Systems analysis predicts this doesn't end. Ever.
Moloch cares not from where the blood flows, only that it does.
> They include things your friends are saying, and your propensity to agree with your friends for social acceptance.
I do end up losing a lot of friends by being unwilling to do this. :-/
Though that same character trait, inverted, does nicely immunize me against pitching my phone in a ditch when someone I like says stuff I disagree with. Not that I actually disagreed with any of this, but it's an amusing image. :D
Without getting into right or wrong, because boy that's a deep, ugly hole, this was all an inevitable conclusion when Israel did not exercise its Right by Conquest in 1967. By instead employing what they surely saw as compassion and mercy (concepts generally foreign to middle-east warfare, and human warfare in general prior to the 20th century) and not expelling the Palestinian refugees living there from the territory formerly held by Egypt, they created the inevitability of this October's events, one way or another. Israel made this shit sandwich and someone's going to have to eat it.
Sometimes the choice that is cruel today is merciful to the next five generations.
I don't mean to diminish the rhetorical impact of your argument, but the beheaded babies thing is pretty thoroughly debunked by now: https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/insight-beheaded-babies-is-a-century
Also, won't bother getting into all the analysis of faked and manipulated photos, with the rubber dolls and so forth. Even fake atrocities can provoke genuine outrage. This is all very old and basic pys-war stuff.
But, gotta wonder... does game theory really still apply if the whole conflict is fake, and there aren't actually separate interests, just a big Hegelian hoodwink?
Another HWFO masterpiece. Thank you.
Previously you have defined Moloch as "undesirable saddle points in real-life game theory" but I would quibble with that definition a bit. I think the concept of Moloch includes the idea that tech advancement creates *new* undesirable saddle points. That is, when tech progresses, it creates new ways for people to sell their souls for silver. But I think most rationalists would also agree that technological progress also offers the possibility of new and interesting ways out of these saddle points. I think most people would agree that life today *can be* more rich and meaningful than life 100,000 yrs ago, even though we have more ways to fail. Extending this to your argument about the Israel/Palestine conflict, it seems very possible that new developments could enable new solutions there, even if it is a game-theoretic saddle point.
Your attempt at moral equivalency fails from a lack of historical reality.
If you really don't care about any of the particular details or history of the specific ongoing spectacle, and just want to flex some "systems analysis", why not talk about, say, the Hatfields and McCoys? Or that Dr Seuss book about the Yooks and the Zooks, or whatever. It's just distracting!
By the way, the Hatfield-McCoy conflict did actually come to an end. Sometimes these things aren't as interminable as they seem.
Arguing by assertion, twice ("This is not an equivalency argument"), you've created a nice little unfalsifiable hypothesis. Good work. You've even included a Kafka trap: "Your sensemaking apparatus has been compromised." Bravo. And who would not appreciate your acknowledging the "right to be outraged"? Big of you.
Appreciate this piece very much. One of only two I've read since last weekend that were worth the opportunity cost.
Honestly, I think that people are just born to fight. We love a good scrap and a challenge, we don't back down from one in order to not look weak, and over time, we become dependent on having windmills to tilt at - either because we want to or we need to to make money off of them.
I think, frankly, that this fight is part of their identity and happens to be useful to outsiders. I'm willing to take a chance that my grandchildren will still be hearing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East (I'm 27).
My thoughts on people being born to fight something:
An entire section of my site dedicated to how we are information overloaded and how we're not dealing with it:
I too cannot get emotional about this. Fox News and the media generally has been a textbook case of dehumanizing the enemy and condemning atrocity by accepting different atrocity. I am sympathetic with the everyday people on both sides and hostile to the warpigs on both sides. Most of the people I hear condemning evil are justifying other evil. Evil is this purely destructive attitude seemingly taking over the world. The only good I can see coming from this would be Americans rejecting eternal war and returning to take care of family, friends, community and the local land and waters.
You mention that hawks “trade blood for power,” in reference to Netanyahu.
How would this fit with him setting up a power-sharing unity government?
re: meta-narrative analysis vs tribalistic regression/insanity
I had a big argument with an Iranian-American Jew that grew up in Israel, now in the USA, on my facebook timeline if anyone needs an example of the complete insanity and lies that brainwashed, radical Zionist extremists use in their rhetorical structure.
I'm sure it would be easy to find similar on the "other side".
The last sentence is accurate. Two groups of human beings want that land and refuse to share it. Thus the violence will continue.
The role we play...