4 ms·

The Israel-Palestine Debate Shows the Dangers of Groupthink

28 points by whack 3y ago

coffeebeqn 3y ago
I don’t understand the line drawn between math and politics. Politics has always been politics and math has always been math. Math isn’t suddenly politics and politics isn’t suddenly math
- thrway63245 3y ago
  [dead]
- benterix 3y ago
  It's an example for everything inbetween: biology, sociology, psychology and so on. Certain areas are permanently blocked, you will receive no grants for them, and even if you are stupid enough and pursue the topic, you will never get published and your reputation will be destroyed. A good example could be relationship between physical traits, such as race and biological sex, and psychological traits. We decided, for the good of the society, that there are no significant differences and that we will not pursue the matter at all. If someone crosses this barrier, they become an outcast.
globalnode 3y ago
censorship of ideas is a form of reverse marketing/advertising, instead of having an idea pushed on you its suppressed, either way you're trying to manipulate people and create a bias. imho this is bad, critical thinking and discussion is good. even if it ends in an agreement to not agree.
jjgreen 3y ago
A rather thoughtful piece I thought; I'd guessed it had not been flagged as that would be too recursive. But now vanished from the front page for some reason. Ho hum.
- benterix 3y ago
  The fact that it has been flagged basically proves its point.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    It is now, but shortly after submission, when it had made it to the front page (10ish votes and 3-4 comments in 10 minutes) it just vanished from the front page -- not on the 2nd, 3rd etc. It was still on the "new" page and not marked as [dead] nor [flagged]. I'd not seen this kind of "shadow banning" before, and seems an odd target for it: the discussion is generally respectful, not that much shouting ...
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
It's an interesting read and an interesting perspective but he's arguing from a very absolutist position. "but I have previously argued that it is wrong to fire homophobes and racists..." But if you've got homophobes and racists in positions of power where they can freely abuse gays and foreigners, do you not fire them? Do you allow a place in society where they can freely express hate? What do you do? I've wondered a lot about this and I don't know the answer. I'm not even sure this guy is suggesting an answer, but he is saying think carefully. Well I've thought about it and I think I reject it, but that doesn't mean I'm right. It's a tough one.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  I'm minded to agree with him, I don't think you should sack homophobes, but you should sack homophobia. If they keep their personal views to themselves, leave them be.
- globalnode 3y ago
  thats where you would have corporate or institutional policies that would need to be enforced.
progne 3y ago
"Hence why I am in favor of both laws and social norms that prohibit economic discrimination on the basis of ideological beliefs" It is difficult to interpret this other than as "hence why I am for freedom of speech, but freedom of association not so much".
- benterix 3y ago
  > but freedom of association not so much Why? I fail to see the connection.
catlover76 3y ago
The backlash against the student letters is understandable--the associated harassment is too far, but it's understandable and within reason for people to feel that they were insensitive, or otherwise objectionable. But artists signing a letter of this description: > Thousands of artists, academics and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the Oct. 19 open letter, which supported Palestinian liberation and criticized the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza… In it, the signatories “call for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes.” … The Oct. 19 open letter met condemnation, drawing responses by figures in the art world. On WhatsApp, campaigns were organized to dissuade advertisers from working with the magazine. By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. This has all been far more aggressive than the "cancel culture" decried by the right, but one hears crickets about it from the usual free speech absolutists.
- pxc 3y ago
  > By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. An academic who has likewise seen censorship of this issue affect his own career has written an entire book about this 'progressive except for Palestine' phenomenon. https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine
  - catlover76 3y ago
    oh wow Luckily, this seems to be changing with my generation (early 30's millennials), I think/hope
- jfengel 3y ago
  The substance might be less controversial if it also called on Hamas to release the 200+ hostages it still holds. As it is, its own silence rightly attracts criticism. This pains me deeply, because I'm a woke leftist bleeding heart socialist liberal lefty. I believe that Israel's right-wing government has treated the Palestinians with bad faith for decades. But I also think that the left has bought too easily into Palestinian propaganda, as evidenced here by the exclusion of the very clear and real atrocities that sparked this reprisal. Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter. Netanyahu has badly mis-handled the Palestinians, but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. Calls for peace need to acknowledge that the cycle of violence includes both sides before we can even begin to untangle it. Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.
clipsy 3y ago
Trying to convince people to drop "cancel culture" is like trying to convince a nuclear power to dismantle its nuclear weapons -- it's simply an absurd proposition unless all parties agree to the same terms and those terms are enforced. Failing that, it's a massive strategic misstep to give up such a powerful tool. If you really want to end -- or at least mitigate the effect of -- "cancel culture," you should push for better labor laws and other legislative approaches to weakening the impact of "cancel culture" on its victims.
- benterix 3y ago
  While I agree with your conclusion, it is in conflict with the premise: how do you expect lobbying for laws preventing sacking people for "mind crimes" if, as you say, it is the main weapon by which certain groups operate?
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I'd start by coming up with a better description of it than a strawman that you have to put in scare quotes. You can't ban something you can't define.
benterix 3y ago
I wonder what is the thought process of people who flag this article? To me, it seems well written, it doesn't take sides, it makes an argument in favor of free speech, it is against power play. Could you briefly explain why you area flagging it?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

28 points by whack 3y ago

I don’t understand the line drawn between math and politics. Politics has always been politics and math has always been math. Math isn’t suddenly politics and politics isn’t suddenly math

thrway63245 3y ago
[dead]
benterix 3y ago
It's an example for everything inbetween: biology, sociology, psychology and so on. Certain areas are permanently blocked, you will receive no grants for them, and even if you are stupid enough and pursue the topic, you will never get published and your reputation will be destroyed. A good example could be relationship between physical traits, such as race and biological sex, and psychological traits. We decided, for the good of the society, that there are no significant differences and that we will not pursue the matter at all. If someone crosses this barrier, they become an outcast.

globalnode 3y ago

censorship of ideas is a form of reverse marketing/advertising, instead of having an idea pushed on you its suppressed, either way you're trying to manipulate people and create a bias. imho this is bad, critical thinking and discussion is good. even if it ends in an agreement to not agree.

jjgreen 3y ago

A rather thoughtful piece I thought; I'd guessed it had not been flagged as that would be too recursive. But now vanished from the front page for some reason. Ho hum.

benterix 3y ago
The fact that it has been flagged basically proves its point.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  It is now, but shortly after submission, when it had made it to the front page (10ish votes and 3-4 comments in 10 minutes) it just vanished from the front page -- not on the 2nd, 3rd etc. It was still on the "new" page and not marked as [dead] nor [flagged]. I'd not seen this kind of "shadow banning" before, and seems an odd target for it: the discussion is generally respectful, not that much shouting ...

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

It's an interesting read and an interesting perspective but he's arguing from a very absolutist position. "but I have previously argued that it is wrong to fire homophobes and racists..." But if you've got homophobes and racists in positions of power where they can freely abuse gays and foreigners, do you not fire them? Do you allow a place in society where they can freely express hate? What do you do? I've wondered a lot about this and I don't know the answer. I'm not even sure this guy is suggesting an answer, but he is saying think carefully. Well I've thought about it and I think I reject it, but that doesn't mean I'm right. It's a tough one.

jjgreen 3y ago
I'm minded to agree with him, I don't think you should sack homophobes, but you should sack homophobia. If they keep their personal views to themselves, leave them be.
globalnode 3y ago
thats where you would have corporate or institutional policies that would need to be enforced.

progne 3y ago

"Hence why I am in favor of both laws and social norms that prohibit economic discrimination on the basis of ideological beliefs" It is difficult to interpret this other than as "hence why I am for freedom of speech, but freedom of association not so much".

benterix 3y ago
> but freedom of association not so much Why? I fail to see the connection.

catlover76 3y ago

The backlash against the student letters is understandable--the associated harassment is too far, but it's understandable and within reason for people to feel that they were insensitive, or otherwise objectionable. But artists signing a letter of this description: > Thousands of artists, academics and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the Oct. 19 open letter, which supported Palestinian liberation and criticized the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza… In it, the signatories “call for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes.” … The Oct. 19 open letter met condemnation, drawing responses by figures in the art world. On WhatsApp, campaigns were organized to dissuade advertisers from working with the magazine. By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. This has all been far more aggressive than the "cancel culture" decried by the right, but one hears crickets about it from the usual free speech absolutists.

pxc 3y ago
> By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. An academic who has likewise seen censorship of this issue affect his own career has written an entire book about this 'progressive except for Palestine' phenomenon. https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine
- catlover76 3y ago
  oh wow Luckily, this seems to be changing with my generation (early 30's millennials), I think/hope
jfengel 3y ago
The substance might be less controversial if it also called on Hamas to release the 200+ hostages it still holds. As it is, its own silence rightly attracts criticism. This pains me deeply, because I'm a woke leftist bleeding heart socialist liberal lefty. I believe that Israel's right-wing government has treated the Palestinians with bad faith for decades. But I also think that the left has bought too easily into Palestinian propaganda, as evidenced here by the exclusion of the very clear and real atrocities that sparked this reprisal. Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter. Netanyahu has badly mis-handled the Palestinians, but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. Calls for peace need to acknowledge that the cycle of violence includes both sides before we can even begin to untangle it. Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.

clipsy 3y ago

Trying to convince people to drop "cancel culture" is like trying to convince a nuclear power to dismantle its nuclear weapons -- it's simply an absurd proposition unless all parties agree to the same terms and those terms are enforced. Failing that, it's a massive strategic misstep to give up such a powerful tool. If you really want to end -- or at least mitigate the effect of -- "cancel culture," you should push for better labor laws and other legislative approaches to weakening the impact of "cancel culture" on its victims.

benterix 3y ago
While I agree with your conclusion, it is in conflict with the premise: how do you expect lobbying for laws preventing sacking people for "mind crimes" if, as you say, it is the main weapon by which certain groups operate?
- jfengel 3y ago
  I'd start by coming up with a better description of it than a strawman that you have to put in scare quotes. You can't ban something you can't define.

benterix 3y ago

I wonder what is the thought process of people who flag this article? To me, it seems well written, it doesn't take sides, it makes an argument in favor of free speech, it is against power play. Could you briefly explain why you area flagging it?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]