“Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, ‘You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.’”
Easily outsmarting the RW pundits of today despite being an illiterate shepherd demonstrates why Jacob is the patriarchy GOAT.
The consequence, also, is that God takes Simeon and Levi's descendants and makes of those groups no longer distinct tribes. They're too volatile together, too nasty a team. Simeon's descendants are spread through the tribe of Judah. Levi's are priests, and the nature of the Levites is still evident as intense crusaders who go too far from time to time but are able to temper this nature (Moses being a particularly notable Levite.)
"What you talk about is not justice, what you're taking of is revenge. It never ends"
Rarely do I get to quote TV shows and not feel like I'm posting directly to r/iam14andthisisdeep, but Better Call Saul really nailed it with this one. I wish more modern media would embrace this idea with adequate complexity, because ultimately we see the world as it is portrayed via mass media.
I think a lot of facts about the IP conflict are disputed to the point of delusion on both sides. Many pro Palestinians say that Israel's helicopters killed most of the Israelis on Oct 7th through friendly fire, and that the current war is for Israel to steal land. There are also many pro Israelis that make arguments to the effect that the etymology of the word "Palestine" is too murky and so any Palestinian state is illegitimate because the Palestinian people are illegitimate because their ethnic name is too weird to place historically. I feel like there's a lot of absolutely crazy talking points that are nonsensical on both sides, and much of the partisanship that makes coming to a shared understanding of the conflict is driven by these lunatics who aren't quite succeeding at living in reality, but they do succeed at spreading lies on social media and at protests.
Endless war will happen when there is no trusted authority to mediate fair punishments. The right notes that the current authorities are not following the rules from 100 years ago. The left complains the authorities are not following the rules they want in 100 years from now. There can only be conflict so long as neither power is fully in charge and capable of setting fair expectations.
You can criticize Israel for not caring enough about Palestinians, and that lack of care is likely related to the dynamic you are talking about. But almost everything Israel has done has not been revenge. The current war for example is about making people in Israel feel they are safe, because Hamas can no longer do what it did before.
I wasn't suggesting that all the actions are revenge. But that each one is justified by reference to a previous wrongdoing--in this case, 10/7. Of course, the Palestinians justify 10/7 by referencing previous wrongdoing.
This is an overly simplistic description of what is going on, and will lack predictive power. Neither side is responding to the other side in a simple way (and the rest of the post, before and after, is explicitly about cycles of revenge, so I think there is a little bit of motte and bailey here). Each side has strategic objectives which are, *of course,* related to past events, but not due to vengeance. The vast majority of Palestinians would like there to be one Arab state from the river to the sea ("From water to water Palestine is Arab,") and Hamas makes the argument that the only way to achieve that objective is "armed struggle," which includes violence against civilians. (True, the fact that violence against civilians is not anathema in Palestinian society is related to anti-Jewish rhetoric and dynamics that can be related to revenge, but not exclusively so). Fatah has different objectives and tactics, which I won't describe here because they are not relevant to 10/7.
So yes, this certainly references past events, but with a very specific goal in mind (reversing the founding of the state). On Israel's side, it's actions can mostly be explained from a security perspective. Take 10/7 and the current war as an example - while there are individual cases of anger, and a lot of anger in Israeli society, Israel is pursuing a strategy to dismantle Hamas as a military and governing power, so that it's citizens can feel safe moving back to the Gaza border. This strategy is independent of any vengeance. (True, the fact that Israeli's are not recoiling at the overall death toll is a combination of feeling that this is a just and necessary war for some, and feeling angry, for others, but this observation does not have much predictive power in terms of Israel's actions).
The reason this is important is that Israelis is being dehumanized as rage-filled genocide monsters, and Jews (who overwhelmingly support Israel) are being drawn with the same brush. So it is upsetting to me that you are echoing this calumny. It is also important because it paints both sides, including Hamas, as childish actors acting out of emotion. That is simply not the case. Hamas is sophisticated, strategic, and has real goals, as do Hezbollah, PIJ, Iran, etc. Resorting to "revenge" as an explanation of geopolitical events is just not serious.
Ignoring revenge as an explanation of geopolitical events is also completely unserious. Suppose there are two villages, Mountain Village and River Village, who are contesting ownership over an orchard. They mostly contest the orchard by shoving matches between fruit pickers. One day, a child from Mountain Village is killed in the shoving match. The Mountain Village responds by massacring every member of the River Village in their sleep, thus successfully taking control of the orchard.
The "geopolitical strategy" of successfully taking over the orchard can, in fact, be achieved by massacring the other village. It was in fact highly effective in this instance. And it is completely incorrect to ignore the crucial factor that revenge played in the execution of the geopolitical strategy.
I find that people who talk about particular things a lot make phonic spelling errors like this and people who don't get the chance to tend to make pronunciation errors when they do speak of them. So you're lucky enough to be around people who talk about Schelling points enough to have a verbal vector for it.
“Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, ‘You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.’”
Easily outsmarting the RW pundits of today despite being an illiterate shepherd demonstrates why Jacob is the patriarchy GOAT.
I'm not really following.
The verse following the passage you cited describes Jacob making your exact point to his sons: they've only escalated the level of violence.
