Parent meant this as a statement of fact (stating it's x that lies, and implying it's not y, or that x lies more than y). As such (true or not) it makes perfect sense, and requires only a very intuitive and casual understanding to get it.
Your comment reads as if it was some failed attempt at some kind of axiomatic construction (x lies _therefore_ y doesn't).
This is completely false. They fired thousands of missiles directly at civilians. 60,000 people had to evacuate. The only reason they didn't kill thousands of people is because the Iron Dome system is so good.
One of Hezbollah’s innovations was using anti-tank rockets which the iron dome could not hit. They were targeting military installations which is why there were almost no civilian casualties.
Your comments have been repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. That's not ok, and if you keep doing it we will have to ban your account.
HN's rules don't change based on how right you are or feel you are, or how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
I'm sorry and will stop but isn't spreading false Hezbollah propaganda against the rules? How are we meant to respond to people saying incredibly wrong things?
The short answer is that you (<-- I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us) should respond to incorrect information with correct information, to bad arguments with better arguments [1], and do this thoughtfully and respectfully, assuming good faith and so on, as the site guidelines request (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
For a longer answer, I need to clarify the principles we rely on. I'm happy to give that a try, as long as it's clear that I'm not commenting on the specific topic of this thread.
People are allowed to be wrong on Hacker News [2]. They have to be, because we're all more or less wrong about most things.
It's not that the truth doesn't matter—it matters enormously! But it's not the moderators' job to decide what is true vs. false. It's the community's job to hash that out through respectful discussion and debate. Mods couldn't do it even if we wanted to—we don't have a truth meter [3]. Plus the community wouldn't stand for it. There would be a huge backlash against the mods imposing their views on everyone else.
Wrongness is part of hashing out the truth. One needs to be free to visit wrong points in the solution space, or we'd all be trapped in a hell version of the old nine-dot puzzle (the one that spawned the phrase "thinking outside the box") with no solution.
"Spreading false propaganda" is, of course, an extreme case of wrongness, but the right scope for describing the principles here is wrongness-in-general, whether it's being wrong in an extreme way or just ordinary wrong-being.
It's true that posting in bad faith, e.g. saying wrong things despite knowing that they're wrong, is worse than just being mistaken. But can we decide who is and isn't doing this? That would require reading their mind and/or heart, and that's impossible—so we can't use that as a basis for moderation.
Internet readers are too quick to jump to the conclusion that someone else is posting in bad faith. Nearly always, the other person is as sincere as you are. It's just that their background is so different from yours that they've ended up holding an opposing view on a charged topic.
Most people find it hard to tolerate differences of opinion that are outside of a certain radius from their own position. We can call that the "comfort radius". In the past I've called it the "shill threshold" [4]. Past that radius or threshold, i.e. outside one's circle of comfort, it feels impossible that anyone could possibly hold such obviously-wrong views in good faith. The other person must be a shill, a propagandist, or worse. What other explanation could there be?
Well, here's the other explanation: that person has a background different enough from yours/mine/ours that entirely different things feel obvious to them. The world is much bigger and more diverse than your comfort radius, or mine, can easily allow for. If the delta between X's background and mine is big enough, X's views are going to feel not just wrong, but obviously and incredibly wrong, and—as the delta gets larger—appalling, barbaric, and so on.
So what should we do? We should assume good faith, because assuming bad faith is wrong far more often than it is right, and instead work on tolerating the distance between the other person's view and our own. By "tolerating the distance", I don't mean agreeing with them. I mean being willing to endure the discomfort and bad feeling in one's own system (the rage, fear, you name it) that comes up when encountering a view that feels obviously and incredibly wrong.
This is sometimes called "bearing the unpleasant manifestations of others" [5]. It is hard and takes practice. Actually, it's one of the hardest things we have to do, but also one of the most important. (I am not advertising this very attractively, but it does suck.)
To the extent we do it, a kind of metabolic process takes place where one's intense initial reactions get converted into a range where one becomes able to do what I described above: respond to false information with correct information, and to bad arguments with better arguments, while—I'll add one more thing—remaining in good-enough connection with each other.
Or to go back to short-answer mode: if you're hot under the collar, wait till you cool down before posting [6].
You also have been breaking the site guidelines badly by perpetuating this flamewar and by using HN primarily for political battle. That's not ok, and if you keep doing it we will have to ban your account.
HN's rules don't change based on how right you are or feel you are, or how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
We need you (i.e. everyone) to follow the rules regardless of how others are behaving.
It always feels like the other person started it and did worse (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), so you (i.e. all of us) can't rely on that as a basis for responding. It leads to a downward spiral, and eventually scorched earth.
I agree with you about the previous comment, which was unhelpful, but regarding Hezbollah, I'm afraid you're making claims about things you want to be true more than you are relating any actual research.
It's my fault for picking this scab with you again in the first place, though.
Tptacek has been one of the more reasonable voices on this thread and it is odd you would single him out for criticism. Your use of the word "goybucks" is very concerning.
I apologized for correcting a comment from someone who I believe isn't in a place to discuss the issue, and who would predictably contest the claim --- since we'd already had the same disagreement elsewhere, bringing it up again, however valid my concern was, was bad for the thread. The apology was in no way whatsoever a reflection of my beliefs about what actually happened.
Though: this world's essentially an absurd place to be living in, it doesn't call for bubble withdrawal. I've been told it's a fact of life: men have to kill one another. Well, I say there are still things worth fighting for!
Jews use "goy" as a slur against non-Jews. As a so called "goy", I don't find "goybucks" offensive and in fact appreciate the attempt to reclaim the word.
This is just luridly false, especially (but not exclusively) in the context of Hezbollah's own actions in Syria, where they made and broadcast propaganda videos of them deliberately starving Madaya. When you make claims like this, you call into question everything else you're saying; it's hard to imagine where you could have gotten this notion from.
It's equally true in Israel, where Hezbollah fired tens of thousands of rockets indiscriminately, killing, among other things, a Druze children's soccer team in the Golan Heights. You can read this on Amnesty (no friend of Israel's) if you want.
Again: it's hard to understand where you could getting this notion that Hezbollah attacks are highly targeted from. That is anything but their operational signature.
>It's equally true in Israel, where Hezbollah fired tens of thousands of rockets indiscriminately, killing, among other things, a Druze children's soccer team in the Golan Heights.
An innocent kid was killed in this conflict? Thank God the other side didn't do that 20,000x more - then it would have been a real tragedy!
Especially if unlike some indiscriminate firing of crude rockets, they did it purposefully, with state of the art arms and monitoring systems.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I think you're trying to weigh Israel's actions against those of Hezbollah's? You're not going to get anywhere, rhetorically, with me doing that, because I'm no supporter of Israel's.
They fire guided munitions at Israeli troop positions. They fire unguided rockets and mortar shells into Israeli towns. A video of a targeted Hezbollah strike doesn't illustrate anything at all; everybody points the gun when it's useful to do so, it's what you do when you don't have a combatant target that tells the actual tale.
I can't say enough how odd it is to bring this kind of take into a discussion about Hezbollah. Note that I'm not making the case that Israel is fastidious about avoiding civilian casualties; that would be an unproductive argument to attempt on this thread. You have found one of the few arguments that are even less productive.
I don't have to debate that point, because it addresses an argument I didn't make. The problem is how deeply unmoored your argument is from reality. Exactly why is it that you believe Hezbollah's attacks are characterized by a high degree of targeting? It's clearly not true. Can you explain the logic and the sourcing you used to make that claim?
I already explained it with video evidence. I’m not sure why you hate Hezbollah so much, but I don’t share your animus. In fact I’d consider them an ally from an enemy of my enemy perspective. You don’t have to agree, but that’s my POV.
You didn't, at all. I didn't look at the videos you provided; I simply stipulate that they're real and depict what you say they depict. That doesn't demonstrate anything at all about Hezbollah's rules of engagement. When they have a clear firing solution on an IDF tank, they take the shot? Ok. And?
At the point where you're declaring Hezbollah a moral ally, I think the conversation has run to its logical terminus. Ask the Sunni Arabs in Syria how allied they feel with Hezbollah.
