naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
12757 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #3
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.
While I am not an anti-Semite and could reasonably be described as mildly philo-Semitic, goddamn this kind of thing looks terrible from the perspective of anyone that isn't particularly Islam-friendly. To be blunt about it, I don't like Islam and wish there had never been any Muslim immigrants to Western nations. To the extent that Muslim immigration to Western nations is tolerable, it's the extent to which those Muslims practice a liberalized, watered-down form of Islam that is barely recognizable as anything other than generic monotheism with a couple idiosyncrasies of diet thrown in. Having places with women in beekeeper outfits everywhere sucks and I think most Americans and Brits that are being bluntly honest about the matter agree.
Of course, saying that out loud plays terribly, because somehow we decided that "Islamophobia" is a sin. Unless, apparently, you're Jewish, in which case you're able to write things like the above. Saying, "how are Brits supposed to live with this?" is off the table, but catering to the tiny segment of British Jews, that is an important consideration when it comes to whether having a bunch of jihad enthusiasts in London is a bad idea. If someone like me that likes Jews, likes Israel, and basically agrees with the claim in the Tweet finds this style of thinking grating, I'd wager that the anti-Semites would be just about apoplectic.
And every single one of those people was blasted as racist, and throttled by Big Tech. How exactly do you expect your list to prove that what they were saying was widely seen as acceptable by the establishment?
Nigel Farage is a frequent guest on a major television network, Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh reached tens of millions of people per year with no interruption, Trump, irrespective of Big Tech "throttling", is given non-stop coverage by every news agency in the world.
The fact that they're popular doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is seen as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse by the establishment. If they are within said bounds, then Big Tech trying to limit their reach should be a national, or international scandal.
I don't know what you mean by the "establishment", but whatever that means, it has nothing to do with my argument, which is that collectively these people are able to reach huge audiences with very little to impede them.
The fact that they're able to reach their audience has nothing to do with the argument that what they're saying is seen as unacceptable in polite discourse, as opposed to a Jewish person saying literally the same thing.
Sure, anyone is free to call them racist. I think some of them might be. What's that got to do with anything?
If the cries of "racist" were limited to nobodies on the internet, no one would care. The problem is that they come from every respectable institution that claims to be neutral, only explicitly right-wing institutions don't do it. It is then a bit rich to hear the exact same complaint they were making from people calling them racist all this time.
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 -
Related, but not exactly the same topic, this Tweet from a Jerusalem Post columnist in response to pro-Palestine protest marches in London really struck me:
While I am not an anti-Semite and could reasonably be described as mildly philo-Semitic, goddamn this kind of thing looks terrible from the perspective of anyone that isn't particularly Islam-friendly. To be blunt about it, I don't like Islam and wish there had never been any Muslim immigrants to Western nations. To the extent that Muslim immigration to Western nations is tolerable, it's the extent to which those Muslims practice a liberalized, watered-down form of Islam that is barely recognizable as anything other than generic monotheism with a couple idiosyncrasies of diet thrown in. Having places with women in beekeeper outfits everywhere sucks and I think most Americans and Brits that are being bluntly honest about the matter agree.
Of course, saying that out loud plays terribly, because somehow we decided that "Islamophobia" is a sin. Unless, apparently, you're Jewish, in which case you're able to write things like the above. Saying, "how are Brits supposed to live with this?" is off the table, but catering to the tiny segment of British Jews, that is an important consideration when it comes to whether having a bunch of jihad enthusiasts in London is a bad idea. If someone like me that likes Jews, likes Israel, and basically agrees with the claim in the Tweet finds this style of thinking grating, I'd wager that the anti-Semites would be just about apoplectic.
And every single one of those people was blasted as racist, and throttled by Big Tech. How exactly do you expect your list to prove that what they were saying was widely seen as acceptable by the establishment?
The fact that they're popular doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is seen as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse by the establishment. If they are within said bounds, then Big Tech trying to limit their reach should be a national, or international scandal.
The fact that they're able to reach their audience has nothing to do with the argument that what they're saying is seen as unacceptable in polite discourse, as opposed to a Jewish person saying literally the same thing.
If the cries of "racist" were limited to nobodies on the internet, no one would care. The problem is that they come from every respectable institution that claims to be neutral, only explicitly right-wing institutions don't do it. It is then a bit rich to hear the exact same complaint they were making from people calling them racist all this time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link