site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  6mo ago (text post)   29911 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

random bullshit: activist greta thunberg posted a picture of herself supporting gaza. sharp eyed observers noticed the subtle dogwhistle in the background of a blue octopus plushie, and she's been forced to delete it and apologize for this dangerous display of antisemitism.

Greta Thunberg deletes 'I stand with Gaza' social media post after critics claimed stuffed octopus in photo could be viewed as an 'anti-Semitic' symbol - as she says the toy helps with her autism

That's a headline I didn't have on my bingo card.

On a similar note, a 2015-esque 4chan meme posted yesterday got 15 million view on Twitter. There seems to be a shift in the wind. Naysayers will say that Twitter isn't real life, I remember everybody saying that about the "Tumblr SJWs" in 2009.

On a similar note, a 2015-esque 4chan meme posted yesterday got 15 million view on Twitter.

I would be very interested in a high-effort response to the highly memeable reply, "Impressive, very nice. Now let's see the Muslims."

Jews (and, in particular, Ashkenazim) are certainly overrepresented in a lot of interesting places. But my impression is that this is surprisingly true of many minority ethnicities and religious groups--almost as though having a mainstream upbringing results in a milquetoast adulthood. Or, alternatively, that being heterogeneous to the modal citizen of your country is quite naturally going to result in placement at one of the bell's tails. Whatever the case, "look at all the Jews in high government office" is a classic cardiologist problem.

[unnecessarily long, unoriginal, we've discussed this many times before, tldr jews good genes why so hard to notice this]

It is - in a literal sense - true that many minority groups are, sometimes, overrepresented. Again in a literal sense - it's true that having an unusual upbringing sometimes pushes someone towards success.

Say I have $200k in gold bars stashed under my mattress. I'm suspected for corruption, the cops raid my house and find it. Have I done anything wrong? Well, there's nothing wrong with keeping private property in your house. And it's a gift from a friend. Who doesn't get gifts from friends, a bit of money here and there? Again, both - literally - true. You can squint and imagine there's a syllogism there - taking gifts from friends is fine, the gold bars were gifts from friends, so...

The dose makes the poison. If the laundromat's getting a few thousand extra bucks every year, that's usual variation, maybe he's good at advertising. A few million extra bucks ... something needs explaining.

How overrepresented are Jews, exactly? Are they represented about as much as Muslims? What about Hispanics, Blacks, or Native Americans? There's a lot of diversity and unique life experience to go around. Does this help all of them?

But, like, Jews make up 25%-50% of all Nobel prizes, aside from Peace, awarded to US citizens. (note that some of those are half-jewish, but this isn't that important.) They're also 2% of the US population. That's quite the difference! What about Hispanics, Muslims, Indians?

It's not just Nobels. I, like everyone, just click links around Wikipedia sometimes. Especially in math, science, technology. And enough of the names are jewish that you can't help but to notice! In the arts, journalism, or politics - there are fewer jews than in math, but still a lot more than you'd naively expect.

I also spend a lot of the time on the internet, in various places. I'm quite intelligent, as other people are here, so I select for communities of smart and driven people. And in each community, there's an obvious hierarchy of competence and smarts. And, as I spend more time in a community and get to know the smarter people - a lot of them end up being Jewish. Even here, the person whose writing I (currently) appreciate the most happens to be Jewish... This happens in real life too!

But my impression is that this is surprisingly true of many minority ethnicities and religious groups--almost as though having a mainstream upbringing results in a milquetoast adulthood. Or, alternatively, that being heterogeneous to the modal citizen of your country is quite naturally going to result in placement at one of the bell's tails

Does this really, when we take another look at it, even come close to explaining overrepresentation? A lot of Hispanic immigrants, and Muslims, have fascinating cultures and home lives. And gives them a boost in niche, well-known fields. I guess that's why our community sprung from the blog of Scott al-Iskandar, in turn inspired by the rationality writings of E. Y. Khowsjee, and don't forget the reactionary critic Carlos Yarvin.

