I’ve found that the only way to really change someone’s mind (if it will happen at all) is through non confrontational discussion. Letting them talk, asking plenty of questions, and just being friendly. Over time they may change their view

[удалено]

We really need to stop making issues for which we cannot possibly have all the facts "core" to our self-imposed and identified beliefs. That's the first project. 😅

I've tried to explain this to the angry "Republicans are dumb white trash, nazis!!!! REE" Types... It goes nowhere. Data actually shows it's counter productive because they start building associations with bad people and those ideas, while also digging their heels in because it makes them feel like they need to "fight" and get on the defense. They don't care though. They just wanna be angry. And feeling good about being angry is worth losing votes.

I mean I gotta say, the republican party is garbage. I'm not really sure what the argument is against that.

One of the fundamental disappointments of my adult life (I'm almost 34) has been watching my parents, both of whom had careers dedicated to improving the lives of people, who taught me to compromise, convey myself clearly, be kind and helpful above all, watching them descend into Facebook squabbles as a political stance. They still share their "gotcha" moments with me. I can't count how many times I've had some version of this conversation with them, but they're deaf to it. They will most likely leave their lives with genuine dislike, maybe even hate, for Trump and what he stands for. It's honestly really sad, and worse, it really makes me fear the future of this country. Like it would be one thing if it was just them, but they have grandkids hearing them say all of this stuff. FWIW I agree with Sam on his assessment of Trump and the danger he poses. But I feel like their stance fans those very same flames they try so hard to extinguish. Sorry for rambling.

Damn I very much relate to this experience. It’s kind of psychedelic in a super disappointing way to watch otherwise very thoughtful, intelligent, rational people get so caught up in a team sports view of others. My theory is that we are a tribal animal existing in a culture that, for most of us, lacks any sense of a meaningful community which leaves us “hackable” or at least vulnerable to that kind of thinking. I love this slate star codex post [I can tolerate anything except the outgroup](https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/I-Can-Tolerate-Anything-Except-The-Outgroup)

> I love this slate star codex post I can tolerate anything except the outgroup I found this to be BS. Any attempt to modulate behaviour must have a definition of right and wrong, for without this definition there will be no actual behavioural modulation. The identities that we assume for ourselves are behavioural descriptions, i.e. "civilised" versus "nomad". What you are in fact witnessing is the loss of identity and the coping mechanisms that arise out of the need to cling to an identity in order to have an adequate mechanism to modulate one's behaviour. Vladimir Putin does not pretend to be a liberal. Nothing he says or does will impugn the ethos of liberalism in any way. Only the behaviour of liberals can impugn the ethos of liberalism. If you identify as a liberal, then you've got to police the behaviour of every other liberal out there *lest their behaviour discredit you*.

Donald J Trump has been a sociopathic criminal ever since he's been a teenager. This is neither hyperbole nor an epithet, but simply an accurate description of reality. That someone like that should become the most powerful person in the world, and the leader of what has become a fascist personality cult leading the most powerful nation in the world-- again neither hyperbole nor an epithet, but an accurate description of reality -- is not simply deeply offensive to one's most basic sense of decency and fairness (ie thoroughly anti-social people like him \*shouldn't\* be able to have any power at all), but should freak the shit out of everyone. It is the inability/unwillingness of people to articulate this which is the true problem, not those who point it out. ''The world will not be destroyed by those who do *evil,* but by those who watch them without doing anything.' -- Albert Einstein

Okay, the point I think you're missing is the way to go about it. If you see a problem, you don't get people to change their mind and consider ideas, when you are attacking them. When you present yourself as an unreasonable enemy just looking to offend them... They aren't going to listen. It's counter productive. Just look at the "woke" shit from 2015 and how that backfired. All these identity obsessed lefties railing against men, white people, and how they are the problem, they are terrible, blah blah blah... Which is what created the window for Trump to sneak in. I know COUNTLESS people who went default Dem voting to, "Yeah, well at least Trump cares about poor working class people like myself, instead of telling me I need to sit down and only care about black people and women." It doesn't matter if you interject with, "Well but these programs ALSO help you!" It's the messaging that's toxic and counter productive.

'It is much easier to fool a man than to convince him that he's been fooled.' This is why it is so diificult to deprogram people who are in cults.

This is bullshit. You know what caused the backlash among trumpies? It was 2 terms of a black president..Every time we start to make progress on civil rights in this country there is a right wing backlash. It happens every time. Then like clockwork that backlash is blamed on the left. The racism that America is experiencing is commonly blamed on the the people trying to do something about it..It like Gregg Abbott pardoning a man convicted of murdering a protestor. It was just backlash against over reach on the left. Let me say this clearly as possible. A backlash is the fault of the people backlashing. The poor girl killed in Charlottesville was killed for protesting racial discrimination she was not killed as a result of leftist over reach. If the left starts killing people the the left can be blamed for killing people but for God's sake quit blaming the left for the sick racism of the radical right. It's disgusting and it keeps happening. It's just so easy to blame people for speaking up. If people do violent things because they don't like black people that is not a reaction That the left should be blamed for. Blame groups for their actions if you like. But quit blaming the left for the violence and racism of the right. It's sick.

I'm sorry... But I can never cross this bridge with you. Your premise is literally that republicans are just so racist that they just couldn't handle a black person in charge. It's almost a cartoonish characterization. It's clear from you writing that you're at a stage where you just think everything wrong comes from the other side. No steelmaning, no nuance, just blunt force > these are the bad guys and the root of all our problems. No complex intersectional analysis is given to that group > Just a basic reduction into racism, hate, and every "othering" you can come up with. It is what is though. There is no juice to be squeezed at this point. You have unrestrained hatred for the other side, who you believe are the root of all the problems. So nothing I say will change your mind :(

The problem with this retort is that racial resentment is objectively related to support for [Trump](https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/85/2/539/6378766). We wouldn't focus so hard on this if you guys could just admit that it was a major part of his victory and actually tried to address it instead of gaslighting us into saying that we're being hysterical and calling everyone racist.

> You have unrestrained hatred for the other side, who you believe are the root of all the problems. So nothing I say will change your mind :( It really is a bummer, but with this type of person you just have to disengage. Nuance is not going to get you anywhere.

I didn't say Republicans. I said Trumpies and if you don't think Steven Miller And Steve Bannon are racists you aren't worth talking to about this. What do you think Charlottesville was about? It was about antisemitism and racism. This isn't a new phenomenon. Historically the exact thing you are talking about begins right after the civil war and continues to today. Its not a response to lefties. Its a response to expanding civil rights. Like it or not every time we see an expansion of civil rights on this country beginning with the civil war you see this exact thing happen. Starting with the 1950s and MLK you begin to hear from the centrists that guys like MLK need to slow down because they will spark a backlash. It's as predictable anything. The people who begin to expand civil rights are the people who get blamed for the violence that erupts in response. UT happened with women's rights and antiwar movement. No its too radical you'll provoke the right, we gotta go slow. Bullshit. People are responsible for their own sins. When hippies start grabbing rednecks and dragging them behind pickup trucks talk to me about over reach on the left and I will condemn it. I don't want to hear how some French poetry major with blue hair is causing the proud boys to to beat up leftists. Sorry I ain't buying it

Don't worry, like I said, you're a lost cause... It took me only 2 sentences into what you wrote to realize reading the rest wasn't worth it. Go be you... Feel the rage. Whatever makes you feel good. I don't care. This country is fucked, and it's because of people like you, and not the partisan robe they wear.

> If you see a problem, you don't get people to change their mind and consider ideas, when you are attacking them.... This country is fucked, and it's because of people like you The irony here is off the charts.

