naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29416 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
How many Right Wingers changed their worldview after the Breivik attacks? I've talked to people on here who acknowledge that he was directionally correct, and possibly even effective, though most stop short of saying it should be repeated.
I don't think one is obligated to accept a reverse Heckler's Veto on one's political beliefs. Just because I'm in the audience and a heckler is rude doesn't mean that the comedian on stage is funny; just because my fellow fans start winging batteries onto the field doesn't mean the Cowboys don't suck.
If you actually believe in your core beliefs, the unfortunate actions of your teammates should not change them.
What would they be expected to change? You can be against mass immigration and also be against murdering a bunch of young people. What Brevik did doesn't really have any impact on what I think about immigration.
I'm not surprised by the support for Palestine or even Hamas, given how much it's been a cause celebre for a while, but I'm pretty appalled by the number and profile of people cheering the specific tactics, here. The extent that the paraglider has become a specific signal while being pretty strongly tied to what was effectively a group of spree shootings, kidnappings, and rapes is a change of worldview to at least have a new symbol: it's just a change for the worse. Same for people putting "full responsibility" on Israel, or finding hope in a massacre, or what have you.
It'd be one thing if these folk just had their tail between their legs for a few days and then were right back into talking about the newest Israeli overreach -- and there's no small number of people doing that -- but this is the sort of thing that FCFromSSC's Charcoal Briquettes statement was criticizing, except to an even steeper extent.
And it's coming from a lot of people who supposedly should be much more vulnerable to social sanction than rioters or internet randos.
Yes, there were Right Wingers (or actual-fascists) people who did that post-Norway Attacks (or, more often, after the Christchurch), too. But they were both a much more constrained set and hounded out of both mainstream society and of the Right. (And generally not under their own names, because when they were doxxed they'd be rightfully excluded from their jobs). Maybe we're just on the first few days, and that will happen here as well.
Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. If they just stayed silent for a few days, gave a halfhearted condemnation about attacking civilian targets, and then waited for the inevitable Israeli killing of civilians in their response to start hating Israel again then I wouldn't really be shocked. But straight up endorsing terrorist attacks on women and children is a huge escalation in rhetoric.
I think the reason this is tolerated more than the same on the right is that most people just think of these people as kind of a joke. It's like in Succession when he tells his kids they aren't serious people. Someone in Harvard Law playing with these radical ideas will just end up a boring drone in corporate America. I had a friend who went to Berkeley Law and he told me that all the people that came in and had written sob stories about being refugees and how they wanted to change the world all took high paying corporate jobs that were the complete opposite of what they claimed they would do. So at the end of they day, these people really aren't going to do much. It makes sense too because to get into an elite school like that, you need to be disciplined and be a conformist. So their radicalism is conformist radicalism that is a playground where you're allowed to be a "radical" without having any consequences.
Meanwhile, the Right actually attacks real power structures. Say what you want about Jan 6 or the Trucker Protest, but they actually seriously threatened elite power structures
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How many Right Wingers changed their worldview after the Breivik attacks? I've talked to people on here who acknowledge that he was directionally correct, and possibly even effective, though most stop short of saying it should be repeated.
I don't think one is obligated to accept a reverse Heckler's Veto on one's political beliefs. Just because I'm in the audience and a heckler is rude doesn't mean that the comedian on stage is funny; just because my fellow fans start winging batteries onto the field doesn't mean the Cowboys don't suck.
If you actually believe in your core beliefs, the unfortunate actions of your teammates should not change them.
What would they be expected to change? You can be against mass immigration and also be against murdering a bunch of young people. What Brevik did doesn't really have any impact on what I think about immigration.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not surprised by the support for Palestine or even Hamas, given how much it's been a cause celebre for a while, but I'm pretty appalled by the number and profile of people cheering the specific tactics, here. The extent that the paraglider has become a specific signal while being pretty strongly tied to what was effectively a group of spree shootings, kidnappings, and rapes is a change of worldview to at least have a new symbol: it's just a change for the worse. Same for people putting "full responsibility" on Israel, or finding hope in a massacre, or what have you.
It'd be one thing if these folk just had their tail between their legs for a few days and then were right back into talking about the newest Israeli overreach -- and there's no small number of people doing that -- but this is the sort of thing that FCFromSSC's Charcoal Briquettes statement was criticizing, except to an even steeper extent.
And it's coming from a lot of people who supposedly should be much more vulnerable to social sanction than rioters or internet randos.
Yes, there were Right Wingers (or actual-fascists) people who did that post-Norway Attacks (or, more often, after the Christchurch), too. But they were both a much more constrained set and hounded out of both mainstream society and of the Right. (And generally not under their own names, because when they were doxxed they'd be rightfully excluded from their jobs). Maybe we're just on the first few days, and that will happen here as well.
But I'm not optimistic.
Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. If they just stayed silent for a few days, gave a halfhearted condemnation about attacking civilian targets, and then waited for the inevitable Israeli killing of civilians in their response to start hating Israel again then I wouldn't really be shocked. But straight up endorsing terrorist attacks on women and children is a huge escalation in rhetoric.
I think the reason this is tolerated more than the same on the right is that most people just think of these people as kind of a joke. It's like in Succession when he tells his kids they aren't serious people. Someone in Harvard Law playing with these radical ideas will just end up a boring drone in corporate America. I had a friend who went to Berkeley Law and he told me that all the people that came in and had written sob stories about being refugees and how they wanted to change the world all took high paying corporate jobs that were the complete opposite of what they claimed they would do. So at the end of they day, these people really aren't going to do much. It makes sense too because to get into an elite school like that, you need to be disciplined and be a conformist. So their radicalism is conformist radicalism that is a playground where you're allowed to be a "radical" without having any consequences.
Meanwhile, the Right actually attacks real power structures. Say what you want about Jan 6 or the Trucker Protest, but they actually seriously threatened elite power structures
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How many right wingers supported Breivik or his actions?
One could, in theory, support an independent Palestine without supporting Hamas or its actions. In practice, not so much (except, perhaps, for Fatah).
I don't think any right wingers support Breivik type attacks, but I also don't think any changed their stripes after he attacked.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link