There is something to explain here. Looking away isn't virtuous, and telling the 100k who liked that tweet to pretend this is just like every other ethnic minority won't help. The usual rationalist explanation is just 'jews have high IQ because genes'. Which seems to fit fine, here, although our friend SS would disagree.

The claim that jewish achievement isn't remarkable, or isn't unique, or something, is something I hear sometimes. Or, it's claimed that said achievement is remarkable, but is, like, cultural, because of the Torah or just trying really hard at school. I don't think these are plausible, when compared to the average non-Jewish example of a white family that really pushes for success at school, or immigrant family with some niche ethnic tradition.

Sometimes one makes an intellectual mistake and it's just - okay, I forgot something important, I did the math wrong - but other times you're just not looking. I think to explain away Jewish achievement in politics or elsewhere with 'every minority is like this' can only explained by not looking.

In the case of politics specifically, that infographic seems to be about the cabinet. So, how Jewish is the Biden cabinet? Let's completely ignore the 4chan graphic, which ... even if it's accurate, it's still not worth looking at as a source of real information, because it's a 4chan graphic. Let's go with Wikipedia. Jews: Blinken Yellen Garland Mayorkas Hanes (half) Bernstein Lander Klain Zients. And then twenty more of other backgrounds. So a little under third are jewish, which is a ton relative to 2%. And then two Asians, two Indians, one Hispanic. (Also five Black) I don't see muslims. Non-jewish whites are are about where they should be by % of population. *1

This is ... significant. And a lot more so than Asians and Indians, or even Hispanics. It's reasonable to notice, and wonder why. It's reasonable to notice that people don't want you to notice that. It's especially reasonable to notice that if White people were 2% of the population and 30% of appointments, the standards that you'd expect to be applied would declare this to be an extreme case of racism. And then it's ... of less obvious reasonableness to start Heiling the Furher, but it clearly does lead there.

Cardiologists aren't worse people than the average doctor. But people think they are if they aren't subtle thinkers and are disproportionately exposed to anecdotes of them acting poorly, leading them to create and share those anecdotes in a cycle. But before you accuse someone of Chinese Robbering, you should check to make sure the claimed pattern isn't there! Before explaining a claim away as motivated reasoning, it's good to check if it's actually true!

And when you miss something like this, as I did in the not-so-recent past - it's worth asking, why? When I think about something, I'm trying to understand it, not just rationalize whatever the common beliefs and taboos are. And that was as true in the past as it is today. But the explanation that Jews just have good culture, or it's just pattern recognition out of control, came easily to past-me too. Just as easily as the 'rational arguments for God' came to Christian apologists. It's unpleasant to realize you are (ie past-me was) just lazily making up arguments for an assumption you aren't questioning because it's just, like, true, and also it's be terrible if it wasn't true. But it's true! And I got into many arguments about this, and made several very competent defenses of "there's nothing going on here" before, after I bumped into the wall for the fifth time, I noticed the wall.

And if you're bumping around the intellectual plain, guided by invisible walls you aren't even aware of, you might be led to the wrong places.

Now, you're right that minorities often specialize in specific occupations. Patel Hotels, etc. But market-dominant minorities are, usually, high IQ minorities. Indians are well-represented as tech company CEOs. But we've also had a billion of them to pick from by immigration.

And, yeah, when you relate to the elite jews by seeing them on TV and in the news, rather than being in their social circles, that easily leads to conspiracies based on resentment. And the Anna-Marie Loupis from the tweet is a well known covid conspiracist, with claims like lasers caused the hawaii fire because blue color didnt burn. I'm not sure what the right rhetorical move here is if you want to fight antisemitism, but being honest about the cause of elite jews might be better than keeping up the current incorrect norms and creating conditions where people on the alt-right notice the lies!

