naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
29913 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.
Might Turkey join the fight against Israel? Former US Colonel Douglas Macgregor thinks they might. Obviously this would be horrible for Israel, the US, and NATO. Does anyone understand what is happening in Turkey well enough to know if this is a possibility?
This is the same Macgregor that's been predicting Russian forces having free run of all Ukraine east of the Dniepr Real Soon Now for the entire duration of the war? The one whose consulting firm got casualty and death estimates wrong by a factor of (E: at least) four? The one who likes to plug gold?
Yeah I don't think his thoughts are worth much. Maybe as some kind of entropy source for a prototype AI tasked with writing movie plots?
General observation, not connected to Macgregor's current comments, but throughout the Ukraine War it has blown my mind how many of these pro-Russian pundits have been incredibly, flagrantly, continuously wrong in their predictions and continue to be cited by the cynical, oh-so-world-weary geopolitically aware independent thinkers again and again as if nothing had happened.
throughout the Ukraine War it has blown my mind how many of these pro-Russian pundits have been incredibly, flagrantly, continuously wrong in their predictions and continue to be cited by the cynical, oh-so-world-weary geopolitically aware independent thinkers again and again as if nothing had happened.
This has been how the constant "Russia is about to run out of money/missiles/vodka/conscripts" articles have read to me, too. I see people citing sources which claimed the Russians would have run out of materiel last year and people just don't seem to care that they were outputting unadulterated fiction not even a month ago.
Sure, that's stupid too, but the Western pro-Russians very specifically tend to pride themselves as independent thinkers who aren't just platitude-repeating NPCs like the "Reddit" pro-Ukrainians, so the incongruency tends to look bigger to me.
how many of these pro-Russian pundits have been incredibly, flagrantly, continuously wrong
In contrast to Bellendcat, which predicted Russia running out of PGMs for months in 2022. Or all the people who predicted this years's offensive would smash the Russians.
In general I'd say most of the people doing predictions on the war were absolutely off and kept at it.
It was Christo Grozev, speaking on UA Tv early in the war.
To be honest, it does seem nobody had a handle on Russian production. They 'run out' of stockpile by summer probably because it wasn't very good. Pentagon 'thought' they wouldn't be able to make new ones because 'sanctions' which turned out to be BS as they're still flying.
Of course, how many are fired, intercepted and hit is hard to say because in Ukraine, they'll arrest you for posting videos of damage on the ground.
We'll see later this year. Russia is unlikely to run out because especially cruise missiles are not very high tech. They use early 1990s electronics. If you have access to Alibaba, you can make all the cruise missiles for which you can get engines and aluminum and man-hours.
I'm actually a little surprised that someone hasn't tried to displace him to cash in on his silliness with an aggressive article like "Sit Down Mr Macgregor, It's Time to Stop Talking". Maybe there's enough grifting niches out there that there's no need to usurp an incumbent, just set up your own pitch next door? Maybe it's unexpectedly high risk and an attacker needs to build a network of allies before making an attempt? Maybe it's just too much work to thoroughly compile a list of failures and mistakes - there was that one guy who became "the global expert on Moldbug", with more than enough material to discredit his theories, and he didn't make a move. Maybe it's easy to take someone down, but uncertain that you'll be the one to pick up the freed niche.
Presumably there's people willing to say a message - they may even believe it! - and people who want that message said, and a finite budget allocated to getting those things said. Or maybe there's a finite amount of attention in the world to hear the mess. In either case it seems like, assuming there's an equilibrium to disrupt by discrediting someone already in the ecosystem, there's money to be made. So why hasn't someone made a move? What are the dynamics of this grift economy?
Maybe it's just too much work to thoroughly compile a list of failures and mistakes
this is one for me
Yes, I would spends weeks on writing down why specific pro-Russian idiot is wrong, maybe someone would read it, and then what?
Effort/benefit ratio is worse than for many others things can do, including watching funny videos of cats. Not to say about some things that I could do where I am already sort-of established in position of some (very minor) importance.
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 -
Might Turkey join the fight against Israel? Former US Colonel Douglas Macgregor thinks they might. Obviously this would be horrible for Israel, the US, and NATO. Does anyone understand what is happening in Turkey well enough to know if this is a possibility?
This is the same Macgregor that's been predicting Russian forces having free run of all Ukraine east of the Dniepr Real Soon Now for the entire duration of the war? The one whose consulting firm got casualty and death estimates wrong by a factor of (E: at least) four? The one who likes to plug gold?
Yeah I don't think his thoughts are worth much. Maybe as some kind of entropy source for a prototype AI tasked with writing movie plots?
I think we will only know the real casualty predictions at the end of the war
More options
Context Copy link
General observation, not connected to Macgregor's current comments, but throughout the Ukraine War it has blown my mind how many of these pro-Russian pundits have been incredibly, flagrantly, continuously wrong in their predictions and continue to be cited by the cynical, oh-so-world-weary geopolitically aware independent thinkers again and again as if nothing had happened.
This has been how the constant "Russia is about to run out of money/missiles/vodka/conscripts" articles have read to me, too. I see people citing sources which claimed the Russians would have run out of materiel last year and people just don't seem to care that they were outputting unadulterated fiction not even a month ago.
Sure, that's stupid too, but the Western pro-Russians very specifically tend to pride themselves as independent thinkers who aren't just platitude-repeating NPCs like the "Reddit" pro-Ukrainians, so the incongruency tends to look bigger to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In contrast to Bellendcat, which predicted Russia running out of PGMs for months in 2022. Or all the people who predicted this years's offensive would smash the Russians.
In general I'd say most of the people doing predictions on the war were absolutely off and kept at it.
link? I bet that it as not phrased this way, as it is known that they are producing new PGM
It was Christo Grozev, speaking on UA Tv early in the war.
To be honest, it does seem nobody had a handle on Russian production. They 'run out' of stockpile by summer probably because it wasn't very good. Pentagon 'thought' they wouldn't be able to make new ones because 'sanctions' which turned out to be BS as they're still flying.
Of course, how many are fired, intercepted and hit is hard to say because in Ukraine, they'll arrest you for posting videos of damage on the ground.
We'll see later this year. Russia is unlikely to run out because especially cruise missiles are not very high tech. They use early 1990s electronics. If you have access to Alibaba, you can make all the cruise missiles for which you can get engines and aluminum and man-hours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm actually a little surprised that someone hasn't tried to displace him to cash in on his silliness with an aggressive article like "Sit Down Mr Macgregor, It's Time to Stop Talking". Maybe there's enough grifting niches out there that there's no need to usurp an incumbent, just set up your own pitch next door? Maybe it's unexpectedly high risk and an attacker needs to build a network of allies before making an attempt? Maybe it's just too much work to thoroughly compile a list of failures and mistakes - there was that one guy who became "the global expert on Moldbug", with more than enough material to discredit his theories, and he didn't make a move. Maybe it's easy to take someone down, but uncertain that you'll be the one to pick up the freed niche.
Presumably there's people willing to say a message - they may even believe it! - and people who want that message said, and a finite budget allocated to getting those things said. Or maybe there's a finite amount of attention in the world to hear the mess. In either case it seems like, assuming there's an equilibrium to disrupt by discrediting someone already in the ecosystem, there's money to be made. So why hasn't someone made a move? What are the dynamics of this grift economy?
this is one for me
Yes, I would spends weeks on writing down why specific pro-Russian idiot is wrong, maybe someone would read it, and then what?
Effort/benefit ratio is worse than for many others things can do, including watching funny videos of cats. Not to say about some things that I could do where I am already sort-of established in position of some (very minor) importance.
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