domain:freddiedeboer.substack.com
OliveTapenade
44m ago
In an attempt to broaden access to the program, Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) have held trainings to help other faith groups improve their grant applications, including hosting a joint webinar with the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). JFNA and the Orthodox Union joined with the USCMO, the Sikh Council for Interfaith Relations, and several Christian denominations to call for increased funding to the program. The joint lobbying effort resulted in Congress appropriating twice the previous year's funding for 2021.[17]
This seems like an odd thing to do if the whole thing is a Jewish scam.
OliveTapenade
48m ago
Synagogues in Australia do this - I believe the guards are mostly volunteers who are trained on the synagogue's own payroll.
In the past I found it a bit odd, since noticeably mosques and gurdwaras don't do this, despite Muslims and Sikhs also being religious groups that are widely hated, and which are actually more publicly identifiable than Jews due to their headscarves and turbans, but since October 7 I have re-evaluated a little and am more understanding of Jews feeling a need for special security.
I suspect socio-economic factors also play a role - Australian Jews are on average wealthier than Muslims or Sikhs, and thus more able to pay for security. It's also possible that the fact that Jews are indistinguishable in everyday life makes synagogues more vulnerable to random attacks, not less. If I want to attack a Muslim or Sikh, it's relatively easy to identify one on the street and then attack them when they're most vulnerable. (To be fair, most attacks on Sikhs are a result of people mistaking them for Muslims - actual anti-Sikh sentiment is quite rare.) However, if I want to attack a Jew, I need to go to a bit more effort to identify who's Jewish, and observing people going to synagogue is a good way to do that.
Harlequin5942
56m ago
I'm illustrating the motte-and-bailey by analogy.