naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30319 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.
Replace this with any other culture war issue (and,for Americans, that's what it is) IQ, crime,gender medicine.
Let's say people are utterly credulous about the evidence from their side (including from non credible sources), then suddenly have isolated demands for rigor for any contradictory evidence, stake out absolute stances ("that never happens") and only partly walk them back after allowing the misinformation to fester as long as possible.
What conclusion would you draw?
I make an exception for Trudeau. There the explanation is that he just is a deeply unwise person who makes premature and dangerous comments to virtual signal (see the mass graves thing) A fool more than a self serving partisan for whom truth is secondary or is in such a bubble and compromised epistemic position that it functionally is.
Despite how ghastly the behavior of the underdog, people are eager to side with them because they believe that they are only the underdog because they are oppressed, and the oppressor is ultimately the one that's morally culpable for their behavior. If they were not oppressed, their natural state would be peaceful and humane.
This leads to a confabulation of sorts. The underdog is both given the benefit of the doubt about potential bad behavior and they are also absolved of responsibility when their behavior is undeniably bad.
This situation is also tailor-made for the sort of bad faith I'm describing because there's already a belief on the pro-"underdog" side (driven by an assumption that words determine reality) that "validating narratives" directly leads to harm. This is often strange and self-serving in US contexts (accepting the "detransitioner narrative" will in no way lead to trans "genocide", no matter what partisans say), but if there's any time it's likely to be true it's here.
When you have people like Nikki Haley saying "finish them" about an operation that must kill or displace a bunch of unarmed Palestinians to have any efficacy I can see why people utterly opposed to that want to run as much interference as possible.
"X never happens" when you know all you're doing is forcing your opponent to go do research is asinine in a domestic context but, insofar as you believe no one should die, you actually have an incentive to muddy the waters and blunt sympathy for Israel. The US is its benefactor after all and so it may really matter this time.
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 -
Who said they're naive?
Replace this with any other culture war issue (and,for Americans, that's what it is) IQ, crime,gender medicine.
Let's say people are utterly credulous about the evidence from their side (including from non credible sources), then suddenly have isolated demands for rigor for any contradictory evidence, stake out absolute stances ("that never happens") and only partly walk them back after allowing the misinformation to fester as long as possible.
What conclusion would you draw?
I make an exception for Trudeau. There the explanation is that he just is a deeply unwise person who makes premature and dangerous comments to virtual signal (see the mass graves thing) A fool more than a self serving partisan for whom truth is secondary or is in such a bubble and compromised epistemic position that it functionally is.
Despite how ghastly the behavior of the underdog, people are eager to side with them because they believe that they are only the underdog because they are oppressed, and the oppressor is ultimately the one that's morally culpable for their behavior. If they were not oppressed, their natural state would be peaceful and humane.
This leads to a confabulation of sorts. The underdog is both given the benefit of the doubt about potential bad behavior and they are also absolved of responsibility when their behavior is undeniably bad.
This situation is also tailor-made for the sort of bad faith I'm describing because there's already a belief on the pro-"underdog" side (driven by an assumption that words determine reality) that "validating narratives" directly leads to harm. This is often strange and self-serving in US contexts (accepting the "detransitioner narrative" will in no way lead to trans "genocide", no matter what partisans say), but if there's any time it's likely to be true it's here.
When you have people like Nikki Haley saying "finish them" about an operation that must kill or displace a bunch of unarmed Palestinians to have any efficacy I can see why people utterly opposed to that want to run as much interference as possible.
"X never happens" when you know all you're doing is forcing your opponent to go do research is asinine in a domestic context but, insofar as you believe no one should die, you actually have an incentive to muddy the waters and blunt sympathy for Israel. The US is its benefactor after all and so it may really matter this time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link