The students' statement is apparently on Instagram. It's very short. An obvious problem is that it means that no matter what Hamas does, Israel is responsible. It seems like a rather weird and...
The students' statement is apparently on Instagram. It's very short.
An obvious problem is that it means that no matter what Hamas does, Israel is responsible. It seems like a rather weird and unworkable form of morality? A license to kill and someone else takes the blame. That seems easy to criticize regardless of anyone's support or opposition to the Israeli government.
I don't think they should be doxed, but this isn't a smart statement from these Harvard kids.
Another difference with at least the US slave revolts was that they had a pretty reasonable goal, "leave us alone". While I'm sure there were a few black militant groups that had larger goals of...
Another difference with at least the US slave revolts was that they had a pretty reasonable goal, "leave us alone". While I'm sure there were a few black militant groups that had larger goals of insatiable revenge, that majority just wanted to move on with life. After being granted freedom, they largely integrated into society as best they could. The US made that hard as hell but the black community did an amazing job with how little they had to start and how awful laws were in regards to limiting their potential.
I do believe a lot of Palestinians would like to just live their lives but there's an unfavorably large amount who just want endless vengeance. The problem is that there will never be enough blood to "pay back" the past. Grudges have to be let go without any sort of satisfying pay off. Until Palestine is ready to let go of the past and accept Isreals existence, peace is going to be hard to achieve.
For Gaza though? I just don't see how it's ever going to work. The area is so small and in such an awkward position that the region can't realistically be independent. This puts both Isreal and Palestine in a horrible position. Gaza needs to get assistance from Isreal so they are always going to feel they are being treated unfairly no matter what the power/water/trade situation is. And Isreal can't just close off borders and let them figure out their own lives because Gaza needs Isreal's coordination to exist. It would be best for Gaza to just be an Isreal territory and the people to be Isreal citizens but neither side wants that. No one wants them moved but it's not a very workable solution long term even if the people weren't actively hostile towards each other.
I don't want to get into what stupid things people have said on the Internet since there's an unlimited supply of that. More generally, goalpost-shifting means having different standards for...
I don't want to get into what stupid things people have said on the Internet since there's an unlimited supply of that.
More generally, goalpost-shifting means having different standards for different situations that's somehow inconsistent or unjust.
I think there are other ways of having different standards for different situations that are more defensible. Implicit in the idea of "war crimes" is that there are different, much lower, standards for war, where killing some people (enemy combatants) is allowed (not a war crime) but not "everything goes."
What sort of standards would make sense for judging a slave revolt? I think it's a difficult question, probably a lot of historical context would be useful, and it's probably not actually all that useful for figuring out what to think about the current crisis since it would be a fairly rough analogy.
What sort of standards make sense for judging the actions of Hamas or Israel? I haven't seen much discussion of this from an ethics point of view. There are a lot of people making implicit assumptions, though. It's not so much that the goalposts move but that they are imaginary and everyone insists on their whatever location they imagine them to be.
I think understanding what just happened is pretty difficult and a prerequisite for judging it. (What really happened at that hospital, for example.) Part of understanding what happened is understanding what people were trying to do and what they thought was going on, and that's even more difficult when there's a lot of lying going on.
Consider how much investigation was done about who attacked the Nordstream pipeline, which is a fairly clear-cut incident. Or how much investigation goes into understanding a plane crash. It's hard enough when there's not a war.
As distant observers we're in no position to do any kind of investigation. At best we can try to put together news reports and try to figure out what's fake. Even that's a lot to ask of people casually reading about it, and the results will probably be fairly inconclusive.
Overconfidence is everywhere. All sorts of people making confident statements backed by nothing but how they feel about what they read in the news.
Yeah, fair enough. The dynamic I see here is one common in social media. Some people making extreme arguments on either side get a lot of publicity. This attracts opponents. A student group making...
Yeah, fair enough.
The dynamic I see here is one common in social media. Some people making extreme arguments on either side get a lot of publicity. This attracts opponents. A student group making sensible statements would be mostly ignored.
It doesn't seem to have much to do with what's going on in Gaza or Israel? It's a separate political dispute among faraway observers about what position to take.
One of the things I liked about the linked article was that it had (a bit of) discussion around the idea that strong reactions and shaming can put a damper on speech, but it's not clear where the...