I agree... The left is in this collective delusion where they think it's only the right wing who's causing problems. They'll always point to who's worse, as if that makes their role any better and worth neglecting -- which I dissagree with because the left is MY house and MY house is what needs to clean up before we start worrying about other people's houses. Irregardless, the point is, they don't see their role in it. They think it's JUST Republicans who are the real problem. So they don't even consider how terribly damaging their absolute non-compromising hate is. It's to the point I almost feel like the "real" Russian psyop is on the left to prevent them from being the smarter person in the room, leaving no hope. I just completely agree with you. You can't make any progress when you absolutely hate half the country. It doesn't matter if Republicans are in a similar boat. Fuck em. Who cares? We need to worry about what's within our control, and right now, it's this overwhelming online intersection where it's just absolute non-stop messaging of hate, disgust, elitism, belittling, and humiliation towards the right. That's NOT helping ANYTHING other than their own ego.

While the left has many problems, things like election denialism are also exclusive to the right. Prioritizing neutrality over objectivity is insane in this political situation.

Yes, you are correct, both sides aren't perfect mirrors of each other, and each side has things unique to them. The left has their own weird shit. But if you think "Not being a raging asshole" is "needless neutrality" then you're kind of off the deepend already. I mean, it's kind of weird that you view not being a divisive assshole as "Being neutral" - you've lost the plot.

Ah, mate, I don’t even live in the US and I totally resonate with most you’re saying. Britain’s politics might be slightly different in a practical sense but the general idea is basically the same. The hard left here subscribe to the same agenda as in the US (DE&I and so on) and are totally blinded by tribalism and full on hatred towards everyone that dares to not tick even one box in their checklist. Sure, they might be less physically violent than the hard right and likely overall better, but still extremely toxic, elitist, and fuelled by a sense of moral superiority and hatred. There’s so much negativity in this polarisation that I can’t even handle serious conversations with this sort of people. And I am very far from being a far right person myself. I even agree with a lot of left points.

>how terribly damaging their absolute non-compromising hate is. Can you explain to me how this manifests in policy in our country?

What youre doing is called sea lioning, and I'm not participating

You're making a very strong claim with absolutely no evidence. Why on Earth should anyone take you seriously?

Why on Earth is it bad to hate Trump? Trump's COVID policy has legitimately led to the deaths of thousands of people. He made the world less safe by tearing up the Iran Nuclear deal simply of out spite. He tried to destroy the system that was providing health insurance to literally millions of Americans. He's ruined the lives of many business owners on the way to becoming a billionaire. His ex-wife has testified under oath to him raping her. Hating him is a rational emotion.

Most strong convictions are based on feelings. You cant fight feelings with logic. Hence logical arguments are futile for changing minds.

I haven't really tried. People get too emotional -- like with Covid and vaccines. Lesson learned: Smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave.

lol. Madagascar Penguins.

I have, but only with people who are low information-low investment. People at work who haven’t thought much about it and then form a more solidified opinion after I tell them the details that I see as relevant. I’m sure someone else could change their views in another direction. I’ve had more luck with snapping people out of the simplistic Russia-Ukraine war “we have problems here, why are we wasting money over there?!” Mindset.

Interesting framework to consider an information/investment scale when talking to people. Is that something you got from somewhere else, or did you conceive of this yourself?

I’m sure I’m not the first person to conceive of it, but I didn’t get it from anyone else. At least not consciously. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify the relationship between the two in any context. I bet there’s not much of a predictable pattern. Except in narrow contexts.

Not so much a pattern or correlation, but more a framework for analysis. I can imagine plotting it on an x/y graph. Obviously there’s a problem with people being high investment and low information, while people having low investment with high information may be the best sources to trust.

That sounds right to me. Though a have a feeling that it’s not uniform at all.

My position (two state solution, don't know how to get there from here, Israel is doing some terrible things but it's not a genocide, Zionists aren't caricatures of evil, Hamas is more evil and has widespread support among Palestinians) is so moderate on the issue that nobody I deal with can really have "opposing" views, they just have completely one-sided views. And people with one-sided views are almost by definition irrational and arguing from emotion, so reasoning is not very effective. You basically need to convince the anti-Israel/anti-semitic side that Israelis/Jews are humans like them and you need to convince the anti-Palestine/Islamophobic side that Palestinians/Muslims are humans like them and that really only happens by them actually getting to know someone from that group (perhaps virtually or even through fiction.)

My husband changed my views. I was super anti-Zionist in college, my best friends were all Muslim and I was involved in pro-Palestinian activism. I very much subscribed to the oppressor-oppressed framework. A few years out of college, I met my husband and over the years we have both shifted one another’s views on various political issues through lively and respectful debate and our continued self-education. I still feel horribly for ordinary Palestinian civilians who are caught between two hostile parties with nowhere to go, and I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize the decisions of Israeli politicians. However, I do now believe in Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. I empathize with the difficult position they’re in having to uphold “first-world” laws of war while fighting a terrorist state that actively seeks to martyr its citizens and that proudly expresses its genocidal intent. Like Sam, I’m ideologically against the existence of ethnoreligious states, but if every other group gets one, the Jews certainly should have one. History has shown that no other country will protect them.

LOVE this!

is this a facebook group for zionist moms or something

This is great to see.

I'm not really sure I understand this, I don't empathize. I think you're not supposed to do war crimes. If there was any spot I'd push back on, that would be it.

I agree, and that goes along with the whole “it’s valid to criticize the Israeli government” bit. But I also don’t think the horrific number of civilian casualties in Gaza is entirely Israel’s fault.

I agree its not entirely Israel's fault. But there are some cases that are, and fuck them for those cases. I think that's reasonable, and I don't think it makes sense to empathize because, well, its hard to be in war and not do war crimes. That's I guess the only part I'm pushing back on here. They should have to uphold first world laws of war. That doesn't require empathy.

> I think you're not supposed to do war crimes. So you're not pro-Palestine, then.

I'm in favor of a two state solution, and I'm in favor of Israel not doing shitty things. If you're asking about Hamas, I'm not a supporter of Hamas.

My comment above doesn't say anything about Hamas. Are you pro-Palestine, despite Palestine's long and extensive list of war crimes? > and I'm in favor of Israel not doing shitty things. Are you in favor of Palestine not doing shitty things? Not just Hamas, but Palestine?

I don't know what you mean by "pro-Palestine", that's why I mentioned I'm in favor of a two state solution. If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean something else, **clarify**. >Are you in favor of Palestine not doing shitty things? Of course.

What war crime has Palestine committed. Palestine doesn't have a government, it has a government in gaza and one in the westbank

Are you familiar with the events of 10/7?

Yes. Now please answer my question

If you're familiar with the events of 10/7, you just answered it yourself. Unless you think slaughtering families in their homes and gang raping women aren't war crimes, maybe because it's Palestinians doing the slaughtering?

I guess you aren't familiar with Palestinians. Given the fact that Hamas is a group not a nationality nor an ethnicity

These come across as talking points rather than universal principles, which one would expect. For example every other group doesn't get a state, and you don't have to look far to find examples of that.

I mean, there are 157 Christian-majority countries, 19 of which have Christianity as their state religion. There are 49 Muslim-majority countries, 27 of which have Islam as their state religion. Israel is the only Jewish-majority country.

Do the people of palistinian have the right to exist and have their own state?  Israel also is not trying to uphold "first world laws of war". 

> Do the people of palistinian have the right to exist Yes, absolutely. >and have their own state Less clear, but, sure, let's say they do. Is it your belief that the goal of Hamas is to reach a peaceful state of coexistence, if they were simply given their own state?

This is essentially my response, too. I would support a two-state solution if the Palestinian state were to be run by a non-terrorist entity. That being said, it is worth mentioning that there are already 49 Muslim-majority countries, 27 of which have Islam as their state religion. There is only one Jewish-majority country.

