Andy

Oof. That’s bleak. Thanks for sharing, though.

It’s particularly crazing that this article asserts a massive rise in antisemitism by citing the Anti-Defamation League.

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League reported that antisemitic incidents in the U.S. were at record highs. …

In Los Angeles County, data from 2022 showed that anti-Jewish hate crimes rose more than 90%, the largest number of such crimes ever recorded in the region.

It then links to an article NBC published about the release of a report by the Anti-Defamation League. It’s kind of crazy, because the ADL has been going through an increasingly public conflict between members of the staff, donors, and former staff over the way that current President of the ADL has been nakedly cooking their numbers to justify crackdowns on Pro-Palestinian activism. Even a lot of mainstream liberal zionists in groups like J Street have been openly complaining that Jonathan Greenblatt is destroying the credibility of the ADL and the usefulness of their published research.

I guess NBC hasn’t been paying attention.

Beverly Hills is full of rich, aggrieved, out-of-touch radical centrists who don’t like the political progressivism of Los Angeles. I think some of the residents are constantly looking for ways to visibly perform their opposition to the politics and culture of the rest of the city.

What’s the opposition look like in Argentina?

In the US, our president is putting to the test how corrupt you can be when you don’t face a credible opposition. As awful as corruption is, getting caught stealing from your citizens doesn’t threaten one’s power unless there’s an appealing political alternative.

Researchers following the adoption of AI predict around 92 million jobs are projected to disappear by 2030, even as roughly 170 million new roles are expected to emerge, McKinsey & Company has found.

What in the fuck does this mean?

Return? /s

Ullllghgh. Fucking rough read. Fuck this guy.

Also: from a practical perspective, how on earth does one keep this a secret?

‘Alright sweetie. Dinner is on the counter. If you need anything Becca next door said to just knock. Promise me you won’t stay up to late, okay?’

‘Sure Mom. But where are you going?’

‘I’ve told you sweetie: don’t ask questions. Bye!’

That makes no sense.

Good advice is context-aware. Is often about offering guidance to help someone assess their situation from a third-party view.

For instance, if you asked me how to give good advice to a stranger I wouldn’t say “tell them to get more sleep and exercise”. I’d say to focus on helping them figure out what their goal is and what their options are. You see the difference?

Growing up, my mom owned a women’s lingerie store on the main commercial street in the heart of our neighborhood. My teachers and classmates bought their bras and panties from my mom, and everyone knew this. Obviously, this isn’t exactly the same as sex work, but I can tell you I was served well by the fact that I never grew up inheriting any awkwardness or discomfort. My mom was proud and unembarrassed of her work, so then so was I.

Live a truth you’re not ashamed of and share that truth with your kids at an age appropriate level. You don’t need to be graphic, but tell your kids you work at a club. Tell them you’re a stage performer. If they say, “do you strip?” You can say yes or you can say that stage performances are for an adult audience and you would rather not discuss the details. But if you acted ashamed, you’re giving your kid that shame.

As a parent, one of the most important things is that we be the kind of people we want them to be. If you want your kid to be brave/mindful/proud/kind/patient/etc. you gotta try and live it.

Do you mind me asking if you’re a parent or caregiver and if so what age you interact with?

I think your take is pretty moderate and reasonable, but as a dad to a five year old I feel that trying to preserve a child’s “innocence” feels misaligned with trying to preserve lifelong hope and faith in goodness. I feel like preservation of innocence implies growing up is an inevitable process of disillusionment. Does that make sense?

What’s your point, though?

Do you think op is making up salacious posts for attention? Do you thick they’re overly sexual, and should curtail that?

I’d like to know what you’re thinking specifically.

I wish the common response was ‘If Palestinians aren’t getting their own state get ready to share yours.’

Fuck two states. From the river to the sea, make everyone equal and free.

I wish the common response was ‘If Palestinians aren’t getting their own state, get ready to share yours.’

Fuck two states. From the river to the sea, let everyone be free. No more walls and checkpoints. Actual, universal democracy. Learn to share.

I wanted to just add this article I just came across:

https://apnews.com/article/jazeera-gaza-journalist-killed-israel-626962e8272a1352d72b8167d976ae03

I think this captures exactly what I was describing. And I don’t think it’s a polemic or opinion piece, I think it’s just better journalism.

I think you’re partially right. It was a visceral reaction, but it’s true that they have to keep the house style.

I disagree that I’m reading “too much polemic instead of real journalism”. I think journalism is in crisis, and that the pursuit of “neutrality” in a post-truth era has severely weakened the fourth estate when it should be armed to defend its existence and fundamental values.

First, it’s a myth that news is impartial. Conventional news absolutely has a system of values: it’s inherently pro-truth, pro-freedom of thought, and democratic. Assassinating journalists out in the open and decreeing that they’re legitimate targets is a direct attack on fundamental principles of journalism and free society. Journalism does not need to be neutral on whether assassinating journalists is wrong to retain their legitimacy.

Sadly, these institutions are not experienced or practiced at navigating the challenge of addressing this kind of story. The real story here is that because the practice of journalism undermines what the ruling coalition considers to be in the national interest, Israel has decided as a matter of national policy that it will no longer abide by Article 79 of the Geneva convention. They have not admitted it explicitly, but there is an obvious pattern of fact that goes beyond hundreds of assassinations all the way to their law against publishing news that undermines “national morale”. That, imo, is the story. Really stop and think about what a monumental and newsworthy thing it is for a major world power to so publicly confirm a policy that has been until now a matter of dispute.

But the BBC can’t within their current operating guidelines find a way to tell that very vital story. That’s a tragedy.

This article is so terribly tepid.

How can journalists write about the persecution of their calling so bloodlessly?

These people were more than innocent: they were so-gooders of the kind we all claim to support. They were not only supposed to be protected not only as noncombatants, but especially guarded by their attendance to a sacred mission. They, like aid workers and doctors and nurses and any care giver or person seeking to provide justice is a designated target when the goal of a military operation is extermination.

Has the BBC written an editorial confirming this?