naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29463 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.
Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
I genuinely believe that Israel could detonate some tactical nuclear weapons in Gaza, killing everybody there, including the prisoners, and would suffer almost no negative consequences for it.
Really? You really genuinely believe that Israel could break that many taboos at once and suffer "almost no consequences"? Is the "almost" poised to do very much work? Are we to read this as a literal statement of fact about your most deeply-held beliefs, or is there at least a moderate amount of hyperbole at work here?
Why are you asking me to restate this? Yes: I think Israel could do almost anything at this point, up to a tactical nuke, and would suffer almost no repercussions for it.
Being "slightly hyperbolic" amounts to "everything I say that someone calls me on, is hyperbolic. Everything I say that nobody calls me on, well, I got away with it". It's like "comedians" acting as serious political commentators right up until someone finds a hole in their story, which they then say was just part of the comedy.
I don’t think a debate about whether or not hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool is something we’re going to solve on themotte.
What do you think would happen if Israel detonated a low yield nuclear weapon in Gaza? Let’s set up the scenario: they detonate a small yield tactical nuke inside of one of the Hamas tunnels? I’ve linked elsewhere in this thread to descriptions of the tunnels, but some of them could be pretty deep underground.
This would have the result of almost no civilian casualties, would collapse the tunnels, and would have no significant fallout.
Israel/IDF can get on the TV and explain that they assessed the situation and determined that conventional weapons wouldn’t work, and that the tunnels are an existential threat to Israel. They could explain that the yield wasn’t much higher than the MOAB, but that they needed that level of power in a small package that could fit in a tunnel. They would explain that this was done to minimize civilian deaths and that this was the surgical way of detonating the tunnels. Lindsay Graham would be on Fox News within the day defending it. The words “Israel has a right to exist” would be thrown around a lot. We’d hear about how dedicated Israel is to minimizing collateral damage despite Hamas using human shields and how this was the only option and also the most humanitarian option. Israel would take the moral high ground and people would fall in line supporting that idea.
Etc. etc. etc. We could go through these scenarios all day long and come up with ways in which Israel could probably get away with using a tactical nuke on Gaza. It’s very unlikely, but that is the point of hyperbole; taking the point to its furthest conclusion and exploring the territory out there. I think you’re getting into some pretty bad faith discussion by pretending that this is something else, which also has the effect of derailing the discussion. If you want to have a discussion about if hyperbole is a valid rhetorical tool, please do so in the small question Sunday thread.
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 -
Really? You really genuinely believe that Israel could break that many taboos at once and suffer "almost no consequences"? Is the "almost" poised to do very much work? Are we to read this as a literal statement of fact about your most deeply-held beliefs, or is there at least a moderate amount of hyperbole at work here?
IDF just said that Gazans have about 12 more hours to evacuate about 1M people before they start their invasion. How do you interpret that?
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/13/israel-gaza-hamas-evacuate-un-ground-operation
As a far cry from literally nuking the place, and, without intending offense, as you dodging the question.
Why are you asking me to restate this? Yes: I think Israel could do almost anything at this point, up to a tactical nuke, and would suffer almost no repercussions for it.
Yes I am being slightly hyperbolic.
Being "slightly hyperbolic" amounts to "everything I say that someone calls me on, is hyperbolic. Everything I say that nobody calls me on, well, I got away with it". It's like "comedians" acting as serious political commentators right up until someone finds a hole in their story, which they then say was just part of the comedy.
I don’t think a debate about whether or not hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool is something we’re going to solve on themotte.
What do you think would happen if Israel detonated a low yield nuclear weapon in Gaza? Let’s set up the scenario: they detonate a small yield tactical nuke inside of one of the Hamas tunnels? I’ve linked elsewhere in this thread to descriptions of the tunnels, but some of them could be pretty deep underground.
This would have the result of almost no civilian casualties, would collapse the tunnels, and would have no significant fallout.
Israel/IDF can get on the TV and explain that they assessed the situation and determined that conventional weapons wouldn’t work, and that the tunnels are an existential threat to Israel. They could explain that the yield wasn’t much higher than the MOAB, but that they needed that level of power in a small package that could fit in a tunnel. They would explain that this was done to minimize civilian deaths and that this was the surgical way of detonating the tunnels. Lindsay Graham would be on Fox News within the day defending it. The words “Israel has a right to exist” would be thrown around a lot. We’d hear about how dedicated Israel is to minimizing collateral damage despite Hamas using human shields and how this was the only option and also the most humanitarian option. Israel would take the moral high ground and people would fall in line supporting that idea.
Etc. etc. etc. We could go through these scenarios all day long and come up with ways in which Israel could probably get away with using a tactical nuke on Gaza. It’s very unlikely, but that is the point of hyperbole; taking the point to its furthest conclusion and exploring the territory out there. I think you’re getting into some pretty bad faith discussion by pretending that this is something else, which also has the effect of derailing the discussion. If you want to have a discussion about if hyperbole is a valid rhetorical tool, please do so in the small question Sunday thread.
Hey, thanks for explaining yourself in such detail. That's a lot more reasonable than how I read it originally.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link