site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25232 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is the third time I've heard about it in the last few weeks just on this site. It's a completely outsized amount of attention for a 50+ year old friendly fire incident. At this point it's time to let bygones be bygones about deliberate atrocities, never mind an accidental bombing in the fog of war.

The conspiracy theories are nonsense, too. There is no plausible rationale that would justify Israel taking the insane risk of deliberately attacking the United States, and "jeopardizing their OPSEC" 4 days into a 6 day war that was already being decisively won by Israel certainly isn't one.

Best conspiracy theory I've heard is the Israelis knew the Russians were getting US Intel and didn't want to tell the US they knew for intelligence reasons. So they stopped the ship from collecting the Intel the Russians were nicking in a way that could be explained as non-intel related. This also suggests why the US would assist in covering up the reason for the attack.

They wanted to conceal that they were executing POWs and Liberty was a surveillance ship. Also, there is a possible false flag angle (remember the Lavon affair?).

This actually ties in well to that recent overkill conspiracy theory post. Surely the Israelis had to have known the US would figure out they did it, did Egypt even have any airforce left by that point in the war?

If Israel expected the US to figure out they were responsible, they would have to be absolutely confident in American subservience to them, that they would take such an attack lying down. But if they were absolutely confident in American subservience, why do they care if Americans hear about them killing some POWs? Wouldn’t it just be easier to count on American loyalty to look the other way on POW executions, as opposed to relying on Americans to look the other way on sinking their own ship?

Any way you slice it sinking a US warship is more likely to piss off the USA than executing Egyptian POWs. So doing the former to cover up the latter is nonsensical. Classic overkill conspiracy theory

It’s not necessarily overkill. If the Israelis were confident that A) committing deliberate war crimes would piss off the Americans and cause them to drop their support, and B) attacking an American spy ship would be chalked up as an accident due to fog of war, resulting in no real change to the status quo, they—or more realistically, a single officer—could have decided the risk was worth it.

Afaik most of the survivors think that's what happened. You can suggest a better motive if you want, but these counterfactuals don't prove that they really thought it was an egyptian ship.

Most of the survivors were grunts with no understanding of geopolitics, why should their opinion carry any weight as to the cause of the incident?

Killing potentially 50+ US sailors to cover up something that countless US allies (and the US itself, if we’re just considering torture of prisoners) did regularly throughout the 20th century just doesn’t make sense.

Id be willing to wager that there are a lot of "grunts" who have a better grasp of geopolitics than the median State Department official.

After all its his ass that's on the line.

I agree it isn't as clear cut as obviously being an accident, given some credible Americans who say otherwise and claim to have heard the intercepts, however that explanation does not make sense. Attacking your own allies ship to cover you are executing POWs is going to be a much bigger deal and much more likely to lose their support. In other words if the US government covered for the Israelis deliberately killing their own sailors and intelligence operatives to make them look good, they would certainly have covered up Israelis executing POWs.

To me that is one of the biggest holes in the deliberate attack theory. There really isn't much nastiness they could have been doing that America would have cared about more than dead Americans and attack on their ship.

They must have hoped to pass it off as an Egyptian attack, I guess.

Not plausible. The Egyptian air force was wiped out in the opening engagement of the war, and the Israelis informed the Americans that they had attacked the ship just two hours after the attack took place.

Against an American Intelligence ship? The one they were concerned was intercepting their communications? If they can intercept your comms about torturing/executing POWs they can probably intercept your communications from your pilots saying Hey, this is a US ship (as indeed it was claimed happened, for evidence that it was a planned attack). And after passing over the ship multiple times so they can see what planes are being used?

The Israelis (if it was deliberate) must have been aware that the US would almost certainly be able to identify the culprits. The only thing that then makes sense is that they were pretty confident the US would not abandon them/attack them over it. But at that point intercepted comms about POWs should also not really be a concern.

None of the theories of why they would attack deliberately really hold up in my opinion. Which doesn't mean they didn't, just that whatever reason there was in that scenario might be lost to time. There are enough other discrepancies that do undermine the "obviously it was a simple mistake" narrative, to at least not make it certain.

The ship could have blown up and killed everyone on board instantly along with any evidence of intercepted communications.

But they didn't try to shoot down the US plane that did intercept communications either. Sinking the ship wasn't enough on its own. Which the Israelis should have known. It's a huge, huge risk. And there doesn't seem to be anything worth that risk they got out of it, that we know of.

Why were they executing POWs? How many?

They couldn't spare troops to guard them and wanted them to go on the offensive. Don't know how many.

At this point it's time to let bygones be bygones about deliberate atrocities, never mind an accidental bombing in the fog of war.

I agree we should do the former, but insisting on framing it as the latter makes it a bit hard. Surely the dead deserve for the truth to come out?

What truth? It’s a murky conjecture at best, lacking a clear motive. And the nationalistic pride baiting around it is so transparent. Why did they do it? I guess they just wanted to prove the greatest country on earth is a little bitch, sammy. Now what are you gonna do about it when you grow up?

I suggest you remember the maine instead.

I suggest you remember the maine instead.

The spontaneous coal combustion?

Are there still people who think spain perfidiously blew up the maine?

What truth?

The one in the documents that are still classified at the very least? If it's time to move on from the ship getting bombed, it's time to move on from these secrets as well.

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