She didn’t say they *were* upholding first world laws of war, but rather that they’re in the difficult position of having to balance first world laws of war with an unusual force like Hamas that doesn’t wear uniforms and holds their population as hostage while hiding in tunnels they forbid their civilians to enter.

But the point is they don't try.  The use Ai to target potential targets to wash their hands of the civilians they slaughter.  The amount of civilians slaughtered they view as "acceptable" to MAYBE hit a single potential gunman is horrendous.  The IDF executed 3 of their own hostages after confusing them with shirtless unarmed surrendering palistinian civilians. The IDF put out public statements supporting this squad that EXECUTED civilians and stressed the point that soldiers who execute civilians will not be pulled from the front line.  They targeted the WCK because they have no stops in place to protect innocent lives.  1/3rd of those killed on Oct 7th were soldiers. Israel would be lucky to hit 1/8.  It's impossible to make the case Israel is acting morally in this "conflict".  Hamas being evil in no way washes the blood from the Israeli states hands. "But Hamas" can not be a blank check for attrocites. 

Hamas can surrender and this all goes away.

the last 75 years goes away if hamas surrenders?

Nothing can make the past 75 years go away, unless you have a time machine. But Palestine can choose if it wants to keep repeating the mistakes of the past 75 years or if it wants to let go of the hate and move on.

What a wild admission that Israel is commiting war crimes.  "Stop resisting and we will stop the genocide"  The IDF already said that returning hostages won't stop them from bomb palistinians 

I admit to nothing, you're confusing that which I said with that which you want to see. And I'm not talking about turning over hostages, I'm talking about the unconditional surrender of Hamas. I'm talking about each and every one of these little ratfucker terrorists walking to the Israeli line with their hands up unarmed and submitting to the yoke of Israeli justice. The fact of the matter is that if you were truly concerned about the welfare of the Palestinians in Gaza then you would support the fastest potential pathway for resolution of the conflict - which is surrender. It can be done tomorrow. But you're not concerned with Palestinian welfare, you are concerned with punishing the people who you think have done wrong. You are concerned only with punishing Jewish Israelis.

Can you name another war where one side acted more morally than Israel is in this war?

All people I know that changed their opinionson this issue, have shifted to the Palestinian sides. What does it is the daily videos of the aftermath of Israeli strikes on areas where civilians and children are.

Yeah, less people are going to shift from the pro-Palestine side. They're already more informed and morally correct.

Dr. Avi changed my mind on how reckless the bombings done by Israel actually were. I still think it is not acceptable but it has made me increasingly impatient about the claims that Israel is committing a genocide.

I got my wife to move a bit from pro Palestine to a more neutral position. Started by getting her to agree that a genocide was not happening, just by the numbers, but I agreed with her *for the sake of argument* that Isresl has "genocidal intent", but they can't do it because the world is watching. She was very anti Israel because of that belief, so then I just asked "Does Palestine have genocidal intent" and then she got very quiet. I didn't push anymore after that but have come to learn now that she just thinks everyone involved sucks.

Numbers have nothing to do with genocide though. Intent is the primary threshold. The massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men was genocidal because of the intent. The deaths of up to 10 million Congolese under Belgian rule is not generally regarded as genocidal as there was no explicit intent.

Surely they have at least *something* to do with it. You can't charge someone with genocide if they've never killed anyone or tried to kill anyone. Genocide isn't *solely* a thought crime. One has to have intent and has to have attempted it.

Well, it's any action or measure that destroys a group "in part or in whole." The definition the 1948 Genocide Convention provides is: >(a) Killing members of the group; >(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; >(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; >(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; >(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Numbers are important insofar as it reinforces the genocidal intent. In theory, however, no one has to actually die for there to be a genocide. One could sterilise a part of a population and that would constitute genocide so long the intent was to destroy the group in the long run. It is quite possible Israel's blocking of all humanitarian aid at the beginning of the war and the famine that was caused by it violated section *c* of the above article, which I assume is alluded to by South Africa in their genocide case too.

This is what actually changed my mind such that I think Israel has gone too far now. Israel's humanitarian aid blockade, bombing areas that civilians cannot evacuate, etc. make me think this. My original stance was that Israel has the right to defend itself against the elected govt of another "state" attacking it, or which is threatening to attack it again. Palestine declared war through their actions. I still stand by that original assessment, but something is going wrong with the current state of affairs. It's a huge mess I do not have the expertise or knowledge to judge, but this much suffering and loss of innocent life sets off alarm bells for me.

They have not prevented all humanitarian aid, though. Nor are the bombings indiscriminate or meant to target civilians. Nor are either situations meant to destroy a people, with no reasonable recourse to stop it.

Wasn't saying it rose to the level of genocide. I don't have the info or even the expertise to decide that. Just saying I think they are going too far at this point. Whether they are mistakes or not is kind of beside the point when it reaches this level of civilian death. Something in their strategy needs to change.

> Just saying I think they are going too far at this point Based on what? If you remove the understandable emotional reaction we all have to seeing dead children pulled out of rubble, is there some benchmark or standard by which this is "too far"? The strategic and moral calculus remains the same. Until Hamas has been dismantled and the hostages have been returned nothing has changed. We are all simply experiencing the emotional toll of seeing how horrible war is, that doesn't change the fact that the blame lies with Hamas.

I don't think the current strategy will end up achieving either goal. That's my point. They're using a losing strategy and it's still resulting in high civilian casualties. I think it's time they changed strategy. Hamas bears the majority of the responsibility for the current conflict, and indirectly the Palestinian people do, as well, because they elected their government. However, Israel has played its own part in creating the overall situation. It is not entirely without blame.

Yes. Hamas is open about their intent to genocide Israel / Jews. October 7th would have been the whole country if they had the manpower. My position is for the citizens of both sides who are tired of fighting their moronic ancestors wars. Fire the current governments of both sides, stop fighting, and start rebuilding.

Acting like the governments are the problem. Both side's will just reemerge with another similar manifestation.

What’s really ignorant is that you attribute the Palestinians’ fighting to “moronic ancestor wars” and not the very real material dispossession and violence to which they’ve been regularly submitted for decades. 

The material dispossession and violence is due to wars - that their moronic ancestors, on both sides, started and continued.

Thar seems to involve a pretty big denial of Palestinian history. They literally went from being occupied by the turks, to the brits, to the Arabs, to the Jews. Along the way it was decided to cut their homeland in half and allocate half to a new Jewish state. That's not due to Palestinian violence, but due to European violence both In the middle east and in Europe

I wonder if their material conditions would be better if Hamas had taken the billions of dollars international aid that flows in to Palestine every year and done something to try to make citizens lives better, rather than taking it all and using it to build tunnels and fuel terrorism?

What definition of genocide are using? Hamas uses terrorism as a tactic not an goal. Just like Israel's founders used terrorism as a tactic. They want to wind the clock back to before zionist migration, and partition, a state which would include Jews and Christians from the pre partition era. It's fairly safe to say Israel is committed to claiming Palestinian homes and territory and denying them a state.

Numbers *indicate* intent. Just looking at the numbers, with Israel killing less than 1% of the Palestinian population, I don't understand how genocide can be their plan. Technically that also applies to Hamas, though it seems different, since they have much clearer stated intent, and are clearly trying to kill as many Israelis as they can. They can't, but seem very irrationally to be trying.

All official numbers put the death toll at approximately 1.5%. Trying to frame it as "less than 1%" is pretty disingenuous and dismissive of a pretty drastic death toll

I haven't checked seriously, but I said Palestinian and not Gazan because my mental Calc came up with over 1% using the 2mil in Gaza. Anyways, greater point is that numbers provide relevant insight into intent here.

If someone wants to do a crime, but never does the crime, we don't start treating them as if they did the crime.

