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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 -
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.
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.
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.
No, this is definitely not what I'm getting at.
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.
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.
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.
There are definitely cartel soldiers sent from Mexico to the US. Hamas doesn't have tanks afaik.
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.
Fentanyl kills almost 100K Americans every year, that's a lot more than a few festival goers.
More options
Context Copy link
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:
Compared to what you are replying to:
'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 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
More options
Context Copy link