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.
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
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 -
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
More options
Context Copy link
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link