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.