*1 I'm just including everyone the page lists, not bothering about some people joining late and others leaving early, I don't think that matters here.

I mean, it appears that Ashkenazi Jews are literally the smartest group in the world by average IQ(it’s possible that some Brahmin or middle eastern Christian subgroup, or something like that where there’s a sliced up minority of a minority that’s already notable for high IQ’s, has a higher average IQ, but I haven’t seen any direct evidence). Which raises the question of how much Jewish overrepresentation is specifically Ashkenazi, and I would bet that’s a lot of it.

Let's look at the list of Israeli PMs (Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrahi):

  • Ben-Gurion: A
  • Sharett: A
  • Eshkol: A
  • Allon: A/?
  • Meir: A
  • Rabin: A
  • Begin: A
  • Shamir: A
  • Peres: A
  • Netanyahu: A/?
  • Barak: A
  • Sharon: A
  • Olmert: A
  • Bennett: A
  • Lapid: A

There are just two PMs that have moms that might theoretically have non-Ashkenazi roots (born in Mandatory Palestine), but that's probably because I can't read the Hebrew Wikipedia, only the English one.

Is it the case of intra-Jewish discrimination? Did the Ashkenazi sponsors of Israel and the overwhelmingly Ashkenazi New Yishuv settlers discriminate against Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fleeing post-independence pogroms in Muslim countries?

UPD: I also checked the current cabinet. They are younger, so their origins are less clear for many members. I had to resort to phrenology in some cases.

  • Benjamin Netanyahu: A/?
  • Yariv Levin: A
  • Aryeh Deri: S
  • Moshe Arbel: A (Haredi)
  • Uriel Buso: A/S
  • Yitzhak Wasserlauf: A/?
  • Amichai Chikli: M
  • Yitzhak Goldknopf: A
  • May Golan: M
  • Avi Dichter: A
  • Shlomo Karhi: S?M?
  • Miki Zohar: S/M
  • Yoav Gallant: A
  • Bezalel Smotrich: A
  • Nir Barkat: A
  • Yoav Kisch: A
  • Haim Biton: ?
  • Israel Katz: A
  • Idit Silman: S
  • Eli Cohen: S
  • Ofir Sofer: M
  • Galit Distel-Atbaryan: M
  • Gila Gamliel: M
  • Mordechai Eliyahu: M
  • Meir Porush: M?
  • Ya'akov Margi: S
  • Yoav Ben-Tzur: ?
  • Orit Strook: A/?
  • Itamar Ben-Gvir: M
  • Michael Malchieli: ?
  • Ofir Akunis: A
  • Ron Dermer: A
  • Haim Katz: A
  • Miri Regev: S
  • Benny Gantz: A
  • Gideon Sa'ar: A/M
  • Gadi Eizenkot: S
  • Hili Tropper: A?
  • Yifat Shasha-Biton: S/M

It looks like Israel did a stellar job integrating Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews. It's also surprising how many of the ministers live in the settlements.

I think Israel has some history of discrimination by Ashkenazi against non-Ashkenazi Jews, but I’m unsure how much.

I updated my original comment with the members of the cabinet.

It seems relevant that the current Israeli government is a large coalition agreement and Israeli political parties are split partially on ethnoreligious lines, though, doesn’t it? Major confound there.

I’d bet a list of every Jewish Fortune 500 ceo in the G7 plus Israel would be pretty heavily Ashkenazi, maybe a Sephardi or two. Likewise for professors at the top universities in each major economy.

More comments

There are two explanations: Jews are better or Jews have some weird conspiracy power.

I do think the bigger objection is the number of blacks (that appears political and not merit).

It's possible that Jews engage in a similar behavior that many ethnic groups do, but they happen to be better at it because of their talents. This dovetails with the recent thread on stigmergy vs conspiracy. There is no "conspiracy" needed in the vein of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to vindicate questions surrounding Jewish behavior and power. "Merit vs conspiracy" is a false dichotomy.

