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.
These people are just narcissists who use (often pseudo)intellectualism as the vehicle for their narcissism.