naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30317 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.
It looks like that story wasn't true or exaggerated. But considering the litany of atrocities they committed that same day and were proud of, acting like they wouldn't is ridiculous. There was a hyper focus on whether or not the babies were beheaded or not. It's like fine, they didn't behead the babies, they just did all these other things we know are true that are just as bad. People wanted to focus on that to cast doubt on the other things they did that day, which is absurd because they broadcasted it to the world. Whether or not they did it, that is a debate. What isn't up for debate is if they would kill children because they literally did it that same day and Islamists have done so for decades. And this is true regardless of what Israel did, didn't do, or will do in the future.
A soldier said on camera that many children had been killed and they even saw a beheaded child. The i24 (Israeli news channel) reporter repeated that, jumbled it up, others jumbled it up further, military didn’t comment until it had verified the situation. It now turns out that up to 40 kids were killed (expected given demographics of kibbutzim, high fertility rates among even modern orthodox Jewry, and total population), including babies, and that one young child was seemingly beheaded.
Far from some deliberate propaganda effort, that’s exactly how things are supposed to work, the military didn’t officially confirm until they had the information.
Me or the Israelis? Because from what I saw that wasn't reported by the IDF but instead by some random Israeli and the news picked up on it uncritically.
The people I've seen focusing most on the beheaded babies are the ones claiming that there were beheaded babies. I think it's fair to point out that we don't actually know that they actually beheaded babies.
Indeed. Credibility matters. You don't get to push fake nonsense and expect people to believe you afterwards.
It makes me think of some US political spat I can barely remember. I think some congressman made an incondiary claim that was proven false, then responded by saying something like "yeah but they would if they could". Like, no dude, you don't get credit here. You lied.
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 -
It looks like that story wasn't true or exaggerated. But considering the litany of atrocities they committed that same day and were proud of, acting like they wouldn't is ridiculous. There was a hyper focus on whether or not the babies were beheaded or not. It's like fine, they didn't behead the babies, they just did all these other things we know are true that are just as bad. People wanted to focus on that to cast doubt on the other things they did that day, which is absurd because they broadcasted it to the world. Whether or not they did it, that is a debate. What isn't up for debate is if they would kill children because they literally did it that same day and Islamists have done so for decades. And this is true regardless of what Israel did, didn't do, or will do in the future.
Why make a doubtful unverified story the first example of atrocities you cite?
A soldier said on camera that many children had been killed and they even saw a beheaded child. The i24 (Israeli news channel) reporter repeated that, jumbled it up, others jumbled it up further, military didn’t comment until it had verified the situation. It now turns out that up to 40 kids were killed (expected given demographics of kibbutzim, high fertility rates among even modern orthodox Jewry, and total population), including babies, and that one young child was seemingly beheaded.
Far from some deliberate propaganda effort, that’s exactly how things are supposed to work, the military didn’t officially confirm until they had the information.
IMO, the military could have immediately "debunked" the 40 beheaded babies story, but let it run wild for awhile anyways for obvious reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Me or the Israelis? Because from what I saw that wasn't reported by the IDF but instead by some random Israeli and the news picked up on it uncritically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The people I've seen focusing most on the beheaded babies are the ones claiming that there were beheaded babies. I think it's fair to point out that we don't actually know that they actually beheaded babies.
Indeed. Credibility matters. You don't get to push fake nonsense and expect people to believe you afterwards.
It makes me think of some US political spat I can barely remember. I think some congressman made an incondiary claim that was proven false, then responded by saying something like "yeah but they would if they could". Like, no dude, you don't get credit here. You lied.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link