“The Israeli forces are saying that they might have hit Aysenur unintentionally - that she was not a target” … “but aimed at the key instigator of the riot”. The UN says Aysenur was “shot in the head” because the perpetrators said protestors “burned tyres and hurled rocks towards security forces”
Can you elaborate on what specifically the “lie” is? The logical side of me takes the words “truth”, “fact”, and “lie” very seriously, and I worry that we too often use them to express a point of view including pragmatism. I’m genuinely curious!
I don’t know: Does that framing take away from the international law argument? How long has that argument been in play and how has that worked so far? It’s a powerful framing in that it illustrates the power that money being used to fuel hate could instead have for some semblance of good. Even if it’s impractical among today’s US elected officials. Also, arguments like this are how to get negotiation leverage. In general in this political climate, while we might want to be prepared to compromise I challenge the wisdom of leading with a compromise. I say different strategies need to be tried until something sticks.
Ok, so typically when you do an appeal you don’t use the same lawyer. So while I get that this is “news”… maybe we can focus our attention somewhere else?
It’s disheartening to hear. Typically the Anti Defamation League draws attention to rising antisemitic behavior whenever there is a tension abroad but often does so to divert attention from the issue abroad.
To be clear, any kind of hostility/prejudice/discrimination to any group is wrong. Supporting one group shouldn’t negate from the other. As someone who identifies with neither group I can see why one or another would resort to name calling — it gets us nowhere. But to shut down discussions because people are frustrated is also wrong.
And then there are people to use these events as an excuse to get away with bad behavior.
I am also pretty upset about geopolitics. It feels like the majority have been conditioned to have such a strong bias and are incapable of any kind of introspection. If we all approached such topics with the willingness to learn from each other and hear different perspectives maybe things would be different. Unfortunately I can’t solve the world’s problems this week. Maybe next week?
Otherwise, I am dating, but meeting new people and assessing fit is a challenge.
You reacted to me but you didn’t listen to me.
Both “sides” have employed justice by “slaughtering innocents” in response to the other side. Both sides think what the other side did was reprehensible and deserving of retaliation. This pattern has been going on for 75 years. It clearly hasn’t worked, so maybe we should try something different?
Let’s study the conflict before making such comments.
I am not aware of any conflict in US history where the US did not defend an American journalist dying performing their duty abroad. This is a war crime, and it sets precedent for Americans when they travel or work abroad anywhere in the world.
Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians. Hamas’ attack is a reaction to a 75 year history of tit-for-tat where “Israel” continuously breaks international law including murdering of civilians, the international community condemns them, and the big world powers like the US give them impunity. Like Russia to Ukraine, Israel is an occupying force of the Palestinians — the longest in modern history.
Comparison to Bid Laden is a false equivalence.
I’m still waiting for justice for Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh — the investigation of which currently rests in the hands of her perpetrators. It seems to me that recognizing American deaths only matters when it benefits US foreign policy.
When I rolled my own blog software I wasn’t spending my time writing. Switched to static blog software a few years ago, namely Hexo, because I wanted my articles in markdown. Now I have to troubleshoot someone else’s code occasionally.
I strongly dislike JS. But I have a lot of old school HTML/CSS experience so I don’t mind creating my own layout. It’s mostly the lack of sufficient documentation and how upgrades can break without a hint to what changed. Ug
Thanks for the book recommendation! Yeah, discrimination can happen with or without religion. It seems to me that any human system is capable of being exploited or corrupted.
I look at religion from the perspective of “what purpose does the manufacturing of religion serve?” assuming there’s good intention. I am with you that what organized religion typically offers is not exclusive to religion.
What is “community”? Is it surrounding myself with people who are exactly like me?
Personally, I find it helpful to have a “safe space” to talk to other people who are going through a similar experience that I am. Although I am not great at it I also think it’s healthy to interact with the outside world from time to time. At best we learn something from one another, at worst (I hope) we tolerate one another.
For me as an non-sectarian, the good parts from organized religion are advice and lessons about living life, which science doesn’t particularly address.
I recently read an elder theologist reflecting on the stages of enlightenment and I realized that I agreed entirely with them. The difference was our journeys for how we arrived at these same conclusions. They spent their entire life figuring that out. And I had figured it out probably by the end high school. I am not saying I am smart or flawless, because the other person has a lifetime of experience that I don’t have culminating in their wisdom. But they chose to spend their time on such matters, and I chose to spend my time differently.
Your point is important. I was once part of that movement. There is a crucial piece missing:
In the US atheism has come to specifically challenge the assumed Christian majority that influences US society in subtle ways. For instance, Christmas, or the fact that we have “under God” on US currency. It wasn’t anti-religious as much as anti-Christian, and contextually that point of view is warranted.
Since that movement, I’ve noticed that theologists have labeled atheists as “strong” and “weak” in (my interpretation) an attempt to discredit “agnostic atheists”.
I think there will always be a “war” between mindsets so long as humanity survives. The important part is allowing diverse religious or non-religious backgrounds which means one religion can’t be imposing values onto everyone else.
Engagement is what matters, and that’s driven by habits. The protests were disruptive. The switching of apps is disruptive. I see this more as a way to distract and bring up engagement again.
Is it a good idea? Honestly, if they want to succeed I think they should focus on what has become broken with reddit first
Also an atheist. I applaud a well-rounded description of this new community! It also doesn’t particularly include atheism which is maybe fine.
I’m happy to see it after seeing some blindly anti-all-religious-people (I don’t know a good word for this) hate comments recently.
Sounds like overcompensation? Some people who gravitate towards, let’s say atheism, come from another bad experience and need a safe place to talk about that. Some need that answer to the meaning of life, etc. And some don’t
Since this doesn’t necessarily include atheists – How about a philosophy community? Or is it better to have more specific communities?
Also the Internet Archive? I always wish they crawled more of the web than they did in years past.
Salaries for key people aren’t out of this world given their scale and highest paid person taking a pay cut is a good sign: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767
At some point you have to trust your gut?
Speaking more broadly than FOSS:
The large national nonprofits probably don’t need your money, and the small local nonprofits probably do. At the same time nonprofit can lose sight of their mission, and bigger orgs need admin, specialty jobs, and leadership that are full time jobs that a family could live on. So it’s hard to generalize. Their mission is the goal, not making decisions based on finances.
I look at their finances to get an idea of where they are at. These can be “lagging indicators” if there really is a time sensitive need though.
Examples: Ran into one person who was trying to promote their non-profit rather than solicit donations — when I looked into their finances it was clear they didn’t have the money to get there but had done great work already. Another person who doesn’t pay himself for the work he puts in because it’s all volunteer based and only seeks contributions for his projects.
Not sure about foss specifically, but I’ve had some non-profits prompt me to up my contribution to cover transaction fees. But they seem to be closer to 3%.
A (for-profit) employer used to do gift matching and would also give us pocket money to contribute to the organization(s) of our choosing. It got me into a habit of contributing on a roughly quarterly basis.
I try to identify places where there is actual need so I am not consistent. Some of the big-name non-profits get disproportionate attention, or they spend too much money on fundraising, or they grossly overpay their key people. Other non-profits do good work and are sorely underfunded. It’s not just transaction feels, I find the act of making individual contributions in itself an inefficient allocation of resources.
Yeah, I heard it happened 30 minutes after some activity got dissolved. (I don’t have a source offhand for that.)
I deliberately chose to quote the words of the perpetrator, and the UN as a recognized observer, because the perpetrator incriminates themselves