naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
29945 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.
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
Ukraine did not even need foreign help to defend Kiev from Mexicans, yet the US are still pouring billions into the country.
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
Ukraine was a border province of the USSR 40 years ago, there were some border disputes with their neighbors ~5 years ago, but suddenly they elect a member of the powerful entertainment industry lobby and the border dispute becomes a major conflict.
Both Israel and Ukraine's leaders are mere puppet of the real masters of this world... the shadowy leaders of the secret group sometimes referred to as Hollywood.
Well, yes and no. The person you responded to used specific words, "defending borders". You did not use those words. You used "illegal immigration". Which is not the same thing or necessarily what was being referred to in specific.
Recognizing this, I explained in my previous post how defending the US border from drug smugglers is not at all different from defending your borders from something like Hamas given how many lives are lost in the US due to drugs. To reiterate that point, since you seem to have neglected engaging with it:
Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar to that extent and can be compared on those grounds.
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 -
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
NYC itself is under threat from the open southern border situation:
Ukraine did not even need foreign help to defend Kiev from Mexicans, yet the US are still pouring billions into the country.
Ukraine was a border province of the USSR 40 years ago, there were some border disputes with their neighbors ~5 years ago, but suddenly they elect a member of the powerful entertainment industry lobby and the border dispute becomes a major conflict.
Both Israel and Ukraine's leaders are mere puppet of the real masters of this world... the shadowy leaders of the secret group sometimes referred to as Hollywood.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, yes and no. The person you responded to used specific words, "defending borders". You did not use those words. You used "illegal immigration". Which is not the same thing or necessarily what was being referred to in specific.
Recognizing this, I explained in my previous post how defending the US border from drug smugglers is not at all different from defending your borders from something like Hamas given how many lives are lost in the US due to drugs. To reiterate that point, since you seem to have neglected engaging with it:
Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar to that extent and can be compared on those grounds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link