I don’t want to start any kind of political discussion, but just personally: it has been kind of alienating seeing Scott Aaronson, who I always considered the most empathetic and reasonable of the scott alexander-adjacent crowd, turning very angry and dogmatic when it came to Isreal this past year. Also strikes me as an illustration of the limits of “rationalism”
I view this as a political constraint, cf. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lifeboat-games-and-backscra.... One's identity as Academic, Democrat, Zionist and so on demands certain sacrifices of you, sometimes of rationality. The worse the failure of empathy and rationality, the better a test of loyalty it is. For epistemic rationality, it would be best to https://paulgraham.com/identity.html, but for instrumental rationality it is not. Consequently, many people are reasonable only until certain topics come up, and it's generally worked around by steering the discussion to other topics.
I don’t really buy this at all: I am more emotionally invested in things that I know more about (and vice versa). If Rationalism breaks down at that point it is essentially never useful.
For what it’s worth, you seem to be agreeing with the person you replied to. Their main point is that this break down happens primarily because people identify as Rationalists (or whatever else). Taken from that angle, Rationalism as an identity does not appear to be useful.
And this is precisely the problem with any dogma of rationality. It starts off ostensibly trying to help guide people toward reason but inevitably ends up justifying blatantly shitty social behavior like defense of genocide as "political constraint".
These people are just narcissists who use (often pseudo)intellectualism as the vehicle for their narcissism.
But that's not my question. My question was between defence of genocide and false accusations of genocide. (Of course actual genocide is "shittier" -- in fact that's a breathtaking understatement!)
Wouldn’t it be better to spend the time understanding the reality of the situation in Gaza from multiple angles rather than philosophizing on abstract concepts? I.e. there are different degrees of genocide, but that doesn’t matter in this context because what’s happening in Gaza is not abstract or theoretical.
In other words, your question ignores so much nuance that it’s a red herring IMO.
Well, what it's better for me to do is my business and what it's better for voidhorse to do is his/her business. He/she certainly doesn't have to respond.
Still, since he/she was so willing to make a claim of genocide (implicitly) I was wondering that, were it a false claim, would it be equally "blatantly shitty social behaviour, narcissistic use of (often pseudo)intellectualism for his/her narcissistic behaviour" as the behaviour he/she was calling out?
I'm pretty certain I understand the reality of the situation (in fact I'd accept reasonably short odds that I understand it better than anyone participating in the discussion on this story).
Assuming you do believe that genocide is extremely shitty, wouldn't that imply that defense of (actual) genocide, or the principle of it, is in all likelihood shitter than a false accusation of genocide? Otherwise I think you'd have to claim that a false accusation is somehow worse than the actuality or possibility of mass murder, which seems preposterous if you have even a mote of empathy for your fellow human beings.
As others have pointed out, the fact that you would like to make light of cities being decimated and innocent civilians being murdered at scale in itself suggests a lot about your inability to concretize the reality of human existence beyond yourself (lack of empathy). It's this kind of outright callousness toward actual human beings that I think many of these so called "rationalists" share. I can't fault them too much. After all, when your approach to social problems is highly if not strictly quantitative you are already primed to nullify your own aptitude for empathy, since you view other human beings as nothing more than numerical quantities whenever you attempt to address their problems.
I have seen no defense for what's happening in gaza that anyone who actually values human life, for all humans, would find rational. Recall the root of the word ratio—in proportion. What is happening in this case is quite blatantly a matter of an inproportinate response.
> Assuming you do believe that genocide is extremely shitty, wouldn't that imply that defense of (actual) genocide, or the principle of it, is in all likelihood shitter than a false accusation of genocide? Otherwise I think you'd have to claim that a false accusation is somehow worse than the actuality or possibility of mass murder
I'm struggling to follow, sorry.
I certainly agree with you that a false accusation is not worse than the actuality (I don't know why you brought up "possibility") of mass murder. Very far from it. But why does that imply that it's better than the defence of mass murder? After all, the "defence" here is not engaging in the practice, it's just saying something like "I condone that". Or did you think that by "defence" I actually mean committing the mass murder?
The reason that emotive false accusations are very, very harmful is that they can cause mobs to murder in (supposed) retaliation. Here's a story about someone in the UK who was killed by a riled-up mob, due to a false accusation:
One ought to be very, very cautious about making accusations that can rile up mobs.
Regarding your other comments directed at me personally, such as "you would like to make light of cities being decimated and innocent civilians being murdered at scale", "inability to concretize the reality of human existence beyond yourself", "outright callousness", "approach to social problems is highly if not strictly quantitative", "you view other human beings as nothing more than numerical quantities", they are completely unfounded speculation on your part. They are rude and completely inappropriate for a reasoned discussion.
Regarding proportion, do you believe the actions of the UK and USA against Nazi Germany were "proportionate"? Proportionate to what? What did Nazi Germany ever to do the USA?
We have concrete examples of defence of genocide, such as by Scott Aaronson. Can you provide the examples of "false accusations of genocide", otherwise this is a hypothetical conversation.
I can certainly agree we have a concrete example of defence of purported genocide and a concrete example of an accusation of purported genocide. Beyond that I'd be happy to discuss further (although it's probably off topic).
Interesting presumption. Would you like it if I said "Did you find anything else helpful in your marriage, or was it just choosing to stop beating your wife?"?
And yes, I have some. One is that false claims of genocide are equally reprehensible to denying true genocide. But I'm not sure why my beliefs are particularly relevant. I'm not the one sitting publicly in judgement of a semi-public figure. That was voidhorse.
Did you want to discuss in more detail? I'm happy to, but currently I interpret your comment as an attempt at sniping me with snark. Please do correct me if I've misinterpreted.
This is bullshit both-sidesism. Many many independent (and Israeli!) observers have clearly documented the practices that Israel is doing in Palestine, and these practices all meet the standard definition of genocide.
Interesting conclusion, since I didn't make a claim either way.
Still, for the record, other independent observers have documented the practices and explained why they don't meet the definition of genocide, John Spencer and Natasha Hausdorff to name two examples. It seems by no means clear that it's valid to make a claim of genocide. I certainly wouldn't unless I was really, really certain of my claim, because to get such a claim wrong is equally egregious to denying a true genocide, in my opinion.
Sorry, what in my post suggests intellectual dishonesty?
Under your dictionary definition, would you say that the Allies in WWII committed genocide of Germans and Japanese? If you say "yes", then I suppose you're entitled to your interpretation, and I know exactly how seriously to take it. If you say "no" then perhaps you could explain what is the difference between WWII (where proportionally far more civilians were killed) and the current Gaza war.
> you can maintain that attachment and still condemn horrific acts committed by the state when they happen
I agree. And one can refrain from condemning horrific acts that one is not certain happened.
I'm happy to continue the discussion if you like, but all I'm really after is your answer to this simple question: do you see defence of true genocide as equally bad as false accusation of genocide? I would be content with a simple yes or no. Or does the question make you uncomfortable somehow?
I'm happy to answer that. No I wouldn't. The Holocaust is probably the most studied subject in human history. It's not as though there is much uncertainty about the major events of it.
In any case, this is really going off topic. All I am interested in is in voidhorse's answer to my simple question. That doesn't require retreading many of the the dark corners of human history.
If you wouldn't deny the holocaust based on the same evidence you just gave for denying the Palestinian genocide, that suggests the evidence you gave was never valid for denying a genocide in the first place. Your reasoning is arbitrary.
But it's not the same evidence. It's a completely different situation. Completely different events have occurred, completely different amounts of time have elapsed since and they have been subjected to completely different amounts of scrutiny. There's just no comparison.
Exactly. Arbitrary. You haven't laid out your personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide, so you can give ad hoc reasons--like you just did--for why you made the judgement that you did.
In one case, naming two people who studied the events in Gaza and denied that it's a genocide was sufficient. In the other, you required a higher threshold of evidence. Arbitrary reasoning.
But I'm not making the claim that there's no genocide. And I certainly don't have a "personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide"! (Do you?!) I'm pointing out that Ar-Curunir's claims don't seem to be supported by sufficient evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing here. Why don't you accuse Ar-Curunir instead?
If there's a genocide I would really like to know about it. All right-thinking decent people should. But the people pushing the idea that there is one don't seem to be applying sufficient rational skepticism and don't seem to be willing to engage in intellectual discourse on the topic, so they're really not winning me over.
Here's one of the big questions I find it hard to get an answer to: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?
I'll tell you what: if you prove to me that the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews and others--that is, if you win me over--then I promise I will prove to you that the Israelis are committing genocide against Palestinians. If you can't, or refuse, then I'll assume you concede the point. To be clear, I'm not making the claim that the Nazis didn't commit genocide, I'll just apply rational skepticism to your points.
I have no interest in proving anything to you. It's you who seems to have an interest in proving something to me. Your message suggests you _can_ do so, so please go ahead. I would particularly interested in your answer to my question above: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?
You have it backward. I pointed out that your reasoning for categorizing genocides is arbitrary. This wasn't about proving to you that a certain genocide is real, only pointing out your faulty reasoning. You are free to believe whatever you want about any historical event.
Now that we've cleared up that I'm not interested in answering your questions without some reciprocity, you can prove to me that the Holocaust was real. If you do, I'll respond in kind. If you won't, then you're out of luck. Knowledge is a gift, and you are not owed anything.
In case you weren't following the thread from the beginning, it started with voidhorse criticising Scott Aaronson for "defence of genocide" (and thereby making an implicit claim of genocide): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317728
On a forum like HN I think it's reasonable to be asked to justify strong claims that one makes. However, I wasn't even doing that. Rather, I was asking whether voidhorse thought false claims of genocide were equally bad as defence of genocide. It turns out the answer is no: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889. I disagree, but fair enough, other people think differently.
So, I have what I originally asked for.
I don't actually have any questions for you. I was only asking since I perceived you were trying to convince me of something. If you're not, that was just a misunderstanding on my part, and no need to continue the conversation. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything! That said, I'm happy to continue to participate in a process of reasoned discussion and inquiry if anyone wants to, but firstly it's going wildly off topic. and secondly I don't see the standards of discussion so far to as particularly high.
It's no problem! I felt that you weren't really engaging in a reasoned discussion, which is why I commented in the first place--that is what I was pointing out. Maybe that will serve to improve future discussions.
What's incredible to me is the political blindness. Surely at this point, "liberal zionists" would at least see the writing on the wall? Apply some Bayesian statistical analysis to popular reactions to unprompted military strikes against Iran or something, they should realize at this point that in 25 years the zeitgeist will have completely turned against this chapter in Israel's history, and properly label the genocide for what it is.
I thought these people were the ones that were all about most effective applications of altruism? Or is that a different crowd?
I'm not a Rationalist, however, nothing you said in your first paragraph is factual and therefore the resultant thesis isn't supported. In fact it ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history and ignores a whole bunch of surrounding context.
The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant. Especially as history shows clearly that the Palestinians are just as much the descendants of the ancient Israelites as the Jewish diaspora that returned to their modern land after the founding of modern Israel. The old population from before the Roman conquest never disappeared - some departed and formed the diaspora, but most stayed. Some converted to Christianity during this time as well. Later, they were conquered by Mohammed and his Caliphate, and many converted to Islam, but they're still the same people.
No, not genetics, but heritage is a valid, and very commonly used, criterion.
I.e., the following is, I believe, a reasonable argument:
"I should have a right to live in this general patch of land, since my grand-parents lived here. Maybe my parents moved away and I was born somewhere else, but they still had a right to live here and I should have it too. I may have to buy some land to have this right, I'm not saying I should be given land - but I should be allowed to do so. Additionally, it matters that my grand-parents were not invaders to this land. Their parents and grand-parents had also lived here, and so on for many generations."
This doesn't imply genetic heritage necessarily - cultural heritage and the notions of parents are not necessarily genetic. I might have ~0% of the specific DNA of some great-great-grand-parent (or even 0% of my parents' DNA, if I am adopted) - but I'm still their descendant. Now, how far you want to stretch this is very much debatable.
This seems at odds with your earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant". In fact the history of those 2-3000 years seems essential to determining "heritage".
That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making by bringing into discussion this timeline. The typical way this is presented by adherents of Zionism is something like "the Jewish people are the original people who lived in Israel/were given it by God; this land was stolen from the Jewish people and they were expelled, first by the Romans and then by the Arabs; the foundation of modern-day Israel marked the return home of the Jewish people, as was their right by their 2-3000 years of having lived there; the Palestinians were just the latest population living on this stolen land". By this logic, they then claim that Israel are not occupying any land, even Gaza or the West Bank, it is the Palestinians who had been occupying the land of Israel.
My claim is that this is factually incorrect by any stretch of the imagination, as soon as we recognize that the modern-day Palestinians and the modern-day Jewish people are just as much descendants of the ancient Israelites. Just because their language, culture, and religion have diverged, there is nothing that ties one group more to that land than the other (if anything, those that had left have a lesser tie than those that stayed, even if the culture of those that stayed diverged). So the claim of descent and continuity with the ancient kingdom of Israel, the 2-3000 year old history, is entirely irrelevant.
Are you responding to an argument zaphar didn't make? He/she just said "your first paragraph ... ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history", which is true. Now you seem to be saying "if you look at the first 2-3000 years of history you will see that the first 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant", which is about as self-defeating as an argument can possibly be!
Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one. They said that the previous poster was wrong about everything, and then brought up the previous 2-3000 years of history as some vague justification for that with no actual argument.
I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do with the previous poster being wrong about Israel occupying the lands of the Palestinian people.
And again, as to the claim: I'm basically saying that the 2-3000 years of history don't, in fact, justify the occupation - so just forgetting about them and focusing on what is actually happening today (a population is being kept in an occupied pseudo-state that they aren't allowed to leave) is enough to understand the whole situation, and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So the 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant, because they don't overturn the easily visible conclusion you would draw.
Of course, in every conflict, the history is interesting and enlightening in some ways. But, unless the history changes the light in which you view the current conflict, it's irrelevant to the question of "who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?".
> Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one
I agree! Yet you said:
> That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making
so I was confused. But now you've clarified:
> I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do
You guessed the argument, responded to it. Fair enough. Now I understand.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't think I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am grateful you have explained to me your thought process and haven't used personal attacks on me, so I feel this thread of the discussion was constructive. I can't say the same for anyone else participating in this thread.
It's extremely presumptuous to declare I'm engaging in bad faith (especially "incredibly bad"). I can assure you I'm engaging in good faith, and attempting to seek some clarity on the assumptions underlying the conclusions a few people here have reached. Naturally, it is often very uncomfortable to be challenged on deep assumptions.
simiones says: "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant", and also makes some suggestion that I believed could indicate that genetic heritage was what determines which people should live where.
However, he subsequently clarified in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318095 that he was not making that claim. Yet in doing so claimed that "This doesn't imply genetic heritage necessarily - cultural heritage and the notions of parents are not necessarily genetic", drawing on the notion of "culture". Now, cultural heritage very specifically implies that history is relevant, because it's something passed down over centuries.
I then challenged him that his invocation of cultural heritage was in opposition to his earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318122) to which he responded that "That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318317), but that's a complete presumption. The GP hadn't presented any specific argument, merely factually pointed out that some long stretch of history was missing from the analysis of pbiggar, so I asked simiones if he was responding to an argument not actually made by zaphar. Furthermore, I reiterated that simiones seemed to have defeated his own claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant".
This is where the original discussion ends, and you entered the thread. I see you making a number of unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and trolling, but not actually engaging in the discussion of the topic at hand.
So, I have presented here a summary of a thread that highlights my process of rational enquiry. I don't see here what could be taken as bad faith or trolling. Maybe you can explain further? Or perhaps maybe you can you engage with the topic at hand? I would be willing to (though it goes rather far off the original topic).
Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling, however you have reminded me how much of a waste of time posting on the internet is in general. I needed the reminder.
May your endless paragraphs continue to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians experiencing genocide, or the poor Israelis who are sad because they have to do a genocide because whatever ethnostatist reason, or whatever it is you believe - from your post history, I'd guess Israel Enjoyer, but from the threads here it's anyone's guess. The benefit of being a smug Socratic type engaged in pedantry is you can never be accused of having the wrong values, since from initial appearances, you have none.
> Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling
And yet you replied, curious. In any case, that's OK, since I wasn't responding in order to meet your challenge.
It's curious that you accuse me of having "no values" and of being a "Socratic type". I assumed that, on Hacker News, a forum reputed for its willingness to engage intellectually, a simple challenge to someone's argument would receive a simple response. I assumed that rational debate, free of emotive diversions, was welcomed here. Why would "my values" be relevant? Surely establishing a rational dialogue is what's important on Hacker News. This isn't Reddit, where the standard of dialogue is typically much lower.
simiones could have said "oh yes, you're right, the last 2-3,000 years of history are relevant". Or he could have continued by providing more rationale that they're not. Yet neither he nor anyone else has responded to my observation, instead I just received comments targeted personally at me.
It makes me wonder whether one side of this debate actually has substance to back up its beliefs and actions.
Of course, you have no obligation to respond. If you do respond, I would appreciate it if you would make it about substantive, rational arguments, not personal comments.
Not interested in discussing that topic here, but that is precisely the kind of category error that would fit right in with the rationalist crowd: GP was talking about human rights, i.e. actual humans, you are talking about nations or peoples, which is an entirely orthogonal concept.
