This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Quality Contributions to the Main Motte
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of September 30, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of October 7, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
[null]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The PDF I provided explicitly mentions children under 15, and elsewhere distinguishes between "children" and "adolescents," both of which Hamas has recruited in its history, in some cases quite recently. But one of the reasons for me to not get into the substance with you is that you have shown no inclination to actually accept evidence when it is provided to you. I anticipated you would do that, and now you have done it, so there is evidently no reason to continue to attempt to meet your demands. You apparently will not accept any evidence even when it is provided to you (as an aside, you do not seem similarly inclined to demand precise evidence when Hamas makes dubious claims--interesting!).
I think that, at best, you have actually failed to understand what Dean's post was really about. What you identify as its "heart" seems non-central on my reading. I suspect that you are doing something worse, though: I suspect that you are demanding rigor in isolation, in order to excuse your own uncharitable engagement.
Well, you are under no obligation to like Dean's post, or to accept his or my evidence of anything. You are under no obligation to like or agree with any of this. What you are under some minimal obligation to do, is not to engage in ways that degrade discourse here. The way you have chosen to grouse about this particular AAQC does not meet that threshold.
Moreover, about a year ago, I warned you that your engagement on the topic of Israel was verging into "single-issue poster" territory. It's clearly something you care about a lot, for reasons I cannot fathom. I am hesitant to impose a topic ban on you, but I am pretty protective of the AAQC process, and the discussion we're having right now is doing a lot to persuade me that I should simply ban you from discussing Israel anymore.
Yes. Dean is an excellent poster with an absolutely stellar history of making quality contributions to the Motte. He is probably in the top 5 userbase favorites. You, too, have made some good posts in the past, which is one of the reasons I haven't banned you yet. But if you're gonna rain on the AAQC parade any time your ox gets gored, I'll count it against you.
I think that glazing an individual user in this fashion in a modhat comment is inappropriate and reflects badly on the moderation. Yes, I will freely admit that this sentiment is coloured by the circumstance that I cannot stand this particular user. (I could expound at length why I would consider him to be a single-issue poster - as I see it, he is here to produce impassioned defenses of US neoconservatism with the same single-minded determination, attention to detail and absolute lack of interest in countervailing evidence as our most notorious JQ posters - but you have made it clear that you would not want to hear) Personal antipathy and feuds between users are a pretty normal sight here, though. Normally one would expect mods to act as a, well, moderating force on them - yet this sort of statement fills me (and presumably anyone else who would disagree with him) with negative levels of confidence that in the event of an interaction gone sour I would get a fair hearing. That is only moderating in the way Putin's rule is moderating opposition in Russia, which is to say it channels resentment into other outlets rather than reducing it.
And yet, has Motte moderating not moderated feuding in this very thread?
This thread has not, in fact, devolved into a personal antipathy feud despite the instigating callout via @username to ensure notification, the attempt to litigate new arguments not even raised in response to the original AAQC while using pejorative framings, and aggressive follow-ups trying to re-argue the topic with multiple people. The instigator of this round did not face punishment for disagreeing or disliking the person they were trying to incense.
Neither will you, despite adding yet another item to my list of memorable pejorative characterizations as a american-jewish-polish-anglo-slavic neocon-fascist-zionist-neoliberal man-bitch. (Yes, this is humorous to me. No, I am not insulted. I have not / do not / would not support any report against you for it.)
Instead, the mod-hat was invoked on grounds of... characterization of evidence (such as the ease of finding), and characterization of opposing arguments (whether a single opening paragraph in the opening of a three-phase argument is the core argument), and eventually moderation practice (when the instigator chose to escalate a minor pushback), rather than the characterization of character.
And this was in no small part because I was considering the moderation team's response when I declined to take the bait / rise to the offer.
It was certainly tempting to indulge- it was a quiet weekend, it would have been easy to play to a crowd, I even had a much longer post lined up and everything- but I declined and deleted a non-trivial amount of time's work and limited myself to a minor riposte and explicit disengagement because of the moderation team's past efforts to cultivate a climate where feuding is discouraged. Further, the restrained response came before moderator involvement occurred, and was maintained afterwards despite apparent moderator sympathy increasing the freedom to action in what one could get away with without significant censure.
Because it was discouraged, I declined. Because I declined, there was no back and forth between users. Because there was no back and forth between users, there was no mutual feuding. Because there was no mutual feuding, moderation could occur on content-neutral ground of how the feud attempt was approached rather than cleaning up the aftermath of one.
To reframe- a user credited even by a self-identified critic for single-minded determination and attention to detail restrained themselves from engaging in impassioned defense. The absolute level of feuding was visibly lowered by the absence of what easily could have been indulged in with those very traits. The user who invited feud was neither punished or threatened with punishment for character criticism, but the content-neutral approach they took to it and their response to that.
This should be what success in moderating feuding looks like. We are seeing the absence of feuding- twice even, thanks to you and I- between people are known to strongly disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
I think what you're saying here is that my explicit endorsement of Dean is a bad look and makes you feel like you might not get a fair shake at some future point should you disagree with the wrong person. If I have understood you correctly, then you have failed to understand the foundation, or the moderation system, or maybe both.
I am not an impartial arbiter tasked with tone-policing the forum. My task is to cultivate "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." To that end, I wield exactly one carrot: AAQCs. I have two sticks: warnings and bans. Community sentiment (via reports) drives both. The community also has a small carrot (upvotes) and a small stick (downvotes).
This is a reputation economy: the more carrots you have, the less likely you are to get the stick. As we often remind people: that does not mean carrots are a perfect defense against sticks! But for example a user with many carrots might get a warning where a user with no carrots would get a ban. People who contribute to the good of the community are deliberately favored. We have never made the slightest secret of this, but everyone has to learn it for the first time sometime, so maybe today is your day.
I appreciate the candor, so in turn I will freely admit that your comparing moderation here to Putin's Russia gave me a good laugh. It also helped me to calibrate on your sense of proportionality, in a way that was probably not beneficial to your aims.
I'll take the point that I was being overly dramatic with the comparison, and that this did not help my case. I got somewhat drunk on spite there. However, I stand by the intended point, stripped of the drama: if you make it so that certain users or viewpoints can't be attacked, you might get some more people to like those users and viewpoints, but you'll make others quietly hate and resent you and the organisation that gave you the power.
I've been following the discussions about the moderation system for long enough that I'm quite familiar with these principles you explained; I just think they are bad and have done a lot of damage to the discourse, which you only don't see because you keep grading yourself on a curve and by deferring to the sentiment of the very community that you create by following this approach. If you drive away most people who disagree, you will naturally see agreement up until the point where you have evaporated down to a size such that sentiment shifts to "we have a great community, but somehow nobody wants to join and listen to our great points". /r/CWR, in its own "community sentiment", felt that it was doing great right down to the point of maybe getting 100 posts a week. If you were serious about wanting a space in which people with different politics talk to each other, you should if anything have done the opposite, and treated any tendency in "community sentiment" as indicative of a growth that needs to be pruned.
Either way, being this explicit about protecting a user from criticism on the basis of a long record of AAQCs is a new extreme for this system; we seem to be evolving from a soft loop along the lines of "n% of the community like this user -> user gets upvotes and AAQCs -> user gets away with more extreme posts -> some people who dislike this leave -> m% (m>n) of the community like this user" to a harder loop where the penultimate step is "some people who dislike this get banned". In some alternative timeline that might have only differed from the current one by a handful of votes here and there at first, coffee_enjoyer would have been the "excellent poster with an absolutely stellar history", and Dean would be the one getting called a single-issue poster and told that he narrowly avoided a ban. I don't want to hide the bias that stems from the circumstance that I would mildly prefer that timeline over the current one (very mildly, though), but that callouts based on substance and discussion discipline get treated this way at all is bad, and that you have set up a system that amplifies small differences in initial conditions in such a fashion makes it seem unlikely that this was an intentional act of "gardening" as opposed to excuses being made for a yard full of weeds.
I feel like you are confusing several separate issues. Nothing I've done in this thread is aimed at "protecting a user from criticism." Coffee_enjoyer was breaking the rules and obnoxiously axe-grinding. His interpretation of Dean's post was bad on a rule-breaking level, and additionally I was annoyed that he had brought that obnoxiousness to the AAQC thread, specifically. If anything, it is coffee_enjoyer whose AAQCs were operating to protect him, here.
Separately, everything I said about Dean being a good poster was in direct response to coffee-enjoyer's obnoxious, overwrought, and rhetorical "is this the kind of posting you want!?" The answer was "yes, that's the point of the AAQCs, these are the kinds of posts we want." I was trying to find a way to help coffee_enjoyer understand why he was being moderated. Ultimately, I seem to have failed to find such a way; coffee_enjoyer seems to me far more interested in being angry about the disagreement between him and Dean (and, by extension, my moderating him over his approach), than in understanding that the problem is not the substance, but in the uncharitable and antagonistic nature of his engagement.
Your complaints are not at that level, but your candor over your distaste for Dean suggests to me that you are making a similar mistake: allowing animus toward a user to blind you to the fact that this is not ultimately about the user, but about the rules. In your little chart:
You've left out my quite explicit point that AAQCs are not a bar to banning. Users cannot get away with "more extreme posts" indefinitely. Some of our best users, along with our worst, have, eventually, eaten bans--always, after deciding that they no longer wished to follow the rules, even perfunctorily. That's genuinely a problem for us! It's something the mod team talks about with alarming regularity. It's really, really frustrating to take someone with years of quality contributions, including former community moderators, and hand them a 366 or a perma or whatever. We don't want to do that! If this was about picking favorites or even picking preferred positions, Hlynka wouldn't be banned. Certain alts still kicking around here probably would be banned. But ultimately, no matter what percentage of the community is on "your side," if you're not going to follow the rules, you're going to get banned.
I can see why you might think that; it's not entirely wrong. But we do engage in a fair bit of "affirmative action." We cut people some slack when they get dogpiled and lash out. We try to give sufficient breathing room to heterodox views. Moderation is adaptive and qualitative. But like AAQCs, just having a minority view is not a perfect shield. The rules will still apply, if less quickly or harshly.
In the end, we can't maintain this space at all if we worry too much about what might or might not "drive users away." One person's final straw is someone else's welcoming hearth. I've been moderating the Motte for more than five years, and I honestly never believed it would last as long as it already has. So I'm afraid I find myself entirely unmoved by your concerns. My goal is not to build this space into anything in particular. I have no KPIs. I just serve the foundation to the best of my ability, until the time comes when that's no longer needed, or wanted, or necessary.
I can't discern him breaking any rules, or you explicitly accusing of breaking him of any rules, apart from the subjective "wildcard rule" about obnoxiousness. It's fine to have a wildcard rule that essentially says "don't do things we don't like", but to then try to pin the "breaking the rules" label on someone who only ran afoul of that rule is somewhere between a case of the noncentral fallacy and plain self-aggrandizement, where you expect other people to treat your taste with the same reverence as a written rule.
I think hounding other posters for evidence and forcing them to produce more evidence in a more legible way is an unalloyed good, actually. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, and show me an instance where someone is doing the same thing for a position that I agree with or user that I like where I think that it would be appropriate to moderate the pursuers. The closest example I can remember is where back in the Reddit era, people were piling up on darwin2000 (might have gotten the number part wrong) over not taking responsibility for boldly wrong predictions (in contexts such as the Smollett case). I was rather fond of him as a user and thought that he was an asset by virtue of putting out some overly welcoming hearths by merely existing, but was absolutely in favour of him being held accountable in the way he was.
I initially didn't want to make an argument based on accusations of bias, but looking through your posting history it seems plainly evident that you are deeply aligned with Dean on the Israel/Palestine question, and back the Israeli side in a way that can't be described as dispassionate. Are you sure that you are not letting your animus towards a side blind you to the fact that you are just using the rule that basically says "excuse to be deployed in edge cases" as an excuse in a case that is not particularly on edge? It's not like not being candid about this, or mostly avoiding engagement on substance (easy when an "excellent poster" is around to make your case for you anyway), magically makes you neutral. The least you could have done to not make this look as bad would have been to recuse yourself and let this be handled by another moderator who can express his views of the object-level issue with fewer expletives than this.
Well, forget about him. Can you explain to me, or anyone else, why he was being moderated? My current understanding is that you like Dean's posts in general and are moreover extremely unsympathetic to the anti-Israel position, and therefore perceive any persistent attempt to impose a tax on Dean's pro-Israel posting in its present shape as something that needs to be suppressed using the wildcard rule. Is this accurate?
The clause doesn't have to be parsed as "(more extreme) posts" for the cycle to hold; it is absolutely sufficient for it to be "more (extreme posts)". Plenty of completely normal posts these days would have been moderated 5 years ago - and the way in which they are bad was originally trailblazed by "quality posters" who evidently were so favoured that unless someone took one for the team and raised a stink out in the open, you wouldn't even know that reports were just being redirected into the trash due to their standing, as opposed to nobody seeing a problem at all to begin with. Once the prolific and beloved posters all do it, the nobodies are free to follow suit.
Is this a belief that's based on a concrete observation of bad things that happened when you "worried too much", or just rationalising the easy option of going with your gut?
One does not make up for the other. People can still make good posts and interesting conversation away from a welcoming hearth, but by definition they won't after they had to bear their final straw. You can run a good version of this forum while being a welcoming hearth to nobody, but you can't run one while putting the final straw on too many, especially if you selectively do so on just about everyone except those having a particular gamut of opinion.
Do you imagine there is any argument or evidence at all that could persuade you to change your current approach to moderation, or is it a matter of either having to take your ride to wherever it leads or getting off?
Are you not reading carefully, or are you just reading selectively? Look at my mod comment again. I first said
That's the wildcard rule, applied not for what he said, but for grumping about what someone else said--so you mischaracterized my criticism in exactly the same way that coffee_enjoyer mischaracterized it, by suggesting it is about my "taste" rather than about coffee_enjoyer's insistence on his own taste being the proper determinant of quality. So right from the starting gate, you have demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
Then you said
but this is clearly an unforced error. In my very first mod comment I also wrote:
"Be charitable" is a very clear rule. Coffee-enjoyer broke it, as I demonstrated by mentioning how he broke it, and I said all of that quite clearly. So the rest of your comment fails to land entirely; I'm sure you can think of some other reason to criticize my moderation, and yet at this point it seems that your real goal is just that--to criticize my moderation, regardless of anything I have actually said or done. By your own logic, at this point it seems like you should probably just recuse yourself from criticizing my moderation approach.
I will address your parting question anyway:
I imagine there are many such arguments and evidence; I hardly imagine myself to be a paragon of human judgment. But as you have not presented any such arguments or evidence--as you indeed failed to even notice the rather explicit rule breaking I spelled out in my initial post--what is it you expect me to change?
That is, is there some specific change you have in mind? You mention recusal but actually the whole mod team does recusals pretty often, calling for others to come in and handle stuff they don't think they can be impartial about. However it's basically never about topics, because the whole mod team has opinions on just about everything. If we recused ourselves from topics we happen to know and care about, none of us could moderate anything! Rather, usually mods will recuse themselves from dealing users who get under our skin (or are just particularly under our skin on a given day). You mentioned darwin; back in the day, I recused myself from moderating him a lot.
So beyond that, what "argument or evidence" do you think you have in mind, that you think should change moderation policies here? Sometimes you write as if you think people should be moderated more ("Plenty of completely normal posts these days would have been moderated 5 years ago...") but your argument in this case is that coffee_enjoyer, at least, should be moderated less. As far as I can tell, you are engaged in the same special pleading that nearly all rules-lawyers and mod-critics bring to us, as if we'd never seen it before: "why don't you moderate my enemies more, and my friends less?"
And once it is recognized that that is the substance of the question being asked, well, it kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
Fair point, I overlooked this part. Sorry.
(I would however counterclaim that your moderation on charity is selective enough to border on the anarcho-tyrannical. I don't recall seeing many instances of people getting modhatted for the very regular sport of slightly shifting the interlocutor's categories for the sake of argument, and to begin with your own insinuation that I am only motivated by personal animosity or tribalism is hardly charitable either.)
How is it a mischaracterisation of your criticism to describe it as being about your taste, when the very first thing you say is that his post is "obnoxious", which is clearly a judgement of taste?
To begin with, he is not the moderator, nor the AAQC compiler. I would have no objection to the essence of what you said if you had said it with your modhat off. How can you treat taste-based opinion posting as analogous to taste-based moderation?
The change I would prefer would be to make shutting down consensus a goal that is at least equal in weight to enforcing post quality. The dominant consensus on many topics has become sufficiently overwhelming that there are hardly any users left that are willing to put in the time to argue cogently against it, and that includes topics on which I agree (such as categorical opposition to wokeism, or favouring market economy over socialism). A forum which produces a stream of quality posts for just one side is a partisan thinktank, not whatever I thought TheMotte was supposed to be; and either way without real opposition the quality of the monoculture is bound to decline eventually. Ideally, this would involve subjecting posts that exhibit the pattern of being highly-upvoted while no post disagreeing manages to breach positive double digits to an extremely stringent interpretation of the rules ("moderate more"); but at the very least, being extremely lenient with anyone willing to oppose them and argue back ("moderate less") seems like a step that you can take notwithstanding the usual "well, we can't moderate posts nobody reports!" excuse. (I have reported a fair number of posts throughout the years, but it seems like only a small fraction of those elicited any visible mod reaction.)
Therefore, "moderate people who get lots of upvotes more, and those who get fewer upvotes less" is more like it. I might find it hard to dispel the accusation that this amounts to "moderate my enemies more", since I am on the balance unhappy with the Overton window here and therefore naturally am an "enemy" of the majority of highly-upvoted positions; but this does not mean that I am "friends" with most of the downvoted ones, unhappy families all being different and what-not. I have no idea where coffee_destroyer stands on other topics, and even on Israel/Palestine he is only directionally on my side since my position is closer to "they both deserve each other, and I resent being asked to help either". I would also like tankies, SJWs, actual neonazis and actual "white genocide now"ers to be given much more leeway to nitpick and be obnoxious towards popular positions, even though I dislike all of these groups.
Well, as I noted somewhere upthread, we already do engage in a fair bit of "affirmative action" moderating. Which is maybe not quite what you're asking for but sounds pretty close to me. We tend to go easier on people who are bringing underrepresented or heterodox viewpoints into play.
(In this particular case, uh... I have to say that coffee_enjoyer's position on Israel is not one that strikes me as underrepresented or heterodox, here. I understand that probably everyone feels dogpiled at some point or other, but no, I'm much more likely to cut slack to a rule-breaking Wokist than I am to cut slack to a rule-breaking Israel critic, simply because we could probably use more of the former, but I can't imagine us ever running short of the latter.)
Well, "friends" in the loose sense that you have identified a common "enemy" (me!). My impression of your follow-up is that, yes: you want more moderation for your enemies, and less for your friends. But now you've made two suggestions that, actually, the mod team already follows, more or less--if not, perhaps, to the degree you would prefer. So you're not wrong, exactly, you just seem to think that your prescriptions will yield results that, actually, we can say from experience they do not especially yield. None of this is terribly surprising, the mod team really does think about and discuss this stuff amongst ourselves a fair bit, so it would be pretty surprising if you were to say something original about the project we've got going here. But you're always welcome to try, provided you do so within the bounds of the rules we've established over the life of the community.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except for some times, when they don't even lash out, they just reply to many of the people who dogpiled them, then you ban them. Even acknowledging that one can't point to anything specific that was actually against the rules.
Well,
Rules-lawyering and grudge-litigating are rarely beneficial to anyone on any side of the issue. I notice, however, that you have posted multiple AAQCs, and received no warnings at all, over the past nine months. I would like to say this with all sincerity--not as a taunt, or an inducement for you to now behave as a frustrator--but that's exactly the outcome we wanted to see. You're still here, you're not perma-banned, you make quality posts. Thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How do you get anything about proportionality out of that comparison? Isn't it common to use extreme examples in comparisons because extreme examples are usually more black and white and thus illustrate the point the comparison is trying to make more clearly rather than to imply they are proportionate?
In theory that is possible, but in practice it's imo almost always an attempt to smuggle in the vibes and assumptions you prefer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The OP is aware of this because the OP was told so at the time, in the response to the response to the AAQC.
To quote myself-
The issue of child soldiers was raised as was a definitional dispute, and as an omission not addressed by the NYT editorial that served as the OP's basis of posting. Moreover, child soldiers had nothing to do with the majority of arguments in the post nominated for the AAQC, and it was only one of three opening arguments of omissions from the first third of that argument's post. The concluding arguments didn't even raise child soldiers as a basis for the children being shot when listing a half dozen competing hypothesis.
Since this clarifying argument was not disputed, challenged, or otherwise responded to, and the entire subject of child soldiers was only used in the AAQC as the introductory lead-in / hook and to establish a relevant topic missing from the NYT editorial, it is possible that the clarification has simply been ignored to further advance criticism of the position, just as the sources discussing to the Hamas youth wing child soldier activity within the last decade that was referenced within your article was also ignored.
For those who haven't read the article...
Nara's article was "Child soldiers in Palestinian groups: forced recruitment and use of minors as a violation of International Humanitarian Law". A Hamas/Gaza relevant section after a global islamic review is the pg. 28 section.
Truzman, 2021 is in turn referring to "Hamas defends its military summer camps for children and teenagers" By Joe Truzman | July 1, 2021 | FDD's Long War Journal, which covers Hamas's military wing's own self-coverage of their camps for children and teenagers. (Notably, these videos may include children younger than 14, though I'm personally uninterested in quibbling over exact frames or individual child assessments.)
From the link in the article, you can in turn watch footage of the camps, originally published by relevant organizations. Here are two videos that were posted on X (formally twitter).
A Hamas al-Qassam Brigade video self-dated from 2021 shows children being trained with weapons for actions from marksmanship, maneuver, and room clearning.
A separate children camp video, this one from Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which is another major Gaza-based group that coordinates with but is not formally part of Hamas, but which is a part of the Oct 7 war) shows children training on hostage taking.
In both of these cases, not only was the material from within the last decade, but the video footage shows the watermarks of organizational channels producing / distributing these videos. These were, in short, self-publicized propaganda pieces, though not intended for an English-speaking audience.
An expressed inability to find these videos is not evidence of absence.
...and this is just on the 'yes, they are training children for combat activities,' by relatively uncontestable sources (i.e. derived from the Gazan groups themselves self-publishing). There are certainly semantic quibbles I'd expect on 'well, that's just training, that's not proof of intent to use them while they're children,' which certainly a take for an ongoing practice in the current war.
A practice that coincidentally aligns with the 2020s intifada-era reporting that was disqualified by the time bounding. A time bounding which also establishes a limit of over a half-decade of Hamas having centralized control over the gaza strip and asserting increasing influence over the gazan media sphere. A media influence done following the late-2000s drubbings the Palestinians received for their use of child soldiers during the Intifada. Media efforts demonstrated in the Hamas 2014 media policy to shape coverage and thus foreign perception of how Hamas conducts attacks, including by limiting showing the preparations of attacks. Policies that have largely remained in effect for non-Isaeli-backed media working from Hamas-controlled territory.
But such takes occurring is the reason that child soldier conventions are very, very clear on military training as the form of induction, indoctrination, and preparation for having trained children on hand able to fight as children. There is no military necessity argument for training children instead of adults if you want adult soldiers.
This is not covering other militarily-relevant roles for children in war, which can include use as observers, couriers, workers, or other forms of aid that remove forms of protection, including the long-recognized Hamas practice of children amongst the human shields. (I particularly appreciate the photo on the bottom of page 9.)
It is also not covering easily-findable but also easily-dismissed-on-account-of-(Israeli-)sourcing from the current war, which includes reports of children-sized explosive belts, children carrying explosives in vegetable bags to hamas ambush points, and of course the role of the child hostages taken in Oct 7 as bait to lead Israelis into ambushes.
(Yes, the last one is complicated. Yes, it also counts. Using children as bait to lure or help trigger ambushes is a form of child warfare. No, the child does not need to be willing, or even there. Child warfare is what children are used in warfare for.)
The definition of “child soldier” is <18, agreed. Ages lower than 18 do not preclude one from classification as a child soldier, agreed. But the NYT focuses on <13 children, and my original post specifies <13. This means we are not talking about legal definitions, but a specific cohort of <13 children. If Hamas is not employing <13 children, then the IDF is not expected to be killing <13 child soldiers. If the IDF is not expected to be killing <13 child soldiers, then we shouldn’t have loads of dead <13 children. Yet there’s evidence that we do have these dead <13 children (NYT+Guardian). So Hamas’ hypothetical employment of teenagers is an immaterial red herring to this topic.
I don’t see why a definitional dispute would be raised at all.
They did not need to address it, because it’s immaterial to their reporting.
It was the quoted line and it was included in your post as an argument. It is what I find most disagreeable, and I don’t have to post everything I find disagreeable.
Right but you included it and it was quoted in the award. Perhaps some other time we can discuss your other arguments if I don’t get banned for doing that.
This is too opaque for me to decipher exactly what you mean.
It was an assertion, and you didn’t prove it was a relevant topic to their reporting.
Not sure what you mean.
Now we are getting close to something. “Hamas youth wing child soldier activity within the last decade”. Wonderful. Is it <13 children and what’s the evidence?
Truzman 2021 is supposed to be evidence that Hamas employs pre-teen child soldiers. Rather, it’s evidence that there is a military summer camp for teenagers run by Hamas. America also has military summer camps for teenagers. JROTC begins as young as 15, and there are military camps that begin as young as 8. “Hanover and the surrounding districts combine for Young Marines meetings, with a total of around 40 students. Nationwide, the youth group has around 300 clubs. The ages range from 8-18.” They do gymnastics, drills, maybe some shooting practice. Do the tens of thousands of children at American military summer camps constitute clear evidence that America employs child soldiers? No. Of course not. And that’s the same for Hamas. A Hamas summer camp is not the same as employing child soldiers, any more than an American military summer camp is the same as employing child soldiers. Israel has similar summer programs.
Why do both America and Israel do the same thing? From the New York Times
Now you claim that at these camps the “children” (teens) are taught to take hostages. But when Israel takes back PoWs they also put cloth over their head, so you can’t allege allege from this they are being trained in atypical terrorism or something.
This article specifically says that “as young as 14” are attending training, not that they are being employed by Hamas. If I attend JROTC, am I being employed as an American child soldier?
Correct, Israeli wartime propaganda can be dismissed in the same breath as Hamas wartime propaganda. We have third party observers: UN, Amnesty, journalists, doctors. Israel is trying to eradicate third party observers from Palestine, of course. Something Israel can do is take their abundant drone recordings and share to the world examples of child soldiers, right?
I know it's orthogonal, but that NYT piece is pretty thorough. Let me yap about it.
The NYT piece ultimately doesn't really investigate the why schools are mandating enrollment-- and why those schools are often majority minority. It kinda does the journalist thing and quietly alludes to Big Army being behind it, but doesn't provide any evidence for this.
From experience, lots of admin and parental decisions send troublemakers into JROTC with the mistaken belief it will straighten them out. Which I guess is how a school decides to make a program 100% mandatory. Almost universally, troublemakers figure out that JROTC instructors have the same authority and tools as a teacher. Whose authority they have already beaten or frustrated. Some instructors have more talent at discipline having had more practice, but a 100% mandatory enrollment program must be a nightmare. Miserable for any kids with a genuine interest.
Except for a few the program is already perceived by the kids as geeky and uncool enough as is. For those who actually want to be there and those who enjoy it, but won't say as much, it's demoralizing and embarrassing. (There are inter-school events & competitions to be embarrassed at.)
For school admins that have run out of ideas applying the "straighten them out" theory of the unwilling at scale makes sense. So, less about recruitment. I would be interested to see if the mandated JROTC participation has any effect on discipline. I would suspect not. There are definitely some success stories. Some kids do get straightened out or distracted enough to graduate -- enlisting or not. Maybe they would have done the same learning to play an instrument, but the structure does provide some different things than marching band.
A lot of kids that never encounter concepts found in a JROTC program in a more positive light: discipline, self-respect, pride, accountability and so on outside of their urban contexts. Many have a warped view on what respect actually means. Traveling and outdoorsing for kids that had never left the city, or never stepped foot into a forest before.
A good program will offer volunteer opportunities and college admissions bait. Even if you've not an interest in going to an academy/ROTC or enlisting it's a plus for admissions. Giving teens an opportunity to manage large budgets, plan and coordinate trips involving 50+ kids across the country, and possibly fuck it up to learn a lesson is generally good. Active duty folks encountered on trips, mostly enlisted, tend to do a decent job counter-weighting any idealized versions of military life.
Recruiters are never going to be hard to find. You want to volunteer to take the ASVAB? That's gonna be a clear opportunity at least once a year. It's fucking obviously used as a recruitment pipeline. However, for a lot of kids and their families enlistment is seen as an increase in station and a direct path out of the hood. Some moms don't like they babies wearing a uniform, but many others insist that they do. I think it's trivially true that, for a lot of kids at the dysfunctional schools from dysfunctional homes, some years of active duty service are probably their easiest, most direct path to a more stable, functional life. Plenty of them enlist, remain fuck ups, and make the military more frustrating for those around them. Oh well.
Maybe a PIJ camp is the same thing, but it looks pretty different from my experience. JROTC camps are more like "Leadership Course Summer Camp." PIJ camp does look like more fun than the actual military for the most part. They all have that in common I imagine. I don't know anything about the America/Israel, Fuck Yeah, Patriotism Camp. That may be closer to PIJ camp than a huge national program like JROTC. Which has expended a fair amount of effort justifying itself, so it's seen as not-just-a-recruitment pipeline, while remaining a recruitment pipeline.
Sounds like there's a story there. What sort of competitions embarrassed you?
Meh, nothing very exciting.
Different programs vary, but many have some form of regional directors that do annual inspections. The Big Unit Inspection. The director brings some folks from a nearby honor guard to help inspect. That's meant to be impressive, but it's only impressive to the interested. Form up, do some drill, uniform inspection, grooming standards, basic knowledge, and so on. Some poor kid that didn't listen locks their legs and passes out-- doesn't crack their head on the way down, thankfully.
Gigs then compared against your school's history and the rest of the region. The student leadership is meant to be somewhat responsible for this performance. The director is serious about stuff. That's his entire job at this point, but of course his inspectors are mostly having fun spending a day talking shit with youth, telling them to shine their shoes better, re-measure this re-remeasure that holding back a half-smile on their face. Bring the parents out. There's my little sweetie!
Attention to detail and yadda yadda. If a program is filled with the unwilling, then the soft bigotry of low expectations is communicated well enough. "Do better next year!" doesn't get stated anymore. When the guest Muhreen drill instructor judge at exhibition whatever -- meant to be a man you impress -- takes you aside and, rather than give a point-by-point breakdown of stuff that went wrong like he did for everyone else, says, "That was... tough. I think it was good you got them to reform." That hurts the 16 year old autist.
If you're a part an underachieving and particularly shit team, not something intentional like Softball and A Keg on Shitface Saturday, while all the other nearby (suburban) teams appeared to be filled with motivated individuals, not dragged by their heels, and playing to win. That's demoralizing and embarrassing in the context.
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
It’s a general article about all kinds of child soldiers in the history of Palestine, so naturally.
The article you cite has a paragraph on page 8 which mentions historic practices, linking to a publication from 2001 for the alleged recruitment of someone under 15. Then there’s reference to an Amnesty article from 2004. The amnesty article from 2004 does in fact mention an 11yo who regularly carried bags across the border and once carried a bag that had an explosive, but 2004 is in fact two decades ago. Do you believe that Amnesty has recently published findings about child soldier use by Hamas? Where can I read this?
This is a mediocre excuse. You have Amnesty, HRW, and the UN who have specific divisions involved in monitoring use of child soldiers in Palestine, and all over the world. Your paper just doesn’t seem to actually say that, except for an event two decades ago.
Just say “fine, there is no evidence of Hamas employing preteen soldiers in recent years. Dean lied.”
I am under an obligation to accept your and Dean’s evidence. That evidence has not appeared on this forum, but I’m definitely obliged to accept it. To think that 10yos are lobbing grenades at the IDF and everyone is in a conspiracy to hide it…
According to the NYT Opinion team, recently republished by those antisemites over at Haaretz, and reinforced by separate journalism at the Guardian, there’s compelling evidence that Israeli soldiers are shooting children in the head too much. This is generally considered to be a bad thing.
There’s no easy way for me to check but I think my last top-level post on Israel was about a year ago. Just make a special rule on TheMotte that posters aren’t allowed to criticize Israel too much.
There is no evidence of Hamas not employing preteen soldiers in recent years. Does that mean you are lying?
As far as I can see, Dean never specifically claimed that Hamas "definitely employed specifically preteen soldiers within the last X years," where X is whatever you want it to be. At most, Dean made general comments about the fact of Hamas employing child soldiers in the past (which they clearly have) being meaningful to Israel's military reaction (which is plausible, whether or not you would prefer they act differently). You are setting up your own goalposts (not unlike a statistician only writing about terrorism in America beginning January 2002) and then getting annoyed that Dean repeatedly declined to play your game. "Dean won't play on my terms" is not logically equivalent to "Dean lied," and to assert it that way is obnoxious and antagonistic.
That is not a trustworthy source, on my read. See? Two can play this stupid game. It's better if they don't, so that is why I'm telling you to knock it off. If you don't like the evidence provided to you, you can say, "well I'd prefer to see something clearer/stronger/whatever," but you cannot follow the comment to an AAQC roundup and start shitting on the process. It's obnoxious.
I'm not getting after you for criticizing Israel. I'm getting after you because you are grousing about someone else getting an AAQC, and you're doing it by breaking rules about charitable reading, responding to what people have actually written, etc. You're also attempting to rules-lawyer both that post and my moderation, which is obnoxious. That it also happens to be your hobby-horse topic is simply context. You even pulled the stupid language games trick here--"my last top-level post" throws in a completely unnecessary qualifier to determining whether you're a little too focused on something for the community's comfort. It attempts to set the goalposts in the place most beneficial to your preferred outcome. I'm not stupid; I can see what you're still doing, even after I've told you to knock it off.
I understand that it would not be a pleasant experience to put effort into making a top level post trashing Israel, only to have someone with a long history of excellent posts on military matters come along and utterly eviscerate your work--and furthermore, to do it to the overwhelming approval of the audience. So I'm actually gritting my teeth and being extra patient with you about this: stop it.
The only way that “Hamas has a sordid history of [preteen] child soldiers [including 10yo grenade lobbers]” has relevance to the topic is if it’s understood that Hamas is employing them today, or is probably employing them today. Because if Hamas employed them and then stopped, and there hasn’t been evidence of it for more than a decade (despite the eager wishes of Israel apologists), in fact possibly two decades, and the cases of their employ in the early 00s and earlier are sporadic and unusual, then their “sordid history” is immaterial. The normal way of reading Dean’s statement is that Hamas continues to employ these child soldiers, because otherwise there’s no reason to bring it up. Surely no one would allege that, because Israelis assassinated the UN security member Folke Bernadotte in 1948, that it’s now likely they are continuing to assassinate UN security members, and that every article about Israel must include their “sordid history of assassinating UN representatives”. Or because Israel assassinated European scientists in 1962 under Project Damocles, that Israel has a “sordid history of assassinating European civilians” that must be brought up in every news article. “NYT ought to report on Hamas’ history of child soldiers” only makes sense if child soldiers are employed today, because the article is about the killed kids of Gaza, and if they aren’t employed today then IDF units aren’t justified in killing kids under the assumption that they are child soldiers.
If that’s how you interpret criticism I don’t know what to say.
Wow, so the ban on talking about Israel even includes sub-comments?
That’s an excellent idea actually, put it to the community in a poll — should we ban people who discuss Israel too much and what qualifies as too much. Or do you mean the mods?
The threats or whatever are so lame.
You haven't been banned from talking about Israel. It was just something you are pushing me toward contemplating.
The rest of your comment is sufficiently repetitious, uncharitable, etc. that I can see it was a mistake to attempt to have a productive dialogue with you concerning your bad behavior.
My apologies. I will just go straight to a ban next time. Cheers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By my count, out of his last 100 comments, 23 were about Israel. I think that's a reasonable level of engagement with one topic.
I mean, if community comfort is the issue - not a single one of @coffee_enjoyer's posts has ever made me uncomfortable, and in fact I value his presence here highly.
His own AAQC record suggests that you are not the only one! Which is why I would like him to not decide to get himself banned by pulling this shit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are saying it as if it were preposterous, but yes, Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken has a long history of hating IDF, wide sectors of Israel society (basically anybody outside far left), supporting BDS and Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. He personally called Israel an "apartheid regime" and Hamas "freedom fighters" as recently as this year, so he may not be the most objective party here and certainly not one that being mentioned in the context of criticizing Israel reinforces the critique. I'm not sure if he qualifies as an "antisemite" - maybe yes, maybe not - but he would certainly support and endorse any libel and any fabrication that makes Israel look bad. It's basically not just "dog bites man", but "dog that is known for bitting men and having bitten men today, bites man again".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link