Is it? If you dole out benefits to in group but are very good at hiding it because you are more talented compared to others, then you are superior to others who lack the ability to hide it.

Superiority is defined by many dimensions by my estimation, dimensions that can be reduced towards civilizationally-oriented and eugenic behavior. The talent to deceive others is a talent, but having more of that talent does not make you superior. Maybe a swindler has a much higher IQ and silver tongue compared to his hapless victim, but I consider "merit" along that dimension to be contemptible and would raise the question for how civilizational order should deal with such people.

There seem to always be a reaction like this that presumes the only relevant question is the cause of the overrepresentation rather than the meaning or impact of the overrepresentation. Even if what you are saying is true, that this overrepresentation of Jews in the highest policy positions is driven by merit with no other contributing factors that are less savory, like Jewish ethnocentrism, that doesn't allow us to dismiss the implications. Especially as it pertains to the relationship of the US with Israel as well as the identification and loyalty of these Jews to the state of Israel.

As Anthony Blinken told the Israel Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv "I come before you not only as the United States secretary of state but also as a Jew". There is goig to be a certain impact of this Clark Kent dual-identity when so much policy is controlled by people who identify this way.

Well, what is the meaning of overrepresentation? Trump’s admin only had one Jewish person in the cabinet - Mnuchin, unlikely to have had much influence on foreign policy - and their policy was at the very least not less pro-Israel.

Trump famously assigned arguably the most crucial policy position on Israel/Palestine to his Jewish son-in-law who has close ties to Israel. But I do think the difference in representation means something significant. Under the Trump administration, stopping immigration and closing the borders was a top priority although they largely failed due to all the pushback from the administrative state. Then Biden comes into office, the cabinet changes, Jews like Alejandro Mayorkas take over DHS, and what happens? Borders wide open to unprecedented levels of immigration, DHS and Biden Administration makes huge pushes to combat anti-Semitism. DHS/US Intelligence identifies White Supremacy as the greatest domestic threat.

The "big winners" of DHS grants under the Biden Administration have been the Jews, who saw funding for the NonProfit Security Grant Program balloon from $180 million to $305 million, and just now US Senators have proposed an increase to $500 million in funding.

Looking at the massive changes in policy priorities from the Trump Administration- building the wall and stopping illegal immigration, to the Biden Administration- identifying White Supremacy as the greatest domestic security threat, whole-of-society efforts to combat anti-Semitism, massively increasing DHS funding to Jewish NGOs, suggests that this does have meaning and impact on the policy priorities at the highest level of government.

There seem to always be a reaction like this that presumes the only relevant question is the cause of the overrepresentation rather than the meaning or impact of the overrepresentation.

No, this is definitely not what I'm getting at.

There is goig to be a certain impact of this Clark Kent dual-identity when so much policy is controlled by people who identify this way.

I certainly don't deny that!

But "Clark Kent dual-identity" is the fruit of identity politics across the West, and everyone is playing the game. As far as I can tell, Pete Buttigieg has a federal sinecure because he likes to have sex with men; he certainly didn't have any of the experience I would expect a Secretary of Transportation to have, and if he wasn't gay I doubt he would ever have been more than a mayor, and maybe not even that. Sometimes when I say this, people tell me I'm not being fair, but like... here's an interview with the Secretary of Transportation from this past summer, where the bulk of the content is about gay stuff, and Buttigieg's actually job only comes up in connection with criticism of DeSantis. Or in connection with race, consider Kamala Harris, or Ketanji Brown Jackson, or Sonia Sotomayor. These are women who revel in not rising above their identities, but in sinking into them, doing their jobs not for the good of America generally but for the good of their racial in-group.

I think this is bad, but I also think it is dishonest to pretend, or imply, that Jewish people somehow have a corner on the phenomenon.

But "Clark Kent dual-identity" is the fruit of identity politics across the West, and everyone is playing the game.