RWers of today think we're just a few indispensable revenge cancellations away from reestablishing free speech norms.
Oh gotcha, yeah.
The consequence, also, is that God takes Simeon and Levi's descendants and makes of those groups no longer distinct tribes. They're too volatile together, too nasty a team. Simeon's descendants are spread through the tribe of Judah. Levi's are priests, and the nature of the Levites is still evident as intense crusaders who go too far from time to time but are able to temper this nature (Moses being a particularly notable Levite.)
"What you talk about is not justice, what you're taking of is revenge. It never ends"
Rarely do I get to quote TV shows and not feel like I'm posting directly to r/iam14andthisisdeep, but Better Call Saul really nailed it with this one. I wish more modern media would embrace this idea with adequate complexity, because ultimately we see the world as it is portrayed via mass media.
I think a lot of facts about the IP conflict are disputed to the point of delusion on both sides. Many pro Palestinians say that Israel's helicopters killed most of the Israelis on Oct 7th through friendly fire, and that the current war is for Israel to steal land. There are also many pro Israelis that make arguments to the effect that the etymology of the word "Palestine" is too murky and so any Palestinian state is illegitimate because the Palestinian people are illegitimate because their ethnic name is too weird to place historically. I feel like there's a lot of absolutely crazy talking points that are nonsensical on both sides, and much of the partisanship that makes coming to a shared understanding of the conflict is driven by these lunatics who aren't quite succeeding at living in reality, but they do succeed at spreading lies on social media and at protests.
Endless war will happen when there is no trusted authority to mediate fair punishments. The right notes that the current authorities are not following the rules from 100 years ago. The left complains the authorities are not following the rules they want in 100 years from now. There can only be conflict so long as neither power is fully in charge and capable of setting fair expectations.
You can criticize Israel for not caring enough about Palestinians, and that lack of care is likely related to the dynamic you are talking about. But almost everything Israel has done has not been revenge. The current war for example is about making people in Israel feel they are safe, because Hamas can no longer do what it did before.
I wasn't suggesting that all the actions are revenge. But that each one is justified by reference to a previous wrongdoing--in this case, 10/7. Of course, the Palestinians justify 10/7 by referencing previous wrongdoing.
This is an overly simplistic description of what is going on, and will lack predictive power. Neither side is responding to the other side in a simple way (and the rest of the post, before and after, is explicitly about cycles of revenge, so I think there is a little bit of motte and bailey here). Each side has strategic objectives which are, *of course,* related to past events, but not due to vengeance. The vast majority of Palestinians would like there to be one Arab state from the river to the sea ("From water to water Palestine is Arab,") and Hamas makes the argument that the only way to achieve that objective is "armed struggle," which includes violence against civilians. (True, the fact that violence against civilians is not anathema in Palestinian society is related to anti-Jewish rhetoric and dynamics that can be related to revenge, but not exclusively so). Fatah has different objectives and tactics, which I won't describe here because they are not relevant to 10/7.
So yes, this certainly references past events, but with a very specific goal in mind (reversing the founding of the state). On Israel's side, it's actions can mostly be explained from a security perspective. Take 10/7 and the current war as an example - while there are individual cases of anger, and a lot of anger in Israeli society, Israel is pursuing a strategy to dismantle Hamas as a military and governing power, so that it's citizens can feel safe moving back to the Gaza border. This strategy is independent of any vengeance. (True, the fact that Israeli's are not recoiling at the overall death toll is a combination of feeling that this is a just and necessary war for some, and feeling angry, for others, but this observation does not have much predictive power in terms of Israel's actions).
The reason this is important is that Israelis is being dehumanized as rage-filled genocide monsters, and Jews (who overwhelmingly support Israel) are being drawn with the same brush. So it is upsetting to me that you are echoing this calumny. It is also important because it paints both sides, including Hamas, as childish actors acting out of emotion. That is simply not the case. Hamas is sophisticated, strategic, and has real goals, as do Hezbollah, PIJ, Iran, etc. Resorting to "revenge" as an explanation of geopolitical events is just not serious.
Ignoring revenge as an explanation of geopolitical events is also completely unserious. Suppose there are two villages, Mountain Village and River Village, who are contesting ownership over an orchard. They mostly contest the orchard by shoving matches between fruit pickers. One day, a child from Mountain Village is killed in the shoving match. The Mountain Village responds by massacring every member of the River Village in their sleep, thus successfully taking control of the orchard.
The "geopolitical strategy" of successfully taking over the orchard can, in fact, be achieved by massacring the other village. It was in fact highly effective in this instance. And it is completely incorrect to ignore the crucial factor that revenge played in the execution of the geopolitical strategy.
Is "Shelling fence" an intentional pun?
No, what's the pun?
It's "Schelling fence", after Thomas Schelling. With Linch, I also thought you were punning.
I find that people who talk about particular things a lot make phonic spelling errors like this and people who don't get the chance to tend to make pronunciation errors when they do speak of them. So you're lucky enough to be around people who talk about Schelling points enough to have a verbal vector for it.
I think his version makes enough sense to qualify as what Language Log calls an "eggcorn". :-)
"Shelling" fence like the decision whether to shell your opponents or not.
Keeping it in for the pun!