site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30377 thread views

Israel-Gaza Megathread #2

This is a refreshed 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It wasn’t an initial confused claim, though, it was atrocity propaganda, which requires a stable phrase to repeat and a visual image. An IDF spokesperson doesn’t accidentally say “40 babies decapitated”.

An IDF spokesperson doesn’t accidentally say “40 babies decapitated”.

An IDF spokesperson didn't say "40 babies decapitated".

I don't think he was a spokesperson per se, but the report did seem to originate from an Israeli soldier on the ground -- there were pictures of him on Twitter that I saw.

Did he say "40 babies decapitated"?

It's this guy -- I can't find the tweet that I was thinking of, nor be arsed to dig through the wayback machine for initial headlines which certainly conveyed the impression that there were many decapitated babies killed in some sort of daycare, with the number forty prominently featured.

Anyways, the soldier talks about plural babies and women decapitated, and the PM's spokesperson also talked about multiple babies and toddlers beheaded at that kibbutz -- so far as I can tell there's zero. So whether the claim is forty or just 'some', it seems to be a lie being promulgated pretty high up in the Israeli government, presumably to gin up support for a brutal response.

Sure - but if you're going to complain about imprecise accusations, it's fair to ask for precision in the complaint.

Motte: Hamas killed children horribly.

Bailey: Hamas decapitated 40 babies.

It's entirely fair to object to those two claims being blurred and conflated. But it's the same kind of dishonest to fudge the lines between:

Motte: A soldier said "They cut head off children."

Bailey: An IDF spokesman said 40 babies were decapitated.

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that they cut the head off of even one person, nevermind any babies -- so your second motte is still a lie AFAIC.

Also I think you are overlooking how media ops work -- the thing is kicked off by some official-ish motte like 'i saw babies, toddlers and women decapitated -- there were forty dead babies taken out of there' and then other operatives working for the same org promulgate the bailey version specifically, citing the motte and drumming up fear and outrage.

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that they cut the head off of even one person, nevermind any babies -- so your second motte is still a lie AFAIC

But that's exactly the point. I can as easily say "well maybe no babies got beheaded but some definitely got incinerated, so that's just as bad".

Fudging the extent of the mistruth is no different to fudging the extent of the atrocity. And I don't much mind if someone is just being generally imprecise and not paying attention to every little detail of the conflict - people have lives - but if you're going to come in and complain about misinformation, I think you have a responsibility to get your own information right.

(Also, uh, while I also haven't seen any Hamas decapitations myself I absolutely saw them try repeatedly to decapitate a poor Filipino dude with a garden hoe and that was seriously fucked up)

You didn't address the second part -- and I'm not too sure about any babies being incinerated either, the only reason to think that that's what the Twitter pictures showed is some level of trust in the people sharing them. Which I lack.

Fudging the extent of the mistruth is no different to fudging the extent of the atrocity.

If no women, children, or toddlers (which is exactly what the guy said) have been beheaded, what am I fudging? That's a straight up lie. Plenty of people were/are talking about the beheaded babies (includinging Joe Goddamn Biden), so if you want to be charitable and suggest that they are just misinformed that's fine -- but I think that at least some of them were adding that exaggeration (of the original lie) deliberately. (because they work for IDF SIGINT)

More comments

The initial report was 40 killed babies with some decapitated. The first is undoubtedly true. The second claim seems arguably true.

May I suggest that the argument “not all of the babies were decapitated” isn’t quite the winning argument?

You should read up on atrocity propaganda before you make suggestions about “winning arguments”. Since the Congo Propaganda War of the 1800s nations have used atrocity propaganda to manufacture public support and/or outcry. They do that to win arguments, by creating a sticky grotesque visual image that can be repeated ad nauseam. Like, you know, beheading babies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State_propaganda_war

The initial claim is wrong anyway; there is no evidence of babies decapitated

https://archive.ph/4J92h

No war is fought with bullets and bombs alone. For as long as enemies have taken up arms against each other, propaganda has proven a robust weapon. During the Civil War, Southern printing presses put out materials that claimed Northern victory would lead to “race-mixing” and newspapers portrayed Union soldiers as rapists and thieves. World War I brought the rise of “atrocity propaganda,” which highlights, exaggerates, and sometimes outright fabricates the gruesome acts of violence committed by opposing combatants.

“Yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that it had confirmed Hamas beheaded babies & children while we were live on the air,” she posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Friday. “The Israeli government now says today it CANNOT confirm babies were beheaded. I needed to be more careful with my words and I am sorry.”

There is an enormous emotional difference between a child being shot and a baby being beheaded.

You can’t just say “there is propaganda” and therefore “this is propaganda.” Specifically when the specific early claims (that in a game of telephone was transmuted) appear to be correct.

And no, there isn’t an enormous emotional difference (at least there shouldn’t be). Choosing to in cold purposefully target and kill a toddler is incredibly evil regardless the method. I would support the most barbaric form of execution for the perpetrator.

Do you really think “Hamas specifically choose to target and murder toddlers in their cribs” wouldn’t play? Of course it would because the evil is unconscionable.

I think you are just trying to pick on details (subject to a game of telephone) to try to cast doubt on the overall story. I think it is disingenuous.

I cited you a source proving that it is incorrect.

And yes there is an emotional difference between shooting a child and decapitating babies. Just like there’s a difference between hanging a man, and tearing off his limbs one by one. And I cited you two articles about how atrocity propaganda was used in the past to great effect.

Citing what happened in Congo is wholly irrelevant.

The Congo Propaganda War is relevant (only) insofar as it shows the extent to which states have historically engaged in propaganda. This propaganda always involves visceral, visual, emotionally potent language. It is evidence that such propaganda works, and as a consequence of it working (by hijacking the rational mind) we do need to dispel it and call out actors that engage in it.

As an example from the other side, if it’s the case that Hamas lied about the hospital casualty figures, that must also be called out as propaganda and we should adjust the priors on the accuracy of their future statements.

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