This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Do you have evidence to your claim, or do you not?
If not, why should your accusation not be analyzed in the context of unfounded anti-semitic conspiracy theories it shares notable parallels with?
You are not exactly countering that unfounded blood libel accusations exist or are invoked. Your own list of events to rebut the structural parallel... doesn't, on a trifacta of ignoring the structure (Isaeli claims on Iraqi actions is not structurally analogous to accusing jews of killing children), of invoking a demonstration as a counter-point (yes, the NYT and other global media parroting Hamas propaganda falsely accusing the Israelis of bombing a hospital and killing children is an example of spreading Jews-kill-children conspiracy theories), and a general composition fallacy (even were all your examples valid, it wouldn't mean anything on how others invoke anti-semetic conspiracy theory tropes and usages).
Nor are you countering that the context of this event is an ongoing conflict of such danger that over a hundred thousand displacements already occurred nearly half a year ago, or that such attacks are routinely ongoing without respect to Israeli foreign policy travel, or that the act of launching tens to hundreds of thousands of rockets into northern Israel will, over iterations, reasonably result in killing people on the ground in northern Israel.
Israel is routinely a target of conspiracy theories, so many that it ranges from the victim-blaming (accusations that the current government deliberately let the Hamas atrocity occur) to the comedic (the entire genre of local arab authorities arresting animals as jewish spies if tagged by Israeli universities). As such, charges that share the structure of conspiracy theories can be expected to provide supporting evidence, rather than just vaguely claim interests... not least because the demonstrated interests of large numbers of commentators in the topic also aligns with spreading and insinuated unfounded conspiracy theories.
We are discussing an event that just transpired, and my original comment is inquiring whether we can find evidence. It’s odd that you’re asking for evidence for my… question of whether we can find evidence and then mention of a possibility. If we can’t conclusively determine where the strike originated, and if Israel knows this, then a false flag attack is on the table. What’s my evidence that a false flag is on the table? The false flag attacks I have listed in my previous comments! That’s why false flags are done to begin with: they are useful for the party doing them. So to determine whether a false flag is a possibility, we may ask (1) how possible is it to determine the strike location, and (2) does the the attack benefit the attacked country. For (2), there are four unlikely benefits for the attacked country: no Jews were killed, and the ruling party is an explicitly Jewish party; Netanyahu is in DC as we speak; his party has recently attributed the Paris metro attack to Iran, a funder of Hezbollah; Israel recently struck a school in Gaza.
Maybe Israel has one of the sophisticated intelligence services in the world, perhaps they know that they can weaponize a “libel libel” attack on whoever criticizes Israel. Maybe this has been written about by academics, like Mearsheimer? If Israel knows that their supporters in the West will fanatically impugn the motive of her critics, then this increases the possibility of a false-flag, not decreases.
Because there is a more reasonable context to analyze current events. Because the idea that a medieval trope is influencing the modern day perspective on Israel is hilariously biased and unfounded. (Who is promoting this medieval trope? Is it the Jesuits? Of course — a europhobic and anti-Catholic canard). Because many normal people who are not tied to Israel are skeptical and critical of Israel, which you can see by typing “Israel” into Twitter search and sorting the tweets by those liked over 30,000 times (are these funded by Persians or Russians?).
Israel is fine with making up info that will lead to the death of hundreds of American soldiers. This rebuts the idea that the killing of Druze children (an outgroup with zero influence) is off the table. .
I would argue there are more involving Russia and America. And then probably Syria (gas attacks). The last Israel conspiracy theory that had mainstream appeal was in 2001. Whereas conspiracy theories involving American invention and Russian influence are mainstream and commonplace.
And I was quite willing to set aside the blood libel parallels, hence noting the credulence given but explicitly focusing on different elements that worked against the premise. You chose to ignore those and turn the topic to what was set aside, and then awkwardly doubled down on it.
Which you are doing so again, not only by further doubling-down on false flag parallels without evidence of a false flag, or attempting to deny the relevance of a common contemporary antisemtic conspiracy theory format, but even via further choice of expertise to reference. (Mearsheimer is definitely a poor choice of academic to cite for his IR views, given his history of commentary on both the regional subject and on international affairs beyond the theoretical in general.)
You don't seem particularly interested in addressing whether there were factors that would normalize the occurrence of a tragedy, you seem more interested in arguing the credibility of a conspiracy theory... including on the basis of a separate incident that was proven to be an unfounded conspiracy theory.
Which, itself, is a symmetrical counter-argument to the claim that past Isaeli naughtiness is itself evidence, as you also have narrative counter-evidence that others will falsely blame the Israelis for what Israeli opponents have done. Choosing which of these to dismiss and which to hold as evidence is little more than rhetorical gerrymandering to assume the conclusion.
I find that boring, and a common failure mode of unsubstantiated antisemetic conspiracies. So far, you're doing little to distinguish your theory from them.
Beginning your reply with “blood libel credibility aside” is not putting it aside, it is emphasizing it through the classical rhetorical technique of paralipsis.
And yet, the reply did not begin with that. It began with-
Which, in turn, was the subject of the next two paragraphs of text, which when you remove the part you chose to focus on consisted of-
None of which hinges on the narrative parallels of your theory. It is non-central to the point- and by virtue of not being central, it is to the side.
Sometimes a potential argument or line of critique is acknowledged, and bypassed as being noncentral to the argument being made. This is regularly done if one wants to demonstrate that a different line of attack is available, and that a presenter is aware they could pursue that line of argument, but is to be distinguished from the argument being made. This is one of those times, just as this is a time you chose to advance your argument by ignorring the counter argument to focus on a non-central issue.
(Which is it's own rhetorical technique, but lets keep it plebian here.)
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