It seems strange that even on a platform with such above average epistemics I very frequently see users asserting that one side or the other is blindingly obviously unambiguously in the right, despite the fact that the very presence of disagreement would seem to indicate that it is not in fact obvious.
My 2 sheckels/dinari/riyals (initially blacked out to avoid biasing votes):
The islamofascist Hamas regime trying to exterminate Jewish people, and the zionist IDF recklessly massacring a huge part of the Gaza civilian population in their effort to destroy Hamas, are both extremely evil. The deciding factor as to which is worse ultimately depends on whether you think a medium number of horrific killings/abductions (as committed by Hamas) is worse than a much vaster number of usually quicker killings (as committed by Israel). The civilian population of Gaza that doesn't support Hamas, and the civilian population of Israel that doesn't support the IDF, as well as all children on both sides, are innocent, while the adult supporters arguably bear a small amount of blame, but not worth killing over.
Imagine if during WW2 just after the invasion of Poland the US had immediately turned every major town and city in Nazi Germany into either Hiroshima or Dresden, to the point of killing several times more than the nazis had killed, and significantly depopulating the entire country. Or imagine a situation where an angry father responds to finding out his kid was sexually abused by the local priest by barricading and burning down the church with the whole congregation inside at Sunday service. Can you really imagine yourself "supporting" anyone in these scenarios?
In addition, I could be incorrect, but it seems to me that indigenous lands arguments for territorial claims only really make sense if it was stolen within half a lifetime. If you go further back than that most of the perpetrators are dead and most of the current inhabitants are innocent. Moreover, what's to stop you going back even more if the previous inhabitants themselves stole the land from another earlier group? You end up in a situation where almost all land belongs to palaeolithic cultures that no longer exist (e.g. most of Europe goes to the Cro Magnon Aurignacian culture, the Levant including Israel/Palestine goes to the Emiran culture etc.), and where almost all existing cultures end up with little or no land they rightfully have a claim to (e.g. the British only get a handful of tiny remote islands and bits of Antarctica they were the first to discover, the Americans might only get bits of Antarctica and the moon landing sites etc.).
1,000People are also trading
@DavidSpies yeah, I'm glad that's the case, it's a sign of better epistemics imo, even if not perfect
@copiumarc hmmm, I suppose my statement relies on the premise that the disagreement is among people in a subculture of highly above average intelligence, if a Manifold poll with >100 voters had the majority saying a vaccine was unsafe I would probably cease to consider it obvious and would need to look up research, ask people about their reasoning etc.
@copiumarc I mean it's not a priori obvious from first principles that injecting a bunch of inactive version of a virus into someone is a good way to give them immunity. I guess it's obvious if you look at the world.
@TheAllMemeingEye maybe it's because of all the destiny fans around back then that have since left the site?
@TheAllMemeingEye The algorithm might show things to different people. This poll could be more selective. I had another poll with a lot of responses that got a similar 2:1 ratio in favor of Israel.
@TheAllMemeingEye in the last week or so there’s been a shift in elite consensus against Israel. Western countries are going to recognise Palestine. The ‘G’ word is getting used a lot more. Even Trump is talking about famine. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if Manafold opinion followed suit.
There’s that line, “One day everyone will have always been against this”. It could be that day’s come.
@TheAllMemeingEye Seconding @OP to note the time of both polls, as someone who's opinion flipped on it. A year ago my opinion was neutral-leaning-Israel, now I'm pretty squarely in the pro-Palestine camp. Catalyst for me as to when my opinion really started to flip was the WCK stuff. (Not a Destiny fan, in case relevant)
I regret my past opinions and definitely owe an apology to the people who were screaming from the rooftops that Israel wants to commit a genocide from the start.
@TheAllMemeingEye I can only assume it’s a result of the man-made famine in Gaza. We’ve all seen the photos and stories coming out. Presumably our elites have greater access to information. If 6-figure starvation deaths are all but locked in, they’ll want to distance themselves from accusations of genocide.
They’ll let Israel finish the job, but they’ll try to launder their reputations at the last minute.
"Obviously" true facts:
The leaders on both sides are very bad people
The leaders on one side are worse people
The leaders on one side hold most of the cards, including the power to end the most extreme suffering
The people on both sides are people: some good, some bad, but all deserving of basic human rights
The people on one side are suffering much worse than the people on the other side
I think all of these are obviously true, and moreover I think it's obvious which side is which for each of the ones that mention sides. (Some people might get number 2 wrong, but I think that's a failure to separate it from 3 and 5 in their heads.)
Number 2 should obviously incline a virtue ethicist to support one side, but numbers 3, 4, and 5 should obviously incline a consequentialist to support the other side, for a particular, non-obvious definition of "support". I'm a consequentialist, so I'm obviously right to support Palestine, but consequentialism Vs virtue ethics is far from obvious, as is the definition of "support". As a result, I don't think I can vote in the poll.
@Fion thanks for the detailed response. Tentatively I'd say based on what you say the most applicable vote would be "Palestine, no", since for you the obviousness isn't unconditional and universal
@Fion I don't think that opposing Israel's actions in the current war, which seems to be what you are saying, is the same as "supporting Palestine". I think "supporting Palestine" means wanting the end of Israel.
@nathanwei The first half of that is fair enough.
But the idea that "supporting Palestine means wanting the end of Israel" is very strange to me. Yes, there are many Palestinians who want the end of Israel, yes, a two state solution is going to be extremely challenging, but there's loads of room for wanting to support Palestine without wanting to destroy Israel.
I'm curious, when you say supporting Palestine means wanting the end of Israel, are you accusing Palestine supporters who claim to not want the end of Israel of dishonesty or naivety? Because such people clearly exist.
@Fion Beg to differ on (1) and (3). Afaict it’s not at all obvious that Israeli leaders are bad people. Their actions are sensible given their context. Not even obvious that Hamas (let alone Fatah) leaders are bad (harder to defend imo, but their actions are sensible given their beliefs, and I don’t know how to blame someone for their beliefs).
Also disagree with (3). It takes two to tango. Doesn’t matter how much you want peace and justice when a weaker enemy won’t take any deal which ensures your safety. (Relating to (1): Bibi would probably accept a two state solution if Palestinians didn’t threaten Israeli security.)
I do agree with the rest.
@ElmerFudd Yeah, I see where you're coming from on (1). Arguably, there's no such thing as a bad person. Everybody's beliefs, words, and actions are a product of their environment, biology, and so on. So I'm using "bad person" as a fairly complicated shorthand, and the amount of work that would need to be done to justify it probably renders it non-obvious. (In other words, even if we decide that there is such a thing as a "bad person", nobody can ever "obviously" be bad, because the construction "bad person" is necessarily very complex and non-obvious.)
Having said all that... I still think they're obviously bad, from their words and actions. And any philosophical work that makes me back down on that will also force me to say that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Ladin are not "obviously bad". I think I'm going to stand by my common-english-language use of the term, even while accepting that it doesn't stand up to too much philosophical rigour.
(Not sure why I spent so much effort on that given that (1) is probably the least important for my overall argument, but there we go.)
(3) is more relevant for the overall argument. And I certainly agree that Israel can't just "decide" to end the conflict and have a peaceful coexistence. The most well-meaning government in the world would find it a real challenge having a military group that hates their existence on their border. And you can't just sit down and accept a 7th October-level event happening every couple of decades. But... does Hamas control the water, food, and electricity supply of Israel? Does Hamas have the capacity to invade and occupy 75% of Israel? Does Hamas have the capacity to kill 60,000 Israeli civilians in the space of 22 months?
So I'm not making the strong claim that Israel has a big lever labelled "peace" that they refuse to pull, but I am making the weaker claim that they "hold most of the cards". They could end the famine, they could have stopped the famine from taking place. They could have not killed those 60,000 people. They could at least let journalists in! (They could also not be building settlements in the West Bank non-stop. This conversation is mostly about Gaza so I won't say too much about the West Bank, but I do think their actions there are indefensible.)
I also have a bit of a problem with your wording: "won't take any deal which ensures your safety". I agree that Hamas are unreasonable negotiating partners to say the least, but "ensures" is an extremely strong word. The very notion of a 2-state solution doesn't ensure Israel's safety. But the existence of North Korea is a threat to the safety of South Korea. Israel will need to accept some safety risk to achieve peace. They can't just eliminate the population. (I'd also argue that Israel's safety prospects would be better if they gave Palestinian civilians a bit less reason to hate them, but that's a discussion in itself and this comment is far too long.)
@Fion largely agree.
Of course there’s always some risk. Ideally a peace deal would decrease net risk. Might even be worth some added net risk, but Israeli leaders have no moral duty to accept that, and in this case the additional risk is substantial.
South Korea would be wholly justified in invading and occupying North Korea.
I suspect there’s some lingering disagreement over the nature of Bibi’s policies. Afaict he’s been as sensible and humane as possible while prioritizing Israeli security. He didn’t legalize new settlements (and in fact demolished ones built illegally) until recently (caving to pressure from Ben Gvir). He suppressed far right settlers and dismantled West Bank checkpoints. Whenever Hamas seemed to have moderated, he reciprocated and relaxed the blockade. He promoted economic development of the West Bank and Gaza as a path to moderation and peace.