7 ms·

This is a highly politically charged conflict that’s mainly relevant for being a sort of rhetorical proxy conflict (see all the other conflicts going on that re

This is a highly politically charged conflict that’s mainly relevant for being a sort of rhetorical proxy conflict (see all the other conflicts going on that receive a fraction of the attention). The point of discussing this topic is to rhetorically battle. Unlike say, the current civil war in Burma or Sudan, or the Azeri-Armenian war, basically everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say.

dang 3y ago
That is not the only point of discussing this topic, and definitely not the point of discussing it here. This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time. I agree with you about this: > everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say ... but as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I don't think suppressing the topic outright is a solution either (I mean a solution to the particular constraints of this site, not in general). So what do we do? We each work in ourselves to find a larger space than just our own opinion. We make room for the other alongside ourselves. If we can do that, we'll be able to comment from a place of openness rather than battle. For those who feel too intensely to do so: that is human—let's just be aware enough to recognize that state in ourselves and refrain from posting as long as we're in that state. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- wyiske 3y ago
  The problem is that while al jazeera can be balanced about certain topics, fact is it is entirely government funded by an authoritarian undemocratic state and on this topic in particular it seeks to purposefully take a prejudiced anti Israeli stance. It has also been criticised for biased to the Syrian dictator, and takes various stances according to the foreign ministry. We therefore cannot be certain if the claims are true. Unfortunately as history has repeatedly proven, propaganda works. At the very least maybe source should include Government funded?
  - dang 3y ago
    You can make a similar case against any media organization. They all publish true things and false things. They all have biases that highlight certain things that are happening while occluding others. On HN, we go by article quality rather than site quality. This has been the case for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... I attempted to give a detailed explanation of how that relates to the current thread in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time. Does HN have a policy against epistemic soundness in claims? Because if there is a method that is maximally useful for these sorts of issues, it is disciplined epistemology. Yet, I know of no explicit policy on it, but I have been subjected to scolding for practicing it, suggesting there is an implicit policy, at least to some degree (perhaps only on some topics, who knows). Or, an error has been made....which once again is an epistemological matter. If people refuse to even try to utilize the tools that exist, and discussion of that phenomenon is disallowed, it may not be optimal game play....and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing? (And yes, I do realize that the culture we've been raised in has taught us that statements like mine "are" necessarily "in bad faith", though mine is not actually.)
  - dang 3y ago
    I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, nor what you mean by epistemic soundness, but I'm pretty sure HN has no policy against it.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > what you mean by epistemic soundness This, for starters: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/ You know that word "is" you use now and then? That word is fundamentally based in epistemology. > and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing? Do you understand that part? I will add some clarity: by "suboptimal gameplay", I am referring to the individual and collective behaviour of human beings, as it relates to causality (the consequences of our behaviour). I am basically asking what HN's stance is on being curious about "large" quantities of (at least plausibly) unnecessary human death.
      - dang 3y ago
        I'm sorry but I don't understand that. Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means? I think that's a legit question. If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic and could in some forms even be monstrous. But that's not what I mean here. What I do mean, I tried to describe at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662. It has to do with being open to others.
- vladgur 3y ago
  It is clearly a charged topic and while you did a good job setting the tone, it clear that moderating this discussion will be a daunting task for anyone. I am already seeing the antisemitic comments calling Jews colonizers, stealing land from indigenous people for 75 years. The one-liners or single-sentence zingers lack context or, often, truth. I do appreciate comments from people living in that area -- what their lives were and are before and during this conflict. I do wish that instead of this charged subject on HN, instead an article discussing the history of this land and people living on it. History of empires, conquests, displacements, wars, attacks. Etymology of the names and Meaning of terms that are being used by both sides. * What did Zionism mean in 19th and 20th centuries? What does it mean in 21st century? * What does Anti-Zionism mean? * Where does the word Palestine come from? * What really happened in 1948? * What happened to Gaza Strip under Egyptian rule from 1948 to 1967? * What happened to West Bank under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967? Discussing history of what happened and what did not would be less explosive and more productive use of great minds on HN, in my opinion.
  - cultofmetatron 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - vladgur 3y ago
      This post is barely coherent with a wall of YouTube links pointing to videos across multiple subjects including the settlement policies(which I don’t agree with), claims of poor treatment by released Palestinian prisoners who were in prison for amongst other things stabbing random Jews, as well as other subjects that are all over the place. Let’s try to have a discussion while focusing on one subject at a time. One subject that stands out is you calling Jews colonizers. It’s indisputable that the Jewish history in the area of modern day Israel goes back thousands of years. These areas were in fact colonized by Romans, then Ottomans, then by the British. Many Jews were expelled during these colonizations. The act of migration of Jews back to what is present day Israel in 1948 was NOT colonization but a return of indigenous people to their homeland. Words have meanings. Colonization means something. Jews return to Israel was not it. Apartheid means something. Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights as non-Arab Israelis, they serve in the government, Supreme Court and even the IDF if they choose to. Israel is not an apartheid state because it does not segregate its citizens by race/ethnicity. > yes becuse nothing is more important the opions of 19tha nd 20th century white populated countries when it comes to the affairs of people in their coloies In spite of sounding fairly racist, you are historically correct - opinions of white populated countries - Britain and France - as well as the League of Nations - were in fact important because in 1920s they helped sketch the borders of future Arab nation-states we such as Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc and ultimately led to emergence of Arab nationalism that shaped these Middle East countries. If you invalidate UN partition of British Mandate Palestine by saying “oh British people promised to us”, then you will have to invalidate most of Arab Nation states in the Arabian Peninsula. You also invalidate the sovereignty of both India and Pakistan. > I think it’s best if all the european jews in israel went back to their respective countries. What about the Mizrahi Israelis of middle eastern & North African origin? They constitute close to 70% of Israeli Jews. What about non-Mizrahi Jews who were born in Israel and who have no cultural or ethnic connections to European countries you speak of. What do you propose be done to them.

dang 3y ago

That is not the only point of discussing this topic, and definitely not the point of discussing it here. This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time. I agree with you about this: > everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say ... but as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I don't think suppressing the topic outright is a solution either (I mean a solution to the particular constraints of this site, not in general). So what do we do? We each work in ourselves to find a larger space than just our own opinion. We make room for the other alongside ourselves. If we can do that, we'll be able to comment from a place of openness rather than battle. For those who feel too intensely to do so: that is human—let's just be aware enough to recognize that state in ourselves and refrain from posting as long as we're in that state. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

wyiske 3y ago
The problem is that while al jazeera can be balanced about certain topics, fact is it is entirely government funded by an authoritarian undemocratic state and on this topic in particular it seeks to purposefully take a prejudiced anti Israeli stance. It has also been criticised for biased to the Syrian dictator, and takes various stances according to the foreign ministry. We therefore cannot be certain if the claims are true. Unfortunately as history has repeatedly proven, propaganda works. At the very least maybe source should include Government funded?
- dang 3y ago
  You can make a similar case against any media organization. They all publish true things and false things. They all have biases that highlight certain things that are happening while occluding others. On HN, we go by article quality rather than site quality. This has been the case for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... I attempted to give a detailed explanation of how that relates to the current thread in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it.
mistermann 3y ago
> This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time. Does HN have a policy against epistemic soundness in claims? Because if there is a method that is maximally useful for these sorts of issues, it is disciplined epistemology. Yet, I know of no explicit policy on it, but I have been subjected to scolding for practicing it, suggesting there is an implicit policy, at least to some degree (perhaps only on some topics, who knows). Or, an error has been made....which once again is an epistemological matter. If people refuse to even try to utilize the tools that exist, and discussion of that phenomenon is disallowed, it may not be optimal game play....and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing? (And yes, I do realize that the culture we've been raised in has taught us that statements like mine "are" necessarily "in bad faith", though mine is not actually.)
- dang 3y ago
  I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, nor what you mean by epistemic soundness, but I'm pretty sure HN has no policy against it.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > what you mean by epistemic soundness This, for starters: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/ You know that word "is" you use now and then? That word is fundamentally based in epistemology. > and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing? Do you understand that part? I will add some clarity: by "suboptimal gameplay", I am referring to the individual and collective behaviour of human beings, as it relates to causality (the consequences of our behaviour). I am basically asking what HN's stance is on being curious about "large" quantities of (at least plausibly) unnecessary human death.
    - dang 3y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't understand that. Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means? I think that's a legit question. If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic and could in some forms even be monstrous. But that's not what I mean here. What I do mean, I tried to describe at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662. It has to do with being open to others.
vladgur 3y ago
It is clearly a charged topic and while you did a good job setting the tone, it clear that moderating this discussion will be a daunting task for anyone. I am already seeing the antisemitic comments calling Jews colonizers, stealing land from indigenous people for 75 years. The one-liners or single-sentence zingers lack context or, often, truth. I do appreciate comments from people living in that area -- what their lives were and are before and during this conflict. I do wish that instead of this charged subject on HN, instead an article discussing the history of this land and people living on it. History of empires, conquests, displacements, wars, attacks. Etymology of the names and Meaning of terms that are being used by both sides. * What did Zionism mean in 19th and 20th centuries? What does it mean in 21st century? * What does Anti-Zionism mean? * Where does the word Palestine come from? * What really happened in 1948? * What happened to Gaza Strip under Egyptian rule from 1948 to 1967? * What happened to West Bank under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967? Discussing history of what happened and what did not would be less explosive and more productive use of great minds on HN, in my opinion.
- cultofmetatron 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - vladgur 3y ago
    This post is barely coherent with a wall of YouTube links pointing to videos across multiple subjects including the settlement policies(which I don’t agree with), claims of poor treatment by released Palestinian prisoners who were in prison for amongst other things stabbing random Jews, as well as other subjects that are all over the place. Let’s try to have a discussion while focusing on one subject at a time. One subject that stands out is you calling Jews colonizers. It’s indisputable that the Jewish history in the area of modern day Israel goes back thousands of years. These areas were in fact colonized by Romans, then Ottomans, then by the British. Many Jews were expelled during these colonizations. The act of migration of Jews back to what is present day Israel in 1948 was NOT colonization but a return of indigenous people to their homeland. Words have meanings. Colonization means something. Jews return to Israel was not it. Apartheid means something. Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights as non-Arab Israelis, they serve in the government, Supreme Court and even the IDF if they choose to. Israel is not an apartheid state because it does not segregate its citizens by race/ethnicity. > yes becuse nothing is more important the opions of 19tha nd 20th century white populated countries when it comes to the affairs of people in their coloies In spite of sounding fairly racist, you are historically correct - opinions of white populated countries - Britain and France - as well as the League of Nations - were in fact important because in 1920s they helped sketch the borders of future Arab nation-states we such as Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc and ultimately led to emergence of Arab nationalism that shaped these Middle East countries. If you invalidate UN partition of British Mandate Palestine by saying “oh British people promised to us”, then you will have to invalidate most of Arab Nation states in the Arabian Peninsula. You also invalidate the sovereignty of both India and Pakistan. > I think it’s best if all the european jews in israel went back to their respective countries. What about the Mizrahi Israelis of middle eastern & North African origin? They constitute close to 70% of Israeli Jews. What about non-Mizrahi Jews who were born in Israel and who have no cultural or ethnic connections to European countries you speak of. What do you propose be done to them.