There are 2 hot wars that the US are engaged in by proxy and none of them have to do with anal sex but both of them have to do with who is in charge of the country they are supporting.

Strangely, when it comes to defending borders, there is this opinion that the Southern US border is not worth defending, but borders of such important countries as Ukraine and Israel are worth billions of dollars (and the blood of millions).

You'd think that ~168 million Americans would be more interested in protecting their own borders but apparently it's the ones with distant relatives in some swamp lands that get to have their borders of choice defended by US taxmoney.

There are 2 hot wars that the US are engaged in by proxy and none of them have to do with anal sex but both of them have to do with who is in charge of the country they are supporting.

Because of how politics works in the US, being public about anal sex is associated with a whole bunch of political positions that have nothing to do with sex, but which have a lot to do with who is in charge of countries.

And neither Israeli Jews nor any plausible near-future ruling clique in Ukraine are notably pro-anal-sex.

Are you saying that illegal immigration through the mexican-american border is a similarly shaped problem as military/terrorist invasions?

If Mexico were to invade the US with tanks and soldiers tomorrow , I am 99.9% sure that the Biden administration wouldn’t say “sorry, we are all tied up in Ukraine and Israel, nothing we can do here”.

Similarly if Ukraine were to get swathes of uncontrolled economic migration from Belarussia … would anyone in the US government care? Probably not (they’d certainly advise Ukraine to go easy with any crimes against humanity, but they’d consider it an internal problem they don’t strictly care about).

I don’t even know why I spent two paragraphs on this (obvious) difference between these issues. Using the same word to refer to

a) economic migration

b) terrorists killing and abducting citizens of another state

c) a full blown military invasion aimed at removing the government of another nation

is pure equivocation. Calling this “noncentral fallacy” is like saying that the world trade center needed slight repairs on 9/12 after being damaged by flying debris.

What I want to say: this type of language is not used in good faith.

If Mexico were to invade the US with tanks and soldiers tomorrow , I am 99.9% sure that the Biden administration wouldn’t say “sorry, we are all tied up in Ukraine and Israel, nothing we can do here”.

There are definitely cartel soldiers sent from Mexico to the US. Hamas doesn't have tanks afaik.

Similarly if Ukraine were to get swathes of uncontrolled economic migration from Belarussia … would anyone in the US government care?

Well once the Mexicans start making up ~70% of a given Ukraine area and they decide to have a referendum and declare themselves autonomous from Ukraine and then start blocking roads and taking tribute (tax) at the new borders, then the federal Ukrainian government decides to bomb them and Mexico decides to intervene to protect innocent civilians, yes the US government does get involved at that point.

b) terrorists killing and abducting citizens of another state

Fentanyl kills almost 100K Americans every year, that's a lot more than a few festival goers.

It's not a good effort to insinuate that the language used by someone is not in good faith when you are not arguing against the language actually used by that person.

Here's what you say:

Are you saying that illegal immigration through the mexican-american border is a similarly shaped problem as military/terrorist invasions?

Compared to what you are replying to:

Strangely, when it comes to defending borders, there is this opinion that the Southern US border is not worth defending, but borders of such important countries as Ukraine and Israel are worth billions of dollars (and the blood of millions).

'Defending' a border can mean many things. For instance, it can mean a country protecting itself against the importation of drugs that are killing thousands annually.

What I want to say: Are you aware of just how sophistic your post is? Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar and can be compared on those grounds.

But I am exactly complaining that “defending borders” refers to completely different problems in these cases.

And to insinuate that the US government uses taxpayers money to (help) solve some of these problems but not others is due to “who is in charge of the countr[ies] they are supporting” * and not to the fact that these are completely different problems … feels very dishonest to me.

* Is this referring to the fact that Zelensky (and Bibi) are Jews? If so … I don’t think that’s the most relevant fact about the US support of Ukraine

More comments

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats