site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My views on the whole affair can roughly be summed up with "Israel based, Palestine cringe", and since someone asked me if I was being ironic last time I said this, far from it.

Israel is an oasis in a hostile desert, about as glaring evidence of HBD as could be desired, not that there's a lack if you have eyes to see and a mind not blind to inconvenient truths. Arabs have and do much worse to each other than the Israelis ever have, and the average Palestinian is better off completely desisting from violent resistance, since I expect they would have a much better life as integrated citizens, even if they're of a tier below the Israelis, without voting rights and such. I can't see how they'd be accepted otherwise, since they outnumber them.

While I have no particular hatred of Palestinians, even if I view the whole Middle-Eastern memeplex with disdain, given how far it lies from my preferences, it's certainly obvious to me that their best bet for a peaceful existence would be to avoid poking at the lion that could swat them out of existence were it not for the optics.

Oh dear. You just gave them a reason to fuck optics, or at least the kind of optics that aren't thermal sights on F-16s and drones.

I guess massacring civilians and gangraping dual citizens who post on social media about supporting Palestine has that effect.

I like Israel, and the Jews as a whole when they aren't self-sabotaging by supporting ideologues who would end them. They're smarter than average, and the Ashkenazi (despite the Nazi in the name, which I always found mildly amusing) have more Nobels to them than most of the world put together.

What most civilizations would find unbearable and deserving of an outright war of eradication, such as regular bombardment of population centers by rockets, the Israelis make tolerable through technology, even if it involves sending missiles a hundred times the expense to blow them up.

They desalinate enough water to thrive in a desert that hasn't had far better days since the Bronze Age, when human-caused desertification ruined most of it.

They have chip fabs, and while I didn't bother to look it up, I doubt that even the Gulf States with their trillions have the technical capacity to build the same, at least not while having locals in charge. I emphasize it because they're close to the pinnacle of human technology, as complex as any supercollider, but profit and power generating in themselves. We build cathedrals these days, but to turn sand into thinking rock.

You don't forge a technocratic marvel like Israel in the midst of hostile territory without much in the way of natural resources without human stock that are several cuts above the average. I respect that enough to ignore the whole religious ethno-state deal, or even the occasional human rights violation.

And if there's a way to end this whole mess without human rights getting wedgied and worked over by Mossad, the Palestinians certainly burnt that bridge yesterday.

Israel can do all of those wonderful without encroaching on Palestinian territory, tearing down their homes to make space for Israeli settlers. You are presenting a false dichotomy in which Israel must relentlessly expand into the West Bank, or give up its modernity and first-world characteristics.

I admire Israel for its development, and the contributions of its people to science and human knowledge. I want Israel to survive and thrive, and so I support their efforts to defend themselves. But I need not give them a blank check to do whatever they like. Israel does not need to build settlements in the West Bank to keep their country safe - just the opposite; these settlements create enmity among the Palestinians, and prevent reconciliation.

We must make a distinction between how a nation fights a war, and why they are fighting in the first place. I don't endorse the Palestinians' conduct in war. They inflict barbaric torture on civilians and capture soldiers. The Israelis do not. Yet we cannot conclude from these facts alone that Israel is in the right. When we zoom out and look at the broader picture, it is the Israeli side that has, in the last few decades, committed more infringements, and Palestine is justified in resisting.

What is Israel infringing on with their settlements? What is there to infringe against? There's no deal. There's no agreed borders.

Obviously they are infringing against Palestinian claims to the land, but notably those claims do not stop at the settlements - they claim all of Israel. Ask a Palestinian if he would rather see the latest Jewish settlements gone or Tel Aviv gone - he'll obviously choose the bigger city.

The settlements get attention because they are the marginal change, not because they are the core of the disagreement.

This makes me wonder where Israel/Palestine sympathies lie among YIMBY activists.

I dont think Hamas from Gaza is attack because of some Israeli encroachment on West Bank.

This would have happened even if Israel has not done this, though Israel did move a lot of IDF to the West Bank side for the settlers…. hmm

Israel can do all of those wonderful without encroaching on Palestinian territory, tearing down their homes to make space for Israeli settlers. You are presenting a false dichotomy in which Israel must relentlessly expand into the West Bank, or give up its modernity and first-world characteristics.

The Palestinians could also refrain from indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population centers. Or the gangrape.

Let's call it even?

But I need not give them a blank check to do whatever they like. Israel does not need to build settlements in the West Bank to keep their country safe - just the opposite; these settlements create enmity among the Palestinians, and prevent reconciliation.

My check isn't blank either, but it has room for quite a few zeroes on it.

When we zoom out and look at the broader picture, it is the Israeli side that has, in the last few decades, committed more infringements.

While I am of the opinion that historical grievances beyond living memory, or at least the memory of octogenarians, should be buried, a few decades seems like a rather early cut-off. The fact that the Palestinians don't do worse is reflective of their incapacity to do so, not a lack of desire for the same, or else they wouldn't be cheering at the sight of a hot blonde Israeli woman dead with blood and shit on her genitals.

Israel, on the other hand, has both means and motive, so I can give them points for being quite polite about things, for the most part.

Israel, on the other hand, has both means and motive, so I can give them points for being quite polite about things, for the most part.

Actually, I don't think they do have the means. If they actually did just go and ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip they would lose substantial amounts of the international support they require to continue to exist. Israel is only sustainable at all due to massive flows of materiel from the West, and while their consent manufacturing/influence operations are incredibly powerful, they are still ultimately subject to a public opinion which would come down extremely hard if they just started a second holocaust and wiped out the muslims.

Israel gets about $3 billion in aid from the USA per year. Their defence budget is $23 billion.

It's an exaggeration to say they can't exist without western support.

This is such a strange take. The US set up client states in Jordan and Egypt to stop them from attacking Israel. It finances half the Lebanese political factions for this purpose (and even Hezbollah!). The entire Iraq war (2-3 TRILLION dollars depending on calculation methods) realistically had no other purpose than to eliminate a regime Israel wanted gone. It still stations around 30.000 soldiers around Middle East, with realistically no other purpose than to deter anyone who might want to mess with Israel. Almost any random deal US sponsors around the world will include some small ridiculous clauses to give Israel a bit more diplomatic legitimacy. US is unable to normalize relations with Iran, even though this would make a great amount of geopolitical sense, because Israel doesn't want it.

The list can go on and on. And I am not getting into items like the French giving Israel nuclear arms technology or massive sums of blood money West Germany paid for Israel's industrialization.

The 3 billion direct military aid is absolutely nothing compared to what America and Europe actually provides to Israel.

The Iraq War was because American intelligence thought there really were WMDs and because Saddam had previously lied about them and aroused America's displeasure.

That 3 billion is far from the only support that Israel gets from the west. They benefit from the military activities of the USA, the countless remittances to Israel and Israeli support initiatives run by Israeli partisans in other societies around the world. Significant investments and factories were built there not because it made good economic sense for the companies involved, but because the people in those companies wanted to support Israel. Even in my country, I can't go shopping at a major shopping mall without having some portion of the money I spend go to Israel, because the owner of the company is (or was, I haven't checked in a while) a zealous supporter of Israel and the IDF.

I don't believe you're thinking seriously about the issue at all if you think that $3 billion figure is the be-all and end-all of Western support for Israel.

countless remittances

0.28% of Israeli GDP.

"Countless" is a fun word, you can use it to make a number sound like it's really big when actually you just haven't bothered counting.

Yes, you've pointed out that one of the sources of western contribution to Israeli welfare isn't that large a portion of their GDP. I didn't really expect remittances to be much more than that - I said countless because those remittances would usually consist of large numbers of smaller payments. Furthermore, look at the definition that your source is using - this only counts money being sent back by Israelis who migrate to other countries. A jewish individual raised in France who sent money to pro-Jewish charity organisations would not show up on this chart according to the methodology listed there - but even if not, that doesn't really hurt my argument. 0.28% of GDP might not sound like much, but that stuff adds up over the years, and consistent financial support like that can make a big difference over time... to say nothing of all the other factors I named and which weren't refuted.

If that's the extent of your argument against my position I must confess that my mind has not been changed.

Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. You didn't come to your opinion by data, so data won't dissuade you from it. I'm just helpfully pointing out that you're wrong, for the benefit of other readers.

And yes, 0.28% of GDP is not nothing, and if you add that to the aid and other benefits it adds up to something real... but it's not the difference between existence and nonexistence.

More comments

The Palestinians could also refrain from indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population centers. Or the gangrape.

Israel doesn't need to build settlements to put a stop to this.

The fact that the Palestinians don't do worse is reflective of their incapacity to do so, not a lack of desire for the same, or else they wouldn't be cheering at the sight of a hot blonde Israeli woman dead with blood and shit on her genitals.

This and the rest of your arguments are all correct, but they don't refute my point. Israel has been and is continuing to provoke the Palestinians, and they do not need to do that.

Do you presume that refraining from building more settlements in contested territory is both necessary and sufficient for the animosity to end? I would have to disagree there.

Other than that, I too think you're correct, we're roughly on the same page, arguing about the punctuation.

As I think more about this, I may be changing my mind.

Do you presume that refraining from building more settlements in contested territory is both necessary and sufficient for the animosity to end?

Earlier this morning, I would have answered your question this way: "I don't know, but building settlements certainly doesn't help, and so Israel can't say they are acting entirely in self-defense."

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor. Palestine today is not capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on Israel, but that could change if the difference in birth rates is sustained. So there may be an argument here that Israel has no choice but to do what it is doing today - to wholly conquer and subjugate the Palestinians...

My apologies for being indecisive! This is my first time writing about this issue, and I am realizing that there are gaps in my thinking.

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor. Palestine today is not capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on Israel, but that could change if the difference in birth rates is sustained. So there may be an argument here that Israel has no choice but to do what it is doing today - to wholly conquer and subjugate the Palestinians...

You're in some extremely dangerous territory here.

The argument you've deployed is also completely applicable to white nationalism and the extermination of people of colour. Maybe you are actually a white nationalist who thinks that is a good idea, but if you aren't I think you owe it to yourself to explain exactly what differentiates the two situations.

I don't think the birth rate difference is important. But I do think it's important to understand that this conflict does not go away if Israel stops building settlements. That's the marginal issue. But it's not the core issue.

The grim reality is that it's impossible to have peace because a great many Palestinians do not want peace.

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor.

This is just wrong though? It's an old trope, popular both with Palestinians ("Our women's wombs are our greatest weapon!") and with Jews ("those fecund savages are swelling up like yeast, we must not fall behind!") but in actuality Arab fertility has been declining, Jewish one has been stable, and so they've converged in Israel:

Contrary to the projections of the demographic establishment at the end of the 19th century and during the 1940s, Israel’s Jewish fertility rate is higher than those of all Muslim countries other than Iraq and the sub-Saharan Muslim countries. Based on the latest data, the Jewish fertility rate of 3.13 births per woman is higher than the 2.85 Arab rate (since 2016) and the 3.01 Arab-Muslim fertility rate (since 2020).

The Westernization of Arab demography is a product of ongoing urbanization and modernization, with an increase in the number of women enrolling in higher education and increased use of contraceptives.

Far from facing a “demographic time bomb” in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish state enjoys a robust demographic tailwind, aided by immigration.

However, the demographic and policy-making establishment persists in echoing official Palestinian figures without auditing, ignoring a 100% artificial inflation of those population numbers. This inflation is accomplished via the inclusion of overseas residents, double-counting Jerusalem Arabs and Israeli Arabs married to Judea and Samaria Arabs, an inflated birth rate and deflated death rate.

Official Palestinian TFR is like 3.57 but even if we take that at face value and assume it won't decline (it obviously will, they don't have any cultural immunity or institutional capacity to resist the background anti-natalist pressure, unlike Jews), it won't provide for a stark divide in the foreseeable future – and of course the subset of Jews who disproportionately contribute to the trend, Haredim, themselves have a TFR of 6-7, so they're on a much faster exponential and will be a counterweight to Arabs on their own by the end of the century. Specifically, they have like 1.2 million people now and grow at 4% annually; Palestinians are at 5 million and grow 2.5% annually – both will be between 20-30 million strong.

My apologies for being indecisive! This is my first time writing about this issue, and I am realizing that there are gaps in my thinking.

No worries, we're here to debate after all, and if people reconsider their perspectives, that's The Motte working as intended!

I might be able to simplify your argument and agree. Jews are too important to civilization. I wouldn’t be shocked if their 14.7 million people contribute 25% of scientific output. Their high fertility orthodox communities will have a portion secularized and end up contributing hugely to pushing society forward.

It’s similar to why Elon Musks was protected for a long time from his majorly security law violations. He was too important. At the end of the day Jews are important.

I respect that enough to ignore the whole religious ethno-state deal, or even the occasional human rights violation.

Why?

Why?

Dodging the entire moral philosophy question for the moment, civilizational and economic competence are important for every goal. Want water that doesn't give you deadly diseases? Want to not have violent crime? Want to treat diseases so a large percent of your population doesn't die young? Want your smartest to be poets and physicists instead of farmers and street hagglers? Certainly some of these are related to morality.

If the Palestinians simply gave in, stopped all forms of resistance, and accepted annexation and (likely temporary) second class citizenship, they'd be much better off within a decade. And that 'better off'ness includes fewer deaths from disease, greater happiness, etc. The human rights violations don't really change that, and they're ongoing anyway, and you can try to fix them if you want, but either way self's solution is still better.

If the Palestinians simply gave in, stopped all forms of resistance, and accepted annexation and (likely temporary) second class citizenship, they'd be much better off within a decade.

Would they really?

After seeing the Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians I have a hard time believing this - and I have an even harder time believing that someone on the political left would find having a European colony create an explicit underclass of brown people to be acceptable in any way. Given the actual statements and revealed preferences of Israeli figures, I think the Palestinians would actually be substantially worse off in this situation.

If only we had a control group of Israeli arabs to compare the living standards of against Gaza.

No one is disputing the value of civilization and technological improvement. What I'm disputing is the idea that they are so important as to offer a moral offset when we ask if a civilization is immoral on the whole.

Sure, Israel is net immoral. Probably everyone is net immoral, there are always ways to be better, and always horrible mistakes one's making at some scale. You can't find a country that isn't killing its inhabitants with obesity, addictive drugs, or something. Although I don't think 'preventing-harm-to-the-downtrodden' is the pinnacle of one's duty in one's life, it applies either way - the Great Man who only accomplishes part of his potential is, in the same sense, net immoral.

I don't see the practical relevance, though. Yeah, Israel clearly should treat Palestinians better, whether for humanitarian or self-interested reasons. Palestinians should also stop attacking Israel. Every state of relevance, including the US, conducts pointless conflicts. Yet we should still, perhaps, be able to apply terms like 'respect' to these states. And then, yeah, I respect Israel a lot more than Palestine, a lot more than most other states.

Sure, Israel is net immoral. Probably everyone is net immoral, there are always ways to be better, and always horrible mistakes one's making at some scale. You can't find a country that isn't killing its inhabitants with obesity, addictive drugs, or something.

The problem is that of intention. It's one thing to say that there are inevitable costs to, say, policing and some people will end up being hurt when they are. But it's an entirely different thing to say that we shouldn't try to prevent those from happening in the first place.

But Israel hasn't been (seriously) talking about annexation (expect for particular territories designed to render West Bank into unviable enclaves) or any sort of a citizenship, first-class or second-class or whatever, for Palestinians.

I agree, the particulars of the situation don't really point to any good options. I'm trying to provide examples of why being okay with a semi-ethnostate or human rights violations is fine if it comes along with more important things.

Are you okay with this argument being applied to a hypothetical white American or white European ethnostate?

Yes. This would apply to, for instance, African nations being materially better off without decolonization, even if it meant still being ruled by somewhat-racist policies.

An existence as a peaceful lower middle income protectorate of Israel would afford Palestinians a relatively decent standard of living by non-petrostate Arab standards, the chance to continue practicing most of their religion and culture, and the ability to live decent enough lives like the rest of the global middle.

The difference is, I think, that as @Pasha says, this is an extremely honor based culture even by non Hajnali standards. They are, for now, too proud. And let’s be real, their treatment has been undignified. They have just cause for war, and though they do not for the kind of savage war crimes on display yesterday, they’re hardly surprising either.

And so the only options are to crush their will and to humiliate them utterly, or to give in, it’s hard to conceive of a third option.

I think there is a resurgence of anti-Hamas sentiment because at this point in time Israel has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Israel is not going to be the monolithic society they once were in the last century. Palestinians are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Israel to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Palestinians will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Israel will not survive. ~ Barbayla Spectaj

I am tagged so I feel like adding something. I think most Western-oriented people (including me) has had the experience of an incredibly visceral reaction yesterday to the images of gunned men of another culture violating the family homes, taking away women and leaving death and destruction behind them. We all felt this because they could be our houses and they could be our women. Israeli politicians are talking about basically genocide and the Air Force has been dropping a bomb per minute ever since. This is how the Palestinians have felt at least once a month for 4 generations at this point. Their entire culture is a coping mechanism to deal with this extreme constant humiliation. I can't begin to fathom how childish someone has to be to suggest that THIS MAN just surrender to the killers of his child in exchange for becoming their low-wage servant.

The alternative to surrendering to those killers is almost certain death. I mean, what do you say to the surviving (American) Indian in 1880 whose tribe has been mostly killed in conflict with settlers / the government? To run into the bullets?

Surviving in many cases meant the opportunity for more children, descendants, a genetic legacy, life, the things that all people intrinsically seek. But then perhaps this is a difference in kind, after all Jews lived at the mercy of others, often humiliated, for many centuries, so perhaps we cannot understand those for whom death is always better than a life on one’s knees.

The alternative to surrendering to those killers is almost certain death

Palestinians haven’t surrendered for 80+ years at this point and their genetical material is passing along quite successfully.

Israel isn’t omnipotent. It left Gaza before back when it had half the population, Hamas-Iran axis didn’t exist and the US was the absolute world hegemon, unquestionably committed to Israel. There weren’t 100 Jewish hostages in Gaza.

None of these conditions are true anymore. It’s a much richer and casualty sensitive country. Cheap drones are leading to a revolution in asymmetric warfare. US is distancing itself from Middle East.

Israel can inflict incredible casualties in Gaza. But can they really pacify the region? Or even beat hamas without leading to a much more radical faction taking over? I have serious doubts. And as long as Palestinians persist, all it takes for them is one victory at some point in the future.

Sadly, cheap drones could make wholesale violence only ever more unavoidable. You’re completely correct, as a situation it becomes ever more desperate for Israel, the strategic options narrow towards only one viable gambit.

The way things look like from here to me, it is not Israel's military weakness that has been allowing Palestinians to persist, but the fact that turning countries into ravaged parking lots is just not done today.

I think from a Western orientated POV it feels like a rather absurd situation in which our position of power is being couched in almost absurd levels of coddling for people from certain cultures, compared to historical norms (and what they'd do to us if in a similar position of supremacy) and that the whole thing feels like increasingly there's no coherent reason to be so utterly indulgent aside from pure bleeding-heart sympathy.

I would recommend people with such sentiment to remember this is exactly how Russians felt two years ago. Or the US multiple times in the recent memory. Sometimes your seemingly weak enemies can make some powerful friends or exploit structural imbalances to deny you your goals long enough that it turns into a defeat.

Most of those were self-inflicted issues for the superpowers in question, and it's very 'we are establishing norms of conduct which, whilst it'd be nice if everybody followed, it doesn't seem the current losers would follow if they were on top.'

I fully realize this comment might get me in trouble and it is ad-hominem and "tasteless". I will delete it if mods say so and apologize. It is even embarrassing if I got my basic assumption wrong. Here we go though..

I strongly suspect the real reason is because he is Indian, and the said occasional human rights violations are against Muslims. HBD is a thin veneer used to justify seeing human beings as bugs to be crushed because they aren't technologically advanced enough. Online high-caste Indian men seem to be highly susceptible to such viewpoints, probably because of their experience of living in India of all places, the pinnacle of HDB inequality.

Better than speculating "He only believes that for tribal reasons" would be to... ask him. Yes, we generally dislike people lobbing identity-based arguments at each other. We also prefer you don't delete posts. Whether or not you want to apologize is up to you.

That is a fair point. I will do so the next time. I am quicker to assume such things when people are low key advocating for ethnic cleansing.

I am a South Asian Muslim (technically outside the caste system, which is a Hindu thing, but in reality there is an informal system that everyone knows), and I also

respect that enough to ignore the whole religious ethno-state deal, or even the occasional human rights violation.

I strongly suspect the real reason is because he is Indian, and the said occasional human rights violations are against Muslims

Bruh. I remember you making the same completely unfounded claim about me before, which I immediately pushed back against.

I'm secularly irreligious, largely hating most religion equally, albeit a few annoy me enough to earn more of my scorn. Muslims, Hindu fundamentalists, roughly about as bad as I'm concerned, even if the latter are currently in power.

I'm sure you've seen me ~politely squabble with the local Mormons and miscellaneous denominations of Christianity here too.

On a more forgivable error, I didn't come to believe in HBD while living in India, or at least not while observing Indians growing up.

Living in an upper-middle class bubble tends to blur everything together, especially when I'm unusually bad at figuring out caste from surnames, and I didn't even know what caste I was until I was around 19 (it's not high at all, just a cut above people who get affirmative action in fact, woe is me that I had to get into med school the hard way).

Now, actual med school, where I had to restrain endless fury that I had ended up shunted off to a backwater while my Scheduled Class classmates, if they didn't gotten upgraded a few days later to a far better one, had ranks twice as bad I did in the competitive exam, while being visibly worse at things.. Yeah, that'll radicalize you, or at least make you listen when the oldies mumble when not in public. Huh, seems like they were on to something after all.

I hope you remember this time, not that it really matters.

Err, it's the entire rest of my comment.

What most civilizations would find unbearable and deserving of an outright war of eradication, such as regular bombardment of population centers by rockets, the Israelis make tolerable through technology, even if it involves sending missiles a hundred times the expense to blow them up.

They desalinate enough water to thrive in a desert that hasn't had far better days since the Bronze Age, when human-caused desertification ruined most of it.

They have chip fabs, and while I didn't bother to look it up, I doubt that even the Gulf States with their trillions have the technical capacity to build the same, at least not while having locals in charge. I emphasize it because they're close to the pinnacle of human technology, as complex as any supercollider, but profit and power generating in themselves. We build cathedrals these days, but to turn sand into thinking rock.

You don't forge a technocratic marvel like Israel in the midst of hostile territory without much in the way of natural resources without human stock that are several cuts above the average.

No, I mean why do you endorse a position in which technology and civilization have such value that they can balance out moral obligations? Most people would say that morality comes first, always. In a sense, that's precisely what morality is, the rules that hold utmost importance and must be obeyed should there ever be any conflict. You don't even dispute the idea that what Israel is doing is immoral.

You say that technological innovation and civilization creation are aspects in which Israel does so well that its immoral actions can be ignored. Would you say the same if the costs or consequences of those actions fell on you or those you cared about? If the cost for Israel's success was the death of your parents, your wife, your children, or even you, would you still make the same argument?

Now, you could argue that your human responses are irrational. Feelings are stupid and gay, after all, there's no reason your chemical reaction to seeing your family killed by a drone should dictate the actual morality you hold to. But talk is cheap. I've debated people who struck me as incapable of separating the reality we all inhabit from any hypothetical world I proposed. It's easy to bite bullets about what you would accept when the only one biting actual bullets are your adversaries.

No, I mean why do you endorse a position in which technology and civilization have such value that they can balance out moral obligations? Most people would say that morality comes first, always.

Top level post on this coming soon from yours truly. Stay tuned to the next episode of Dragon Ball Z TheMotte.

Truly he has obtained great powers since rising. I eagerly anticipate the next gospel.

Oh dear, I seem to be gathering apostles... Make it end mom, I'm not the Messiah, I'm a very naughty boy...

Lmao, why not both?! And hey, you can't rise from the dead and not expect to gather disciples. Come on now, you really should know better. ;P

I would say it's largely because my own idiosyncratic morality can differ quite significantly from the norm.

I'd go so far as to say that people who are 100% on board with all the values preached around them are NPCs, which is what I gave as my definition for the term when someone asked in a CW thread a while back. Seemed to match up with most of the answers too.

Most people would say that morality comes first, always. In a sense, that's precisely what morality is, the rules that hold utmost importance and must be obeyed should there ever be any conflict.

This is a deontological take, and I'm a consequentialist.

Such a naive approach runs into the immediate roadblock of someone pointing out how you resolve the Kantian imperatives of not lying and not letting someone come to harm when an murderer knocks on your door and asks where you friend is. (Or the SS comes for the Jews in your annex, if we're to stay close to the topic at hand)

Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.

(Some suggest that Deontology can also be considered Utilitarianism for Dummies, or people who don't trust themselves to think too hard, which is close enough, we don't have infinite computing power in our skulls and some heuristics are good enough to use most of the time. I'm also not a Benthamian Utilitarian/Effective Altruist, I just model myself as having a utility function)

There are plenty of people who proclaim democracy as valuable in-of-itself, and point to downstream observations about socio-economic output as a justification for the more hard-headed.

Well, I'll happily sacrifice some democracy for a lot of wealth, and I would head to Singapore right away if they didn't only take the top 0.1% of doctors from India.

Further, what comes when we make an AGI (which is obedient instead of killing us immediately)? It takes chutzpah to think that humans should be the ones micromanaging it, instead of asking it to examine our goals and desires and figure out what's best for us, even if we enforce a requirement to let us decide in the end.

I would take being utterly politically powerless in a post-scarcity society over being the ruler of a state like Palestine. And you know what, that's the same dilemma they face. Surrender their useless autonomy, already well compromised, and accept Israeli rule, which very much wants to be kind, or else they'd have leveled the strip.

As for Human Rights?

Spit. They're a contingent outcome of immense global wealth where we can agree to pretend that they descend from the heavens or emerge fully formed from our temples, not pure Logos that we stray from at risk of eternal damnation.

In other words, they're nice to have as Schelling Points, not sacred as far as I'm concerned. And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.

Would you say the same if the costs or consequences of those actions fell on you or those you cared about? If the cost for Israel's success was the death of your parents, your wife, your children, or even you, would you still make the same argument?

Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.

Or condoning and celebrating those who do, to an extent.

Now, you could argue that your human responses are irrational. Feelings are stupid and gay, after all, there's no reason your chemical reaction to seeing your family killed by a drone should dictate the actual morality you hold to. But talk is cheap. I've debated people who struck me as incapable of separating the reality we all inhabit from any hypothetical world I proposed. It's easy to bite bullets about what you would accept when the only one biting actual bullets are your adversaries.

You can have mine for free, I'm commenting here because I like to, not because I have a Substack or Patreon to shill (maybe later). I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.

If the modal Palestinian was that pragmatic, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.

I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.

And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.

You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.

Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.

But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.

I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.

Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?

I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.

I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!

As far as my personal subjective morality goes, I don't find it particularly difficult, not as much as say, quantum mechanics or memorizing every single fucking interaction in medicine I am expected to learn for the next set of exams I need to give.

Not that I let moral relativism stop me from being a moral chauvinist, why, yes, I prefer my own morals, and I think society would be better off adopting it.

Whether the creation of a technology is a moral good or not obviously depends on the technology, even for an unabashed transhumanist? Gain of function research? Hell no. Eliminating mosquitoes with gene drives? Hell yes. AI? Depends, will it save us or kill us? In expectation I slightly lean towards the former, even if I worry about the latter.

Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.

Of course the net sum of all technological advances since fire has been overwhelmingly positive, and if Ted K wants to disagree, sucks to be dead I guess. May we develop the technology to solve that particular problem soon.

You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.

And?

I hereby declare that it's a Human Right to be free from the tyranny of gravity, if not Israeli occupation. Look, I don't float, at least not without a rocket.

What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without at least 20th century medicine?

But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.

Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.

Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?

A little? Not that I would even frame it as a bad thing, per se. It should be clear by now that I consider morality to be quite contingent on the circumstances one finds one's self in.

I hereby declare that it's a Human Right to be free from the tyranny of gravity, if not Israeli occupation. Look, I don't float, at least not without a rocket.

You sure? I just tried it and cracked levitating. Maybe you aren't believing strongly enough.

Jokes aside, I think 'objective' morality is an incoherent concept, because objectivity is an incoherent concept! Jordan Peterson has some great discussions on how everything bottoms out to morality - basically related to relevance realization a la John Vervaeke and how there are so many facts out there (like impossible numbers) that you have to have some a priori framework to get them down to a manageable size to make decisions on.

There's also Hume's is-ought gap, if you're looking for the steelmanned version of what I think @drmanhattan16 is trying to argue.

You sure? I just tried it and cracked levitating. Maybe you aren't believing strongly enough.

Shoots your balloon down. One at a time, because I don't particularly want to kill you.

Maybe my chakras will stop being so lazy, if I could levitate it would save me a lot of pain in the literal ass and legs.

More comments

I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!

I said nothing about objective morality.

Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.

And why is that itself a moral good?

What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without it?

You understand that we can abstract these things, right? For example, the right to use contemporary means of private messaging. Letters in the past, DMs today.

Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.

But you certainly seem to be indifferent to how imperfect they may be.

If the Israelis were having Predator drones (or whatever their equivalent is) bomb a random house in each block every day, would you say that's just "imperfection"? What if they decide to genocide by bullet the Palestinians entirely, but they also promise a cure for cancer?

And why is that itself a moral good?

Because I think it is? So do most people, if they're thinking straight.

I said nothing about objective morality.

Your question makes no sense without that presumption, unless you want a scan of my brain so you tease out the way the neurons fire.

You understand that we can abstract these things, right? For example, the right to use contemporary means of private messaging. Letters in the past, DMs today.

Sure. But the Right To Internet Access was proposed as an addition to the usual for "Free Speech".

But you certainly seem to be indifferent to how imperfect they may be.

Could be better. Could be much worse. I give them a 8/10 for effort.

If the Israelis were having Predator drones (or whatever their equivalent is) bomb a random house in each block every day, would you say that's just "imperfection"? What if they decide to genocide by bullet the Palestinians entirely, but they also promise a cure for cancer?

Hmm.. Harder than it looks, or not intuitively obvious to me. There are apparently 14.3 million Palestinians. ~10 million deaths from cancer a year.

Cancer doesn't usually take people in their prime, I'd know, I treat enough old people in my onco unit. Palestinians are younger than typical, apparently they think having a bunch of kids in a warzone is acceptable where richer Westerners don't.

Even so, let's assume that the average Palestinian killed this way loses 50 years of their lives. Half the people who die of cancer do so above 70, most of the other half in their fifties. Let's be generous and say the average loses 20 years of their lives, this is napkin math.

So, given my timelines for a cure for cancer the old fashioned way, maybe in 10-20 years without AGI, shorter without it..

15.3*50=765

10 * 20 * 10(years)= 2000

If I really cared, then I would adjust for Quality Adjusted Life Years due to the age of the latter population. Population growth, second order effects from 15 million people being killed, the sheer cost of the ridiculous number of missiles needed, it would cheaper to nuke them with a cleanish bomb. Risk of WW3. Yahweh intervening (honestly this one is negligible, he didn't care about the first 6 million did He?)

There you go, I'm ready to sign the form you presumably have ready when the Israelis stop holding out on us, maybe they'll share the schematics of the Jewish Space Lasers while they're being generous. RIP Palestine, but I'll buy some Raytheon stock and iodine pills while you get the pen out. Some Luxottica too, the Palestinian future is so bright that the Israelis need shades!

More comments

Feel free to enlighten me.

You do realize that much of the repression is almost at the bare minimum necessary for a country of barely 6 million people to monitor several times that number who hate their guts, while living close enough to jog over? Or bike. Or paraglide into a concert and rape the hottest chick who skipped cardio.

The Israelis are not genocidal, despite being victims of one successful genocide in barely living memory, and more that could have plausibly followed if the Arabs had been able to push them into the ocean.

Once again, I beseech you to submit an actual argument regarding why the living conditions of the average Palestinian wouldn't jump, if not to First World standards, something much more respectable, if they didn't use their schools and hospitals to operate an insurgency while using their own populace as shields.

Yeah, they might not be able to vote if they unified, but if you insist using your franchise on bringing Hamas or its sympathizers back into power on the regular, my sympathies are slim.

Edit: For anyone curious, it was a drive by comment accusing me of holding kindergarten grade views about the situation in occupied Palestine, presumably deleted when they worried the mods might notice. They still see deleted comments dawg.

I'll jump in on the side of your interlocutor and just say that while I have massive respect for your hardline consquentialist views (you really play it to the hilt!) I tend to agree that morality has to come first.

Would you not agree that as a technocratic consequentialist, you take on faith things like Scientific Objectivity and Technological Progress as goods? Or of course 'Utility,' although it's such a vaguely defined catchall I'd rather use something like 'virtue.'

you take on faith things like Scientific Objectivity and Technological Progress as goods?

"Faith"? What a queer word.

I observe an exponential or even super-exponential growth curve and its visible outcomes, and we're approaching the inflection point. I will cease having "faith" in it when the curves flatten out, our AI no longer improving, our medicine becoming stale.

Until then, I'm here for the ride.

More comments

I guess massacring civilians and gangraping dual citizens who post on social media about supporting Palestine has that effect.

The horror cherry on top of this cake of horror is this won't change anyone's minds. Pretty much nobody is going to stop supporting the Palestinians over Israel because of this, not even most of the survivors of the Rave for Peace.

The Palestinians have every right to fight back when their land is being stolen. Do you not think Ukraine has killed people in its counter offensive?

They lost the war, vae victis. If they want to keep fighting, Israel has every reason to keep killing them.

A lot of these people were born after the war. Punishing them for the sins of their ancestors feels wrong. I wish there was an Arab country willing to take them in. Then I would feel comfortable letting the ones who refuse to leave suffer in poverty.

Punishing them for the sins of their ancestors feels wrong.

What punishment? Their ancestors lost the land, now they don't get said land; they had no independent claim to it. If they want to take the land their ancestors lost, Israel has every reason to keep killing them.

You make a good point.

The issue isn't simply that they don't have access to other land. As I understand, the issue is that the only land they have access to isn't actually governed by them, and they're limited in what they're allowed to do. Like, they can't receive packages without going through a long waiting period as it's inspected by the Israeli officials.

I don't know how much of their poor standard of living is due to not having statehood and how much is due to just them being bad at building a society. I'm not even arguing for any specific policy. I just mean that I feel sorry for them, and I have a moral impulse to help them, which I acknowledge.

Ukraine had eminently good game-theoretic reasons to resist, because if countries only claimed to be willing to resist with force invasions by (maybe) superior powers, and then gave up the moment the odds were stacked against them, then they wouldn't last as countries very long, not even the Pax Americana can save them all.

Once you're past that, then it's time to consider alternatives, especially when continued resistance is nigh suicidal.

For what it's worth, I'm 50:50 on whether it's worth it for Ukraine to keep fighting with a maximal war goal, instead of accepting the annexation of its eastern fringes in a white peace.

As for Hamas, buddy just give up already, before you're dead, preferably.

Do Algonquin natives have a right to shoot up Americans and Canadians for colonialism?

That's what the French and Indian war was. If there had been continued resistance, terrorism, and guerrilla fighting by the Native Tribes after the 19th century. Which year would it have gone from righteous to not righteous? 1935? 1970? 2001?

It becomes terrorism after the treaty is signed ending the war. If descendants of the Natives want to call those treaties unfair and demand reparations, I think they have a right to peacefully protest for it, and situationally I might even support their cause. They don’t have a right to commit violence.

Similarly, Arabs don’t have a right to start armed conflicts, and they’re in the wrong when they do so.

"Arabs don't have a right to start armed conflicts" seems like quite the broad claim. Could you explain your reasoning? Did Saudi Arabia not have a right to provide aid and intelligence to fight against ISIS?

As for the treaties, that bypasses a perceived issue of state vs non-state status. Lots of the people in question aren't meaningfully bound by a treaty, because they're from a different tribe, because their tribe wasn't organized enough to sign one, etc. Is a miqmaq obligated by a treaty signed by cherokee and anishinaabe? Presumably not, based on our understanding of how these work.

"Arabs don't have a right to start armed conflicts" seems like quite the broad claim. Could you explain your reasoning? Did Saudi Arabia not have a right to provide aid and intelligence to fight against ISIS?

To be clear, no one has the right to start armed conflicts. ISIS started the fight, Saudi Arabia is justified in fighting an aggressor.

As for the treaties, that bypasses a perceived issue of state vs non-state status. Lots of the people in question aren't meaningfully bound by a treaty, because they're from a different tribe, because their tribe wasn't organized enough to sign one, etc. Is a miqmaq obligated by a treaty signed by cherokee and anishinaabe? Presumably not, based on our understanding of how these work.

That's a fair point, and I would have to do a fair amount more thinking to come to what I would consider a fair belief about when natives are allowed to use violence to fight back vs not. But in any case, I don't think there's any reasonable justification where Palestinians can shoot up music festivals. At the very least, Palestininian leadership should make some clear demands from Israel and only start shooting after Israel says no, instead of just rejecting every Israeli deal as not good enough without making counter offers.

Yes, and in the example of the settlement of the Americas, almost all of “Western civilization”, even as authors sometimes romanticized native life, was on the general side of the colonizers and settlers. The point is that when it’s your family being raped, murdered and/or scalped, the noble savage of the plains rhetoric dies quickly. Israel is in the same place. The Palestinians have a ‘right’ to defend themselves, but exercising that right will only tighten the noose.

What does it mean for land to be stolen in this context? We don't have any agreed upon system for deciding what country owns any given land in Israel or Palestine.

The Israeli settlers that have been demolishing churches and mosques in the past months while beating locals, stealing the cattle and raising their houses are clearly stealing land. The people who are defending the place they grew up clearly have a right to fight back.

This is the first I'm hearing about this. Where is that happening?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/4/israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-mosque-complex-on-fifth-day-of-sukkot

The fight started a few days ago with a storming of one of Islams main holy sites.

The fact that the Al Aqsa mosque is even still standing is an extraordinary testament to Israeli tolerance. In the inverse situation, the Arabs certainly wouldn’t have left a rebuilt temple standing.

Not completely genoicding them and slowly pushing them out is apparently tolerance...

More comments

The Ukranians have the right to fight back, not because their land was once stolen, but because their land was very recently stolen. The further back in time you go, the less your right to push back becomes, if Finland today attacked Russia to try and recover Karelia (this happened around the same time as the creation of Israel) people's sympathies for them would be nowhere near the level they have for Ukraine, and rightfully so.

Indeed, even in western countries like the UK, there are laws on Presciptive Easement where if someone uses a piece of land openly for some use for 20 years they do not own, eventually the government recognizes their claim on the land and hands it to them if the original owner tries to complain, and there are good reasons why such laws exist.

In Israel's case the land theft happened so far back and they have done so much to transform it that what exists now is nothing like what existed in 1950 (on the Israeli side at least), so they have a claim to keep it. And no, I don't expect "if you steal land you will be given 75 years (a lifetime) of hell, after which you'll be allowed to keep the land" to be much less of a deterrent/cause more moral hazard than "if you steal land you'll be given perpetual hell" in stopping people from stealing land.

Putting a statute of limitations on revanchism is a good idea, but not one very compatible with the establishment of the State of Israel in the first place.

if Finland today attacked Russia to try and recover Karelia (this happened around the same time as the creation of Israel) people's sympathies for them would be nowhere near the level they have for Ukraine, and rightfully so.

how does that work with Azerbaijan fighting for the land which independent country of Azerbaijan never controlled prior to 2023/2020?

Armenia put up a pretty big fight back in 2020, but then saw they were going to lose and their cause was a no hoper and bowed out with minimal losses. They absolutely have the right to try and fight and also the right to try and convince the rest of the world to support them, but recognized a lost cause when they saw one (unlike the Palestinians) after they were unable to muster up large amounts of international aid unlike Ukraine. I would be a lot less dismissive of an Armenian counteroffensive say around 2030 if they can put it together than I am of Hamas's usual shenanigans.

Armenia correctly made the decision to reset, recuperate and perhaps try again later, which is something the Palestinians would be wise to do too (and the strength difference between Israel/Palestine is like an order of magnitude bigger than the strength difference between Azerbaijan/Armenia, which should give the Palestinians extra cause to pause and reconsider, but we all know that likely won't happen).

Just because something is morally right doesn't mean it is logically right and vice versa. It's important to consider both of them when deciding your actions, and Hamas attacking Israel is so so logically wrong you need a mountain of "morally right" on your side for it to be a good thing in sum, and they don't have that.

Both sides ethnically cleansed each other on that land decades ago (and before that, too), and Armenia is a major ally of the US’ second largest geopolitical foe. Armenia is in many ways closer to Hamas (and not just for ethnat reasons) in that they fucked around and found out, even though (unlike Zionists) Karabakh Armenians could likely have lived a perfectly fine existence under Azeri rule if they hadn’t agitated from the 80s onward.

Karabakh Armenians could likely have lived a perfectly fine existence under Azeri rule if they hadn’t agitated from the 80s onward.

given long story of mutual pogroms it seems unlikely

The return to violence towards the end of the USSR was because of Armenian agitation. You can try counterfactuals and they’re not invalid, but I’m unsure that ethnic cleansing was in any way inevitable on the Azeri side if the Armenians had played ball.

Yes, I know - Armenia invaded and run round of expulsions after USSR has fallen. Maybe thing would be idyllic otherwise but it seems unlikely to me.

So they have a right to fight back against recent settlements.

Also, Gaza is under an illegal blockade, which they have every right to fight back against. Israel is a legitimate military target. They kill Palestinians, they have many Palestinians in torture camps. Israel continuous to destroy their farmland, steal their cattle, harass Palestinians and Palestinians are regularly killed by Israel.

So the jewish claim that Israel is their land is completely bogus after 2000 years?

Gaza is under an illegal blockade

Given what they do with what they manage to get: I am not surprised that it is under blockade, legal or otherwise (note that any effective blockade needs support also from Egypt)

Sure, the attacks yesterday were by and large not done against recently settled land in the West bank, it was on land Israel has settled for many decades now.

Also, Gaza is under an illegal blockade, which they have every right to fight back against. Israel is a legitimate military target.

Sure, but Israeli civilians are not a legitimate military target, and what we saw yesterday was by and large indiscriminatory killing. It wasn't even "we wanted to kill enemy combatants and these civilians were collateral damage" like Israel says to justify its civilian killing, it was straight up "lets kill party goers because they are there", that's at least a few degrees worse.

They kill Palestinians, they have many Palestinians in torture camps. Israel continuous to destroy their farmland, steal their cattle, harass Palestinians and Palestinians are regularly killed by Israel.

Yes, absolutely, that still does not give you the right to wantonly go out with the intent to kill civilians, desecrate their bodies and then parade them around. There are things worse than death, and Hamas put them on display yesterday.

I freely admit Israel doesn't care about Palestinian civilians and accepts their deaths a collateral damage, valuing their lives at near 0, but what Hamas did yesterday goes a few steps beyond that, what they did actively put a negative value on Israeli civilian lives.

Sure, the attacks yesterday were by and large not done against recently settled land in the West bank, it was on land Israel has settled for many decades now.

Interesting parallel to be drawn there with the idea that Ukraine should be more free to attack Russia proper instead of battering themselves against the prepared lines in the Donbass area -- Hamas clearly considers themselves at war with Israel proper, and I guess are acting accordingly. (apparently committing some war crimes in the process, which I expect will come back to haunt them -- but in terms of the armoured vehicles and such they've been attacking I don't think they can be faulted for not being strictly selective about where those are located.

Ukraine ‘could’ attack Russia proper (and obviously has in a very limited way), but it’s a fair restriction with donated munitions and the strategic value of an attack on Russia given asymmetric factors, nukes etc is questionable.

Russia proper

could you please use 'internationally recognized territory of Russia' instead.

Wat? Why?

More comments

Human minds are a thin veneer of civilization on top of naked tribalism, news at 11.

I suppose the only longterm good that might come of this is the hardliners in Israel make good use of public opinion to stamp Hamas and co out for good.

It might not help the terminally cucked Germans who are torn between voicing support for a liberal woman from their nation (who also happens to be Jewish) versus condemning the precious Palestinians, but it doesn't really matter. If Israel has the stomach for war, ain't nobody stopping them.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats