The beating and flag kissing is sourced to another captive, and might be exaggerated, but her general mistreatment was reported by Swedish diplomats after speaking to her. It’s pretty credible, imo.
Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you’d like to be true?
I sincerely believe that the world is a lot less extreme than what social media is telling us. Exceptions, yes, but those are exceptions. Most of the discussion that takes place anymore is driven by sociologically hacking us, done by interested parties to drive division and distrust. It happens on all sides. That doesn’t mean you should drop your support for peaceful protest, aid delivery, etc., but it does mean we should be aware of propaganda and manipulation that confirms our own biases. The effect of the rush to extremes is that we then create extreme situations. The world is getting uglier and uglier, largely driven by this problem.
Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?
Sensationalists claims stop being sensationalist when they are confirmed with objectively verifiable facts. That’s when claims should be accepted. Until then, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.
Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.
So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.
I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?
You know, that’s kind of a weird response. Because what I asked was whether or not my interpretation of a set of events fulfilled your criteria for credibility. And instead of answering a pretty simple yes-no question you asked whether Greta Thunberg has published photos of her unclothed body.
I feel like you responded in your head, and then imagined my response, and then wrote a response to that.
But I think I can infer that you’re unconvinced.
Now I gotta ask: if that’s your standard of evidence, do you also doubt the veracity of the Israeli hostages returned from Gaza who attested to being tortured and abused?
If not, I think you’re exercising some pretty “selective” skepticism. And if so, congrats on your neutrality but Jesus Christ, that’s fucked up. When anyone gets back from captivity and alleges that they were abused or raped or violated, requiring them to expose themselves to you as the price to have their claims considered is quite gross. It’s not even an effective form of proof. Most torture is markless, and bruises are easily faked.
I’m not asking you to “believe women” or accept any victim narrative unexamined. I’m just pointing out that you can judge victims credibility without demanding that they submit to your leering gaze. Don’t believe Greta? Fine. I think that just as the hostages are far more credible witnesses to their own treatment than Hamas, the hundreds of flotilla activists testimony is far, far more credible than IDF. But you do you.
The beating and flag kissing is sourced to another captive, and might be exaggerated, but her general mistreatment was reported by Swedish diplomats after speaking to her. It’s pretty credible, imo.
Do we have any sources that aren’t biased toward making her treatment look bad?
Respectfully:
Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you’d like to be true?
(Be honest.)
I sincerely believe that the world is a lot less extreme than what social media is telling us. Exceptions, yes, but those are exceptions. Most of the discussion that takes place anymore is driven by sociologically hacking us, done by interested parties to drive division and distrust. It happens on all sides. That doesn’t mean you should drop your support for peaceful protest, aid delivery, etc., but it does mean we should be aware of propaganda and manipulation that confirms our own biases. The effect of the rush to extremes is that we then create extreme situations. The world is getting uglier and uglier, largely driven by this problem.
Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?
Sensationalists claims stop being sensationalist when they are confirmed with objectively verifiable facts. That’s when claims should be accepted. Until then, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
So where does this fall for you?
Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.
Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.
So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.
I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?
The description of events she provided should have produced physical evidence. Bruises at a minimum. Did she publish photo evidence?
You know, that’s kind of a weird response. Because what I asked was whether or not my interpretation of a set of events fulfilled your criteria for credibility. And instead of answering a pretty simple yes-no question you asked whether Greta Thunberg has published photos of her unclothed body.
I feel like you responded in your head, and then imagined my response, and then wrote a response to that.
But I think I can infer that you’re unconvinced.
Now I gotta ask: if that’s your standard of evidence, do you also doubt the veracity of the Israeli hostages returned from Gaza who attested to being tortured and abused?
If not, I think you’re exercising some pretty “selective” skepticism. And if so, congrats on your neutrality but Jesus Christ, that’s fucked up. When anyone gets back from captivity and alleges that they were abused or raped or violated, requiring them to expose themselves to you as the price to have their claims considered is quite gross. It’s not even an effective form of proof. Most torture is markless, and bruises are easily faked.
I’m not asking you to “believe women” or accept any victim narrative unexamined. I’m just pointing out that you can judge victims credibility without demanding that they submit to your leering gaze. Don’t believe Greta? Fine. I think that just as the hostages are far more credible witnesses to their own treatment than Hamas, the hundreds of flotilla activists testimony is far, far more credible than IDF. But you do you.
Not OP but yes.
But it really doesn’t matter. All we’ll get from this incident is word-of-mouth only.
Those nazis are brazen but not stupid, they didn’t film it.