naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30318 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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
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.
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