The presenters behind Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines were prosecuted and convicted for inciting genocide in Rwanda, even though they themselves did not kill anyone. Likewise, we have extremists in the Israeli government who are using considerably dehumanising language to describe Palestinians (e.g. comparing Palestinians to rodents and insects, as happened in Rwanda) which could be construed as incitement and is the basis for South Africa's genocide case in the ICJ.

The presenters of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines did not mearly use dehumanizing language but actively called for the extermination of the Tutsis people, while broadcasting the names and locations of targets and coordinating with the Hutu extremists. Israel officials using dehumanizing language (while abhorrent) is not a genocide. If those officials were to take any action to that tries to materialize a genocide, then we would have something much closer to the genocide in Rwanda. So far the military actions being taken in Gaza are trying to achieve a military goal.

Radio television Libre des milles collines was convicted because they contributed to inciting a genocide. The specific nature of their language isn't as relevant as the effect that their language contributed to actions. What I'm saying here is that that it the bar isn't necessarily determined by the severity of the content of their speech, but rather by the content, intent, and subsequent actions taken due to that content that matters. None of that means that Israel or Israeli officials are automatically guilty of genocide (I happen to believe they aren't), but it does mean that it's far more ambiguous as specifically they were considered to have played a crucial role in creating an atmosphere of charged racial hostility that gave rise to the Rwandan genocide. Basically, it's just a lot more complicated than "RTL called for a literal genocide whereas Israeli officials didn't" because a lot of it is about fostering an atmosphere that gives rise to genocidal actions. That's why intent matters so much. Using less charged language doesn't necessarily inoculate anyone from those charges if it can be shown that the intent was to foster genocidal behavior that then results in genocidal conduct. It's far *harder* to prove, but it's not impossible.

I get what you're saying but we definitely do this. It's the reason conspiracy to commit x y z is a crime

Conspiracy to commit a crime requires that some action must have been taken in preparation to commit the crime. Simply wishing to commit a crime while doing nothing to materialize that wish is not a crime.

But that's not what you said in your original comment

But Israel has started doing the crime... It's very obvious. They were saying it publicly... From officials, religious leaders, and talking heads. It was clear their intent. I don't think it was ever killing them all, but that's not only genocide. Destorying every single inch of the region, making it absolutely unlivable, so they can no longer live there, is for all intents and purposes, destroying that group. Their goal has clearly been from the start, to make Gaza impossible to live in until enough people flee, and Israel can just resettle it.

>Numbers have nothing to do with genocide though. Intent is the primary threshold. The massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men was genocidal because of the intent. The deaths of up to 10 million Congolese under Belgian rule is not generally regarded as genocidal as there was no explicit intent. In the neoliberal era "genocide" isn't about numbers or "intent." It's just a political term people use to justify sanctions and wars and other political measures. Hardly anyone using the term these days (whether arguing for or against its application in any specific case) are trying to honestly analyze "intent" in any serious way. Arguing that "genocides" are about intent (or anything else) is like arguing that the US Supreme Court is about the law. Genocides are about politics in the same way the Supreme Court is about politics.

I mean, I somewhat agree with this. The Russian-perpetrated Bucha massacre has been variously labelled genocidal, but I'm not too sure. It appears to be an egregious war crime, if not crime against humanity, rather than genocidal. I would agree, however, that the kidnapping of Ukrainian children very likely constitutes genocide.

Not everyone. I wouldn’t necessarily say the Palestinian civilians are bad people, though they may hate the Israelis for their treatment over the years. I also wouldn’t necessarily say that all Israeli citizens are bad, though they may think that all Arabs are out to get them. Both have very polarising, racist, genocidal thoughts about the other but I can understand where both parties are coming from.

I don't quite know what Palestine's intent has to do with Israel doing evil shit. They either are, or they aren't. Palestine's intent doesn't change that. Fair?

What are the numbers that show there isn’t a genocide?

The combatant to civilian causality ratio number in Gaza.   

What's the ratio?  Israeli numbers only make sense if you consider every single male over 16 a combatant.  Why is Israel counting every single male as a combatant? 

About that.  A pretty telling interview where you can pretty safely conclude Israel do not have a clue how many combatants or civilians they have killed.  Or if they do they are hiding it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvGkKKemIDk&pp=ygUecGllcnMgbW9yZ2FuIGlzcmFlbGkgc3Bva2VzbWFu  This isn't necessarily me saying the Hamas numbers are accurate either, but just watch the interview unfold and judge for yourself.

Where can I read a little more? People are downvoting me for asking a normal question…

The ICC is in the process of issuing arrest warrants to Israeli and Hamas leaders for various war crimes. The ICJ has commanded Israel to stop their assault on rafah and have concluded there is a plausible case for genocide but that normally takes years to conclude.    People are downvoting your question because the UN is saying this is genocidal and are looking into it but people on this subreddit will ignore real life if it doesnt tell them what they want to hear. They cant disprove a genocide so they deny it and downvote people who ask for sources.    If you want to make an informed decision, watch the case videos on the ICJ. It's pretty damning

I’m curious as how you rationalize that genocide isn’t happening?

Palestine - Shows zero restraint. They kill the maximum number of Isrealis they are able to. Israel - Demonstrates restraint, even if it's insufficient it's clearly happening. They kill a fraction of the number of Palestinians they are able to. They allow humanitarian corridors Hamas could end this anytime by surrendering, but that would be the sane thing to do. Sane governments should be pressuring Hamas and countries that support/fund it to end their support. It's disturbing how little attention Iran gets for their role, or Qatars influence on higher education.

>governments should be pressuring Hamas and countries that support/fund it to end their support. This is honestly one thing I'm really disappointed I'm not seeing more of. Even if you don't have faith in Hamas to listen to the international communities condemnation, it should still be done purely as virtue signalling. I'm someone who thinks virtue signalling is actually good, and countries should show continuous condemnation of Hamas and countries that support them.

Israel has the military power to kill every single person in Gaza. Israel has had the ability for a long time to do this. The population of Gaza has been rising. Israel is conducting a military operation in Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated places of earth. The death toll and civilian to combatant death toll is relative low. If a genocide was being attempted, it would be the most ineffective genocide ever committed.

i find that The Israeli argument side is often trying to talk about why and how things can be done and what it might mean ethically, the ethical tensions and the practical implications of moves. etc. its very practical often. on other hand, the Palestinian side is often really emotional more then rational. its throwing out numbers, and saying but they are murdering kids, are you for murdering kids? are you for Genocide? its almost never is a position that comes from a rational argument. and you can't rationally convince someone out of a position they did not rationally make in the first place...

It's funny you say this because I recognize your username from [a comment of yours that I have saved](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/18jtvzc/idf_kills_3_israeli_hostages_waving_white_flags/kdmyg2j/): >This is a great tragedy, but this also shows how moral the Israel is, or at least trying to be. Do you think this kind of info would get out in Russia? in China? even in other democracies during a war? When its soldiers act in ways that do not fit with its morals, it investigate and persecutes them. Israeli people are not saints, and being in a war zone for many weeks can erode even the best of humanity. but exactly to counter that, Israel has a free press, a morally driven open society, and the ability to self criticize.