I think "free speech" advocates also haven't understood that free speech is traditionally understood to be a negative liberty (i.e. the government will not lock you up for criticising the head of state) rather than a positive liberty (i.e. the government will provide you with a megaphone and a stage in a public space to criticise the president).
One of the things I liked about the linked article was that it had (a bit of) discussion around the idea that strong reactions and shaming can put a damper on speech, but it's not clear where the line is.
This comes down to the people's definition of free speech, essentially, which doesn't have much or anything to do with the government and is more about consequences. It's a more philosophical question. We can more or less take for granted that I won't get in trouble with the government if I say "this is all Israel's fault." The question is, what consequences is it fair for society to impose on me, if any?
It's complicated. I think we would mostly agree that it seems reasonable for a private employer - say, a Jewish business owner - to want to not hire me, if I'd made my statement directly to them. Or perhaps in something social like a Facebook post. That seems fair. But in this case, conservative (political) groups are amplifying what I said and explicitly attaching my name to my political statement. There are two complicating factors there - the amplification and the fact that my original speech was in the realm of politics.
On the one hand, it seems reasonable that my name and photo would be attached to my own statement. On the other, uni is supposed to be exactly the formative time when I'm experimenting with a lot of ideas, and I think it unquestionably puts a damper on that if the bad ideas I have are broadcast widely. But back to the first hand, I did sign a political proclamation...
Point is - it's complicated, and I do think it's a free speech issue. Just not a first amendment one.
This is old so I'll post it in an old topic, but here's an argument against this sort of retaliation from a libertarian point of view: Canceling is wrong no matter how bad the speech (Megan McArdle)
This is old so I'll post it in an old topic, but here's an argument against this sort of retaliation from a libertarian point of view:
Like most of you, I’m appalled by the idea that maybe terrorism is okay, if you target the right civilians. I’m mad at these people for saying awful, stupid things. I’m also mad that I now have to defend the worst of them from cancellation. Because make no mistake: What is being done, or at least attempted, is cancel culture, though I got a lot of pushback from conservatives when I said so on X, formerly known as Twitter.
These people were talking about war crimes, I was reminded. And, given their politics, they were likely to be themselves avid supporters of cancellation. You can’t expect us, conservatives said indignantly, to unilaterally disarm in the culture wars.
I take both points. But free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy, and free speech by definition requires protecting unpopular ideas. Since bad ideas are often unpopular, this will include protecting some bad ones — fighting them with good ideas, rather than threats.
Of course I understand why companies might be reluctant to hire students who think it’s okay to murder babies. But we must resist falling into the false binaries that distort the thinking of both the terrorists and the cancelers. The world is not neatly divided into good people who deserve protection and irredeemably bad people who deserve anything they get; it is full of complicated, flawed human beings who can often be better, with a little bit of grace. Many, maybe most, Irish Americans of a certain age have known otherwise decent people who nonetheless supported terrorism, emotionally or financially. We also witnessed many of those same folks repent after 9/11 drove home what terrorism actually means to its victims.
Mixed up Israel and Hamas. Don't mind me; I'm an idiot.
Really bold move to poke this hornet's nest of all things. Do people really forget that extremist Muslims have set the precedent of harassing/assaulting/murdering those who they perceive to have slighted their religion? An unfortunately very well documented phenomenon. I hope these people stay safe, at least. Of all the people to have your address leaked to, religious extremists are probably among the worst.
Mixed up Israel and Hamas. Don't mind me; I'm an idiot.
Ah, my bad; I am a moron. "Israel" and "Hamas" have been swirling around in my head so much lately that I've mixed the two up. Disregard my nonsense I agree with much of your initial comment. It's...
Ah, my bad; I am a moron. "Israel" and "Hamas" have been swirling around in my head so much lately that I've mixed the two up. Disregard my nonsense
I agree with much of your initial comment. It's a touch infuriating that you're not allowed to criticize Israel without being accused of antisemitism by both sides, somehow. There seems to be an unhealthy reverence of Israel and the Jewish people by the left, and the Right just uses it as a "gotcha" to shut down debate and opposition.
I could have worded that better. I don't mean to say that the Jewish people are undeserving of reverence or appreciation. I was more trying to say that many people on the left will absolutely tear...
I could have worded that better. I don't mean to say that the Jewish people are undeserving of reverence or appreciation. I was more trying to say that many people on the left will absolutely tear into people for criticizing certain ethnic groups for things that are arguably worth criticizing. Similar to many left-leaning people calling those who criticize Islam racist and xenophobic. I fear that by trying to place certain minorities on pedestals in order to make up for past wrongdoings, people may believe that said minorities should absolutely not be questioned and that any criticism levied at them is just thinly-veiled racism. The left has a habit of deflecting genuine criticism as hate speech.
As a matter of personal curiosity, how do you reconcile that knowing Jesus and his followers were extremely political? They were highly vocal about what they believed in and criticized the...
As a matter of personal curiosity, how do you reconcile that knowing Jesus and his followers were extremely political? They were highly vocal about what they believed in and criticized the corruption in the Roman government.
Additionally, how do you reconcile that with Jesus's plea to help everyone in need? Doing what you can to help the poor first and foremost is also political, championed by the left and rejected by the right.
I don't mean to presume to tell you how your faith should be expressed, I'm just curious how being apolitical and being Christian interact given Jesus's teachings.
Perhaps everything we do is political. In a Democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship that is true. And certainly in a capitalist society we have even more opportunities. I'm talking about...
Perhaps everything we do is political. In a Democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship that is true. And certainly in a capitalist society we have even more opportunities. I'm talking about voting with your hands and feet. Teaching. Helping. Living your belief.
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others,...
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
The students' statement is apparently on Instagram. It's very short.
An obvious problem is that it means that no matter what Hamas does, Israel is responsible. It seems like a rather weird and unworkable form of morality? A license to kill and someone else takes the blame. That seems easy to criticize regardless of anyone's support or opposition to the Israeli government.
I don't think they should be doxed, but this isn't a smart statement from these Harvard kids.
Another difference with at least the US slave revolts was that they had a pretty reasonable goal, "leave us alone". While I'm sure there were a few black militant groups that had larger goals of insatiable revenge, that majority just wanted to move on with life. After being granted freedom, they largely integrated into society as best they could. The US made that hard as hell but the black community did an amazing job with how little they had to start and how awful laws were in regards to limiting their potential.
I do believe a lot of Palestinians would like to just live their lives but there's an unfavorably large amount who just want endless vengeance. The problem is that there will never be enough blood to "pay back" the past. Grudges have to be let go without any sort of satisfying pay off. Until Palestine is ready to let go of the past and accept Isreals existence, peace is going to be hard to achieve.
For Gaza though? I just don't see how it's ever going to work. The area is so small and in such an awkward position that the region can't realistically be independent. This puts both Isreal and Palestine in a horrible position. Gaza needs to get assistance from Isreal so they are always going to feel they are being treated unfairly no matter what the power/water/trade situation is. And Isreal can't just close off borders and let them figure out their own lives because Gaza needs Isreal's coordination to exist. It would be best for Gaza to just be an Isreal territory and the people to be Isreal citizens but neither side wants that. No one wants them moved but it's not a very workable solution long term even if the people weren't actively hostile towards each other.
I don't want to get into what stupid things people have said on the Internet since there's an unlimited supply of that.
More generally, goalpost-shifting means having different standards for different situations that's somehow inconsistent or unjust.
I think there are other ways of having different standards for different situations that are more defensible. Implicit in the idea of "war crimes" is that there are different, much lower, standards for war, where killing some people (enemy combatants) is allowed (not a war crime) but not "everything goes."
What sort of standards would make sense for judging a slave revolt? I think it's a difficult question, probably a lot of historical context would be useful, and it's probably not actually all that useful for figuring out what to think about the current crisis since it would be a fairly rough analogy.
What sort of standards make sense for judging the actions of Hamas or Israel? I haven't seen much discussion of this from an ethics point of view. There are a lot of people making implicit assumptions, though. It's not so much that the goalposts move but that they are imaginary and everyone insists on their whatever location they imagine them to be.
I think understanding what just happened is pretty difficult and a prerequisite for judging it. (What really happened at that hospital, for example.) Part of understanding what happened is understanding what people were trying to do and what they thought was going on, and that's even more difficult when there's a lot of lying going on.
Consider how much investigation was done about who attacked the Nordstream pipeline, which is a fairly clear-cut incident. Or how much investigation goes into understanding a plane crash. It's hard enough when there's not a war.
