the Civil War, Southern printing presses put out materials that claimed Northern victory would lead to “race-mixing” and newspapers portrayed Union soldiers as rapists and thieves. World War I brought the rise of “atrocity propaganda,” which highlights, exaggerates, and sometimes outright fabricates the gruesome acts of violence committed by opposing combatants.
“Yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that it had confirmed Hamas beheaded babies & children while we were live on the air,” she posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Friday. “The Israeli government now says today it CANNOT confirm babies were beheaded. I needed to be more careful with my words and I am sorry.”
There is an enormous emotional difference between a child being shot and a baby being beheaded.
You can’t just say “there is propaganda” and therefore “this is propaganda.” Specifically when the specific early claims (that in a game of telephone was transmuted) appear to be correct.
And no, there isn’t an enormous emotional
difference (at least there shouldn’t be). Choosing to in cold purposefully target and kill a toddler is incredibly evil regardless the method. I would support the most barbaric form of execution for the perpetrator.
Do you really think “Hamas specifically choose to target and murder toddlers in their cribs” wouldn’t play? Of course it would because the evil is unconscionable.
I think you are just trying to pick on details (subject to a game of telephone) to try to cast doubt on the overall story. I think it is disingenuous.
I cited you a source proving that it is incorrect.
And yes there is an emotional difference between shooting a child and decapitating babies. Just like there’s a difference between hanging a man, and tearing off his limbs one by one. And I cited you two articles about how atrocity propaganda was used in the past to great effect.
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 -
There were a lot of very young children killed, along with adults, in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, including some photos that were released and I'm not linking to that were baby-sized bodies that had been both burned and their heads removed. This was initially reported as 40 babies decapitated, but it's likely that this was a conflation of different ages of children, and different causes of death; given the total population of the Kibbutz it's very unlikely that there were 40 <3-year-old infants there.
There's a lot of mid-information social media users that don't really get updates as they come around, and it hasn't helped that a lot of the initial pushback came as complete denial (Hamas spokesman saying that their soldiers wouldn't hurt women or children) or in ludicrous ways (that LA Times moron). A lot of more casual observers just saw the initial confused claim, then people getting dunked on for a bizarre claim that the photos of some of the baby corpses were a photoshopped live dog, without the intermediate bit bringing the specific claim from "40 decapitated babies" to "at least some decapitated babies and a lot of children killed in other ways".
It wasn’t an initial confused claim, though, it was atrocity propaganda, which requires a stable phrase to repeat and a visual image. An IDF spokesperson doesn’t accidentally say “40 babies decapitated”.
The initial report was 40 killed babies with some decapitated. The first is undoubtedly true. The second claim seems arguably true.
May I suggest that the argument “not all of the babies were decapitated” isn’t quite the winning argument?
You should read up on atrocity propaganda before you make suggestions about “winning arguments”. Since the Congo Propaganda War of the 1800s nations have used atrocity propaganda to manufacture public support and/or outcry. They do that to win arguments, by creating a sticky grotesque visual image that can be repeated ad nauseam. Like, you know, beheading babies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State_propaganda_war
The initial claim is wrong anyway; there is no evidence of babies decapitated
https://archive.ph/4J92h
There is an enormous emotional difference between a child being shot and a baby being beheaded.
You can’t just say “there is propaganda” and therefore “this is propaganda.” Specifically when the specific early claims (that in a game of telephone was transmuted) appear to be correct.
And no, there isn’t an enormous emotional difference (at least there shouldn’t be). Choosing to in cold purposefully target and kill a toddler is incredibly evil regardless the method. I would support the most barbaric form of execution for the perpetrator.
Do you really think “Hamas specifically choose to target and murder toddlers in their cribs” wouldn’t play? Of course it would because the evil is unconscionable.
I think you are just trying to pick on details (subject to a game of telephone) to try to cast doubt on the overall story. I think it is disingenuous.
I cited you a source proving that it is incorrect.
And yes there is an emotional difference between shooting a child and decapitating babies. Just like there’s a difference between hanging a man, and tearing off his limbs one by one. And I cited you two articles about how atrocity propaganda was used in the past to great effect.
Citing what happened in Congo is wholly irrelevant.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link