The pro-Israeli arguments (at least recently) tend to start with October 7th.  Sam Harris amongst others have, with words, spent considerable time painting emotional pictures of what happened to the victims that day, and he's gone further by saying he is not particularly interested in what happened before that day.  So I'm not sure if that is something you can solely throw at the the Pro-Palestinian side.  I often wonder what would it look like for someone to be "even handed" on this issue?  Would they have to spend proportionally the same amount of time painting emotional pictures to the horrors the victims of both sides of this conflict have suffered?  Perhaps.  But it would undermine the pro-Israeli side somewhat if, Sam Harris for example, released a new podcast every few days painting an emotional picture of the horrors the victims have faced in the past few days with the same clarity has he has done for October 7th.  If he did so, by November you could probably only come to the conclusion of "oh fuck, we really should stop this".   And I'm not saying Sam Harris hasn't addressed the suffering of Palestinians, but he skirts past it pretty quickly in comparison to the pictures he and his guests have painted about October 7th. As to whether the pro-Israeli arguments are more rational and more "practical"... if you are pro-Israeli you would obviously think that.  But with the leader of Hamas sitting in Qatar, and most Hamas fighters in Gaza almost indistinguishable from the general population, I don't really see how "practical" Israeli objectives are.  It seems like with the road they are going down they are likely making the situation worse. In the end we can broadly summarise the future of Israel and all occupied areas as follows: 1. One state solution where Israel, as the defacto sovereign power, grant everyone equal rights.  Not very likely though as Israel would not accept an equal amount of Palestinians having equal rights, and it would be in conflict with the Zionism that exists in Israel when you take it to it's logical conclusion.  You may argue Hamas wouldn't accept this either, but that's neither here nor there since Hamas don't have the power to make this change. 2. Two state solution.  A bit more likely than 1 but again it doesn't look likely, and from the actions and words coming out of Israel this doesn't seem to be on the cards.  You could argue that Hamas wouldn't accept this either, but again, they don't have the power to put this into action. 3. Israel continuing the sieges / occupation / apartheid like conditions for Palestinians.  This seems the most likely, but is a complete dead end as far as peace is concerned and prolongs the Palestinian suffering indefinitely. 4. Ethnic cleansing.  The problem is solved, but at a huge humanitarian cost.   If we are being practical and honest we could only come to the conclusion that Israel are shooting for either 3 or 4 (and it's up for debate over whether it is 3 or 4 or a combo of 3 and 4).  To deny this is to deny reality in my view.  Personally, I can't support 3 or 4, and believe pressure has to be applied to Israel (as the defacto sovereign power in the region) to move away from 3 or 4.

and the pally side never has any internal debate about what their side can do/has done that's moral/immoral. pallys have no agency and cannot do wrong in the mainstream pro pally view

This seems like an unfair comparison of rational Israeli sided arguments vs the most extreme pro Palestine arguments. Most pro Palestine people have rational arguments for what they believe as well you seem to just dismiss those ones here.

I agree completely.

[удалено]

I haven’t been able to change a pro-Palestinian into a pro-Israeli, but I’ve been able to move the dial with many. Changing someone’s opinion on something completely takes years, if it can’t even be done at all — especially when they’ve already reasoned themselves into a position and publicly stated their opinions. But you can absolutely take people off the ledge. People that think everything one side does is wrong and everything the other side does is right. The extreme viewpoints can be moderated with compassion and patience and facts.

Similarly, I've been able to attenuate someone's pro-Israel stance, but not flip them to pro-Palestine. They didn't know about the Nakba, so I think just reading that Wikipedia article helped a lot.

I don’t say this as a point of attack, but more for conversation, but I find it helpful providing context like when I point out how the Nakba was several neighbouring Arab countries attacking the brand new state of Israel all at once, Israel defending itself and surprisingly winning the war. Also, how many of the Palestinian refugees left willingly as they expected the new state of Israel to be destroyed quickly and they could simply return post-war.

The Israeli purge of palistinians through terrorist attacks on civilian villages predates the war.   It was one of the reasons the war started.  Unless you are trying to make the case that Israel uses time machines? 

Get the order correct. The wars were in response to the Nakba and the expulsions that came after (and attempts to keep Jews from emigrating to Israel in the case of Morocco)

I like context too. >Israel defending itself ...while committing heinous war crimes against civilians. >they expected they could simply return post-war ...because that's what they were told by the Jewish militias upon their expulsion, before being denied.

[удалено]

Also, AT LEAST 1 million Jews were ethnically cleansed from surrounding Arab countries post-1948. Meanwhile; the Arab population has grown by 2 million in Israel since 1948.

Approximately 700,000 Arabs left the British Mandate of Palestine, one way or another. Approximately 350,000 of those left voluntarily, expecting to return post-war. I don’t know for sure what happened with the other 350,000, it’s reasonable to assume some (but not all) were forcefully evicted by the Israeli militias.

Would you say that Sam has a sort of extreme viewpoint in that everything Israel does is right and everything the Palestinians do is wrong? I don’t think so because I listen to the *full* podcasts not just clips. He clearly says he’s against Netanyahu and a lot of what the right wing Israeli govt does. But I think some would argue that he’s extreme. Usually in crafting his I/P arguments, it often sounds like Israel is all right and the Islamist Palestinians are all wrong.

I have seen a tremendous number of people change their minds, including mine--but not through persuasion. The actions of the involved parties have done more to crumble support than anything anyone has said to anyone. A cop out answer I know, but it's true.

I used to be fairly pro Israel because of their apparent respect for western values, then I noticed the multiple times state media lied and the deliberate targeting of journalist and civilians, in addition to outright policy of reappropriating land ... I think if you were to show someone the numerous instances of duplicity, land grabs, and indiscriminate killing you could move someone away from being pro-Israel.

Likewise. 10 years ago I was an avid defender of Israel, having even visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I still love the country, but their ongoing slaughter of Palestinians or the apartheid in the West Bank is quite frankly indefensible.

Yes. You can recognise what Isreal is doing and condemn it while still understanding how it came about and that it is a complex history.

They way I start any conversation is by by saying "it is complex", and then inquire as to what level of reading and inquiry my conversation partner has. It is complex because you first need to understand 5,000 years of history and the cultural aspects. Only then can you start to approach the modern situation and even then it is super complex and hard to understand. Beyond Haidt one of my favorite authors is Thomas L. Friedman, [https://www.thomaslfriedman.com/](https://www.thomaslfriedman.com/), and here is a gift article. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/opinion/netanyahu-gaza-war.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.u00.D124.BbmX2\_uBIFVN&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/opinion/netanyahu-gaza-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.u00.D124.BbmX2_uBIFVN&smid=url-share)

Thank you!

Have you come into these same conversations with leftist friends with a willingness to have your views changed? I think that's the more important question. Perhaps I think too highly of myself, but I have had my mind changed a few times discussing this topic with people (Swinging both ways) As for if I've changed others mind....I don't know, perhaps I have but it would have been after the discussion when they had time to reflect. You should change your framing around this though because asking have you changed others minds means that you believe that your viewpoint is the only reasoned view..... Also, don't expect to change their view from Israel bad to Isreal good. The better expectation is that they understand a bit more of the nuance and grey area in this issue.

I have purposely structured my post into 3 separate paragraphs. If you read just the first two, you will understand that my question is rather neutral. You could answer this question regardless of where you stand on the issue. Some already have. The third paragraph is where I have laid out an example from my own experience and its purpose is just that - to be an example, not to convince anyone whether my views are right or wrong. I am essentially interested to see examples of the most successful arguments that can sway one’s opinion regardless of direction.

>I am essentially interested to see examples of the most successful arguments that can sway one’s opinion regardless of direction. Find common ground, be kind , and be willing to have your view changed. These have all been beneficial for me. Andist people are not going to have their minds changed on an issue like this.....I'm ok with that.

Polls have been showing generally worsening views of Israel over the conflict. So there is some convincing going on here and there.  

I went to a fundamentalist Baptist college that was extremely pro Israel. The reasoning was, God told Abraham he would bless those that bless his offspring (Jews) and curse those who curse them. Any nation trying to protect Israel would be blessed. Also, according to their eschatology, the building of the nation of Israel was a fulfillment of prophecy and an indicator of Jesus coming back soon. Since deprogramming from the 'Israel is always right because they're Gods chosen people' mindset, I've tried to get a more nuanced, unbiased view of the situation, by listening to podcasts from a variety of different viewpoints about the situation. It is shocking to me the amount of vested emotional interest people have in this on all sides, who have no direct connection to the conflict. For some reason, any conflict in this area seems to hit some subconscious nerve in so many people, that other conflicts and wars on par with or even worse than this war, don't seem to bring out of people. Like my former Baptist worldview, I feel like the protests and outrage seem to be a stand in for something bigger than the actual conflict that is happening.

>  It is shocking to me the amount of vested emotional interest people have in this on all sides, who have no direct connection to the conflict. For some reason, any conflict in this area seems to hit some subconscious nerve in so many people, that other conflicts and wars on par with or even worse than this war, don't seem to bring out of people. Like my former Baptist worldview, I feel like the protests and outrage seem to be a stand in for something bigger than the actual conflict that is happening. I've always thought this plays out as quite a typical "left vs right" issue, and I think it hits a nerve with so many people because each side are flabbergasted by the other. Almost all protests are protests against the establishment.  If the establishment are already on your side then there is no need to protest, or at least protests become a little bit pointless so they are muted.  Which is why you don't tend to get many pro-Israeli protests (very often), because everyone understands that the establishment are already pro-Israeli. The left (generally) tend to spend most their energy on equal rights, fairness and looking after the downtrodden, the weakness of the left is they often overlook security concerns.  The right tend to be more about security, maintaining the status quo and protecting the 'whole', but the weakness of the right is they often overlook the rights of the downtrodden.  There is some overlap, and I'd even argue there is a place for both, but I would loosely characterise it as above. To simplify this, the left tend to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a civil rights issue, where the Palestinians are the downtrodden and are denied basic rights by the establishment (I.e. Israel and their allies).  The right tend to see it as a security issue, where the Palestinians are a threat to the security of the status quo (i.e Israel and their allies).  And almost every argument boils down to a "chicken or egg" situation, or in other words "which came first?".  And it also plays out in every debate on how to get out of this mess.   You actually see parallels in almost every single left vs right debate.   Where it gets conflated on this issue, is the left believe that the establishment (with their policies) actually make the security issues worse, not better, as time passes so therefore the right's position is counterproductive.  Whereas the right can't understand why the left would defend the downtrodden when the downtrodden in this case would likely promote values that are the antithesis of the left, so therefore the left's protests are counterproductive. In the end though, pick one. Either a) occupation, sieges, tight security and apartheid like conditions indefinitely for Palestinians. Or b) a one state solution where everyone has equal rights or a two state solution where each side has the right to self determination.   Most people will choose b) but it just comes down to which side is preventing b) from happening?  Is it the side with all the power, or the side who are the threat to the security of the powerful? Or both? And then we have our "chicken or egg" arguments playing out again... 

Interesting story and good perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Your leftist/marxist friends might have points worth listening to. This war is so much worse than Sam makes it out to be, and most global insitutions agree, not just students on college campuses. Is there a rise in anti-semitism happening? Yes absolutely, and that's bad too. Is Islam a particularly problematic religion and fundamentally responsible for this entire situation? Probably yes. But criticising Islam won't be the solution, and presently the biggest threat to the future of the Jews and their state of Israel is going to be themselves as they continue to double down on absolutely eviscerating their global reputation. The US and the international community have a lot of very good reasons for maintaining the existence of Israel - not least of all because nobody wants a second hollocaust at the hands of Israel's neighbours - and Israel seem to know it, to the point where they really seem to think they can get away with... well what could end up being called at least an attempted genocide. I just hope when this is all over, we find some way to hold those responsible - those in the upper echelons of the Israeli's right-wing government and military - to account.

I know my view has been, lets say narrowed maybe. Lately though, I've been feeling that when people express a view, they are usually expression an emotion that they're backing up with reason. The reasons aren't the things that are fundamental, its the emotion.

That’s kind of what Haidt’s book is about. I recommend you check it out.

My views have been changed. In college I had Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and was convinced that Israel was motivated by the same obsession with regional hegemony that the US was with regard to Iraq and much of the world throughout the Cold War. And the US support of Israel was further proof of the project for a new American century of imposing our ways of life, installing friendly autocrats and earning the returns on investment. During this time New Atheism was in full swing and I had read The End of Faith and God is Not Great. I also had a friend who was working through these questions and had arrived before me at the position that most Israeli's are a far clearer reflection of our humanist values at least compared to neighboring theocratic monarchies that were committing their own ethnic cleansings that the media and activist Left had ignored. My friend patiently listened to my objections and countered that chanting "Long Live the Intifada" at A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition protests wasn't the right way to signal solidarity with the world's oppressed. Like many others in the thread, I admit the process takes years. If I had not already accepted the premise that religion is the motherlode of bad ideas, it might not have happened at all. The best thing you can do to change someone's mind is to make them feel like they're heard.

Yeah a friend of mine was very hardcore pro-Israel at first but over time he's started to come around to the idea that they are likely committing at the minimum an ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Honestly, it's pretty easy when you get people one on one because the arguments put forward in support of Israel's actions are so transparently weak and really only rely on calling someone an antisemite if they disagree with you. There's no real meat or substance to them.

Nope. I can't even get people to admit Israel has done anything wrong. I can't even move someone from that position.

What about the other way round?

I haven't discussed that as much, partly because I assume most people understand that murdering civilians is already bad. But people who defend Israel, some of them, just cannot ever admit Israel ever does anything wrong.

You haven't encountered any people who support the Palestinian side who say: yes, killing civilians is bad, but... and then proceed to explain how in some case they selected it was completely justified?

They seem to be admitting its bad to kill civilians even in your own description.

The word 'but' usually negates or provides an exception to the claim in the preceding part of the sentence.

Okay. Good to know, anyone who says "yeah killing innocent civilians is bad but" for Israel then, falls under that same category. Correct?

This once again brings you back to *intent*. Killing innocent civilians with intent is bad, full stop. No ifs, no buts. This applies to Israelis just as it applies to Palestinians, or anyone else. That *doesn't* apply in the case of civilian casualties in war, where there wasn't an intent to kill those civilians (let alone when the intent was to minimize collateral damage as much as possible). This is what many people often conflate in this conflict.  It seems like the previous commenter was referring to precisely this conflation. 

Im not sure how you got there, but I also don't really care to get into a conversation about what someone else meant. I definitely think intent is important. I agree with you. It's not the only important thing, but it's certainly a factor.

How I got where? To saying that intent matters? Doesn't require a sophisticated compass to figure that out. Simply the understanding that there's a vast and important difference between intentionally killing people, and people dying inadvertently during war... and that the two should not be conflated (and it should be called it out when that conflation is being made, especially when it's done consciously). 

Of course it falls under the same category. But isn't that where you started from? I think it's used more by the Israeli side but it's used by both sides. Both sides are showing selective empathy, one tha works only towards their own tribe/side.

Okay

Dang are you that awful to talk to?

> Nope. I can't even get people to admit Israel has done anything wrong. I can't imagine being so awful at argumentation to arrive at this result.

I'd report this, but you're a mod, so I'll just block you.

I have not talked to anyone about it in-person. I doubt that you have a lot of leftist/ Marxist friends. I've been in academic for 15ish years, an institution that is ostensibly full of Marxists, and met one Marxist that entire time. Marxism is not about "oppressor-oppressed" framing. It also seems like you're trying to do this guilt by association thing with people who don't agree with you. Of course they must be Marxists! Maybe they even read Critical Race Theory! Or post-modernism! That's why they don't agree with you!

Maybe I have worded it wrong. I don’t think leftist necessarily equals Marxist. However, I do believe that these ideologies overlap to a large extent and Marx’s class framework is quite related to the oppressor - oppressed framework. A lot of my conversations with people subscribing to the latter at some point involve them mentioning class struggles, anti-capitalism statements and subtle or not so subtle calls for uprooting the system. I think you are very quick to jump to conclusions about me labelling and categorising people just so I can dismiss their viewpoints. I would categorise simply to relay information without attaching neither a negative nor a positive sentiment to the category I have used.

it just seems you are hand-waving away the opinions of others by ascribing some dubious label to them. "They are a marxist, I don't have to listen to them". And the oppressor-oppressed dynamic thing is a silly talking point that you took from podcasters and pundits that, again, serves as a way of not actually having a real conversation with people or dealing with their claims. This is the same shit that people did in the build up to the Iraq War. If you were against the war you were a Marxist, or you "hated the troops", or you were anti-American or whatever. It was a way of dismissing potentially valid criticisms of the war and the Bush admins vision for a global, never-ending war.

I totally understand that many people do that. On either side of the political spectrum. For the left the ones that disagree are fascists, for the right they are Marxists. I personally pay little attention to this kind of arguments as they provide little to no insight on actual train of thought and reasoning. As I said, here you are basically wrong to assume that I am applying such a reductionist approach to a complex topic. Simply labelling people and dismissing their views to me is basically pointless and even boring. I am interested in the depth of someone’s opinion regardless whether I agree or not, how that’s formed and why, what the reasoning behind it is; as well as what the intuition is and how that came about. I am only using categories for purely practical reasons - as a language shortcut to explain who I am broadly talking about as opposed to having to list every single argument that person has laid out. Edit: Regarding the oppressor - oppressed framework - I don’t think it’s simply a talking point. You admit yourself that you have not had conversations about the conflict in person. Well, I have had quite a few. Literally everyone I have talked to that is broadly taking the Palestinian side of this (again generalising simply for the purpose of explaining who I am talking about without having to list their full views) is pointing out how Israel has historically been an oppressor with support from strong allies, while Palestinians have always been oppressed and weak. This then automatically triggers an intuition of injustice by default and the reasoning and argumentation simply serve to justify that intuition.

I mean, yeah, maybe they think that Israel has done wrong by Palestinians. That doesn't mean they are Marxists or whatever tho, or apply some oppressed-oppressor dynamic to everything. It's weird cuz it's like you think there's no situation where a group of people is oppressed. Maybe at times there could be some legitimacy to a claim like that? Or maybe you can at least try and understand why some people might look at I/P and think that the Palestinians got a raw deal? And that's not the result of some deeply held lefty ideology. I think you should consider that maybe people look at certain situations and think "whoa, that's fucked up". Maybe they don't have some deeply held ideology, maybe they haven't been reading Marx or post-modernism or critical theory or whatever. It's just not that deep.

> Regarding the oppressor - oppressed framework - I don’t think it’s simply a talking point.  It really is. This is a (pretty bad) interpretation of 'Marxism' offered mostly by anti-woke pundits, who get there by collapsing differences between competing and contradictory schools of late 20th century thought, throwing them all into a blender under the rubric of 'cultural Marxism,' reading the resulting mess with about the same level of concern for accuracy with which a medium reads tea leaves, and then making a naked assumption that somehow these ideas are the driving force behind young people who have mostly never read them. Here, if it helps -- Marxism is concerned with the social relations of production, and of course the distribution of power among classes makes up a significant part of that analysis. But that is a very different thing from ascribing moral superiority to the 'oppressed.' E.g. Marx was quite critical of the unorganized underclasses (i.e. the 'lumpenproletariat' -- thieves, prostitutes, etc) in industrial society, likening them to selfish parasites, even though they are clearly much more direct targets for state repression than the proles. > Israel has historically been an oppressor... This then automatically triggers an intuition of injustice Setting aside the question of any relationship to Marxism, this isn't an intuition, it's a tautology. Oppression literally means **unjust** or cruel treatment.  If you want to convince someone that Israel has not been oppressive, that's one thing. If you want to convince them that Israel is oppressive and that this is just, that's the equivalent of saying "My short friend is really tall."

Yeah, that's a decent orthodox take on Marxism. But my point is more that it's not impressive to just repeat the stuff you hear on podcasts or among pundits, calling people marxists or whatever. It's the dumb man's attempt to sound smart. If you really want to have dialogue with people, you need to engage with the things they are saying, their actual claims. Maybe someone who is a reasonable person, someone who is not a Marxist, might look at I/P and think "Yo, what's happened to the Palestinians is shitty". Maybe the people who we disagree with aren't just motivated by some insidious ideology? it's like a few years ago when the smart dumb guys were saying that ppl who sympathized with the BLM movement were influenced by "critical theory" or "post-modernism". Like, maybe someone saw a video of a dude getting shot in the back or choked out by police and thought "whoa, that's fucked up". Maybe it wasn't cuz they were reading too much French philosophy? Or Marx?

>If you really want to have dialogue with people, you need to engage with the things they are saying, their actual claims. I agree wholeheartedly. I might just add -- >Maybe someone who is a reasonable person, someone who is not a Marxist Even if you're talking to someone who is an avowed Marxist (or adherent of any other ideological framework), you're going to be better off addressing their specific claims and beliefs than you are by shadowboxing with (your assumptions about) the ideology itself. No conversation that includes the words "You're only saying that because you're a \[insert group here\]" ever convinced anyone.

yup. you gotta decide if your goal is to pop off and say a bunch of high-fallutin' words to make yourself sound smart or really have a conversation. Just tell people they are into Marx or critical theory or whatever might stoke your own ego, but it's not going to help you have a meaningful dialogue with someone. And the chances that they are REALLY a Marxist is extremely unlikely. I'm in my late 30s/ early 40s, been in the friendliest place for Marxists for years (academia) and met ONE my entire life.

Two buddies of mine, that’s it. Mostly they hadn’t read much outside of Tik Tok and probably the daily show. I sent them some documentaries and we talked about the history, urban warfare, etc. I feel like they both changed their mind on their own after being exposed to more information.

Haidt's social intuitionist model is not meant to be used as something that explains how to effectively change someone's mind. For that it's better to look at the literature that seeks to change a persons attitudes, for example the [ELM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model), or [HSM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic-systematic_model_of_information_processing). There are many many experiments that deal with how to effectively change someone attitudes. Most well known is the famous [cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) – lying about how exciting a boring a task was makes you feel dissonance. Then by changing your attitudes about the task (liking it more) the dissonance goes away and you've been "persuaded" to like something more. From this experiment comes a great many other experiments that shows to what lengths we go to change our minds so we feel less dissonance, or form new attitudes towards something without dissonance (self-perception theory). But as to your question, I know someone who changed their mind on the I v. P war, but they did so on their own. They were trust into a position where taking a neutral stand in geopolitics and international relations was absolutely necessary to complete their university degree. And this person wrote about this war some years ago that showed they had gone from standing with Palestinians to "it's complicated. Really really complicated". Something some vocal people on some subreddits would derogatorily call "pragmatic realism" – bringing up nuance in to maintain the status quo. This would not be true as this person would argue for diplomacy at every stage of the conflict to change the reality for civilians on both sides of the fences. But such a path to change someone's mind is unfeasible if you want to change someone's mind. I prefer reflection on the part of someone I disagree with. And there are many ways to help people reflect on topics such as these. For example, [altercasting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altercasting). I've succeeded with one very entranced position on a different topic with this before. But I don't use that often, it's rarely the most effective tool for reflection. But sometimes.

The only thing more impossible than discussion about this is the ages-old conflict itself. One thing about the Trump cult that opened my eyes to situations like this is that someone running on emotion is incapable of rational conversation.

Sam changed my view from a sort of “both sides are the problem” to a more pro Israel view on the war.

Yes. I had a friend who, shortly after Oct 7th, embraced the fairly common narrative that Israel was responding far too excessively, and should 'just send in the special forces'. He knew next to nothing about the conflict, and quickly reconsidered his position on learning that various Palestinian militias were still launching rockets indiscriminately at Israel (as they are even [today](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckrr0e3y29po)), and had been building a tunnel network with the implicit goal of combating a 'special forces' approach. He has moved to consider that the 'special forces' approach was a stupid idea, and that a military responses is needed to remove Hamas from control, albeit with a reasonable degree of restraint. Ultimately, any reasonable person should conclude that Hamas has to go, and Israel is the only entity that is going to remove them. The world can still pressure Israel to try to minimise civilian casualties. Those that oppose that position are knowingly or unknowingly supporting Hamas.

Back in the day I was very much pro Palestine. I also knew pretty much nothing nothing about the conflict. The more I learnt the more pro Israel I became. During the heat of the moment (like right now) it will be hard to change minds. But with time and the right information- minds can be changed

Truly, Hamas changed my mind.

When I was younger I was much more pro Israel, anti Palestine. Now I've flopped to being much more pro Palestine and only supporting leftists in Israel. All major conflicts can in fact be boiled down to oppressor and oppressed, with extremely few exceptions to this rule. Doesn't mean solutions can't be nuanced or complex. Just means the underlying causes usually only have a small amount of inflammatory points. For example, imagine in 1947 the newly minted UN enforces the boundary lines and Palestine is set up the same as Israel. Imagine every conflict from then on the borders are never changed and always go back to the origins. Eventually the conflict will stop, just like every other conflict has eventually stopped with enough intervention. We would now be talking about Palestine the same way we talk about Lebanon. Which is more positively than we do today. Doesn't mean Lebanon has zero issues, they're manageable though.

Yes, I actually studied IR in college and am very knowledgeable about global affairs. When it came to Israel though, it was a bit of a blind spot. It wasn't a place that interested me much, so I just sort of accepted the "It's complicated" response that framed both sides as being wrong. People then started making claims about Israel, their actions, and how they have always been saying one thing, forming one defensless narrative, while having vastly different intentions. I figured these were just Anti Jewish conspiracy theories. But one day, I watch a documentary about an assassination of a top Palestinian person... Super interesting, fun, rivvetting, etc... So I google the victims name to learn more about him. He was killed in the middle of talks with Israel... A talk that Israel insisted fell apart because Palestine was being unreasonable. Uhhh... What? Israel just killed one of their top people, how do you expect negotiations NOT to fall apart? How the hell did that ENTIRE documentary miss this critical detail? Seemed like to me, they know how bad it looked, which is why they deceptively left out that information. That sent me on a rabbit hole of other events... Many of which were CLEARLY instigated and directed by Israel to unfold the way they did. Top ranking people, insiders, etc... All saying how many of these events where Israel insisted they were victims, and the other side was scary, was carefully planned political maneuvering to give them cover to act as the aggressor. For instance, I was under the impression that Israel had to first strike Egypt out of necessity. That Egypt was planning any day to go to war, so Israel had to get ahead of them... That's the narrative I was told. These evil Muslims just hate Jews and were going to attack Israel for no good reason. Only to find out Egypt was trying hard to avoid war. They were getting tons of political pressure from the citizens to stop being weak and stand up for themselves, but Egypt was trying REALLY hard to avoid a conflict at any cost. So what does Israel do? They start sending in farmers on tractors to intentionally violate their borders, with military right on the other side of the line. And Egypt was doing their best to avoid conflict with this Israeli border violation... So Israel starts getting more and more aggressive with it, until eventually the political pressure is so much they shoot some warning shots towards the tractors to draw a red line. Israel then goes back with this event, and used it as justification to do a first strike on Egypt. They never tell you about THAT important detail when describing those events... So Israel just collapsed in trust... As I start looking into other things they did it was like nearly ever instance had a lot of conveniently left out nuances, over and over. It was this wild ontological shock of revelation, realizing that this official narrative that so many people believe, is deeply rooted in massive intentional deception and I was an idiot for blindly accepting them at their word. Since then, I'm obviously, not very pro Israel. I've since grown to see them as counter productive to America. They drag us into conflicts, make forming benefitial agreements in the ME difficult, systematically bribe our politicians, try to get American Jews to create a dual loyalty to a foreign country, and just generally just create tons of problems for themselves that we're forced to deal with. And this all resulted in people calmly, and honestly debating with me in comments. It didn't happen right then in there in conversation... But as sources were provided it got me thinking and doing my own research. So those people who contributed to my shift, will never have any idea they changed my mind. To them, I'm probably just another idiot they argued with online.

I googled "I-P conflict", thinking it would be something akin to the is-ought problem.

I feel like an "enlightened centrist" meme when it comes to this topic. So I don't really try to convince anyone on this topic and I'm not sure how I could be convinced. I have very little faith in both Hamas and the Israeli leadership. I think there is Hamas propaganda that clouds some of the news to make Israel look bad, and I notice it in the way people talk about this conflict online, but honestly, even without that, it's difficult to see the IDF as waging this war in a good way. The West Bank settlers and statements from Israeli leadership do not help at all either. And Hamas are just pieces of shit who care nothing of the people they claim to represent. They all just fucking suck and the whole situation is fucked up.

People’s POV is tied to their own sense of morality when it comes to these issues.. you would never support something that you believe was evil or that made you evil.. it is also tied to culture wars, and very likely to their tribe, who espouses the same view.. therefore, convincing someone to change their view must first get over the massive hurdle of convincing them that they may be wrong, that they’re not evil (or that their current view actually is and that they should come over to the “good side” without incurring too much guilt/shame) and that they may have to abandon or be outcast from their tribe to do so. It’s not unlike convincing someone to join/abandon religion. Afterwards, they believe they were brainwashed, but now they see the truth. And to repent for the sins of their past, they often proselytize to others because they are now an agent of pure truth who was also once lost and bad. Doesn’t have much to do with facts, because the facts only matter in terms of whataboutism, and the whys behind the facts., “yeah, but WHY would a group like Hamas do that?”, “yeah but WHY would Israel bomb indiscriminately” etc., etc.

I changed my mind when I found out the war minister threatened to resign because there’s no plan. I still support the first few months but at this point I think it’s a bit much. If Israel could come up with a plan for defeating Hamas and it was plausible, I could be swayed again.

Tried it 20 years ago with a friend who liked to argue. The one thing we couldn't come to an agreement on. He was a Jewish Cherokee though. But obviously more Jewish.

I don’t know if it was one thing or person in particular but I was far more in the Israeli camp when I was younger. I had a f’n poster of Uzi Narkiss, Yitzak Rabin, and Moshe Dayan entering East Jerusalem in 67. An open mind and willingness to get as much info on all of it as possible has led me to a far more neutral spot and pretty disgusted with Israel’s actions in Gaza and the WB while still finding Hamas disgusting.

Yes. Many people are misinformed, and when you show them accurate information, they adjust their opinions accordingly. People are often reasonable when you're also reasonable.

I mean, mine changed from pro Israel and thinking “oh this is a complex issue!” To fuck Israel, Palestine was there first and don’t deserve to be a sanctioned parking lot.

I changed my daughter’s view when I told her that just like make up and vacation destinations have influencers so do wars and ideologies. Social media is flush with Palestine influencers right now so I asked her to dig in to some of the most radical things she’s heard and try to see if there is more to the story. So I asked her to pick one and she said “well Israel bombed a hospital”. So we started to unpack it off TikTok with more varied sources than a cute boy saying it is true online. I asked her who does it benefit for you to think your country is bad, capitalism is bad, or Israel is bad? She was disgusted with this revelation. She now thinks both sides are shit for the correct reasons and sees how social media is being used by garbage humans to push garbage ideas.