As distant observers we're in no position to do any kind of investigation. At best we can try to put together news reports and try to figure out what's fake. Even that's a lot to ask of people casually reading about it, and the results will probably be fairly inconclusive.
Overconfidence is everywhere. All sorts of people making confident statements backed by nothing but how they feel about what they read in the news.
Yeah, fair enough.
The dynamic I see here is one common in social media. Some people making extreme arguments on either side get a lot of publicity. This attracts opponents. A student group making sensible statements would be mostly ignored.
It doesn't seem to have much to do with what's going on in Gaza or Israel? It's a separate political dispute among faraway observers about what position to take.
For someone who just linked the principle of charity, I don't feel that your response here was being particularly charitable.
Would you mind giving some examples? I'm curious if there's something I've missed.
One of the things I liked about the linked article was that it had (a bit of) discussion around the idea that strong reactions and shaming can put a damper on speech, but it's not clear where the line is.
This comes down to the people's definition of free speech, essentially, which doesn't have much or anything to do with the government and is more about consequences. It's a more philosophical question. We can more or less take for granted that I won't get in trouble with the government if I say "this is all Israel's fault." The question is, what consequences is it fair for society to impose on me, if any?
It's complicated. I think we would mostly agree that it seems reasonable for a private employer - say, a Jewish business owner - to want to not hire me, if I'd made my statement directly to them. Or perhaps in something social like a Facebook post. That seems fair. But in this case, conservative (political) groups are amplifying what I said and explicitly attaching my name to my political statement. There are two complicating factors there - the amplification and the fact that my original speech was in the realm of politics.
On the one hand, it seems reasonable that my name and photo would be attached to my own statement. On the other, uni is supposed to be exactly the formative time when I'm experimenting with a lot of ideas, and I think it unquestionably puts a damper on that if the bad ideas I have are broadcast widely. But back to the first hand, I did sign a political proclamation...
Point is - it's complicated, and I do think it's a free speech issue. Just not a first amendment one.
FYI On mobile these archive links just seem to put me in a captcha loop.
This is old so I'll post it in an old topic, but here's an argument against this sort of retaliation from a libertarian point of view:
Canceling is wrong no matter how bad the speech (Megan McArdle)
Really bold move to poke this hornet's nest of all things. Do people really forget that extremist Muslims have set the precedent of harassing/assaulting/murdering those who they perceive to have slighted their religion? An unfortunately very well documented phenomenon. I hope these people stay safe, at least. Of all the people to have your address leaked to, religious extremists are probably among the worst.Mixed up Israel and Hamas. Don't mind me; I'm an idiot.
Ah, my bad; I am a moron. "Israel" and "Hamas" have been swirling around in my head so much lately that I've mixed the two up. Disregard my nonsense
I agree with much of your initial comment. It's a touch infuriating that you're not allowed to criticize Israel without being accused of antisemitism by both sides, somehow. There seems to be an unhealthy reverence of Israel and the Jewish people by the left, and the Right just uses it as a "gotcha" to shut down debate and opposition.
I could have worded that better. I don't mean to say that the Jewish people are undeserving of reverence or appreciation. I was more trying to say that many people on the left will absolutely tear into people for criticizing certain ethnic groups for things that are arguably worth criticizing. Similar to many left-leaning people calling those who criticize Islam racist and xenophobic. I fear that by trying to place certain minorities on pedestals in order to make up for past wrongdoings, people may believe that said minorities should absolutely not be questioned and that any criticism levied at them is just thinly-veiled racism. The left has a habit of deflecting genuine criticism as hate speech.
As a Christian I make it a point to be non political. Period.
As a matter of personal curiosity, how do you reconcile that knowing Jesus and his followers were extremely political? They were highly vocal about what they believed in and criticized the corruption in the Roman government.
Additionally, how do you reconcile that with Jesus's plea to help everyone in need? Doing what you can to help the poor first and foremost is also political, championed by the left and rejected by the right.
I don't mean to presume to tell you how your faith should be expressed, I'm just curious how being apolitical and being Christian interact given Jesus's teachings.
Perhaps everything we do is political. In a Democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship that is true. And certainly in a capitalist society we have even more opportunities. I'm talking about voting with your hands and feet. Teaching. Helping. Living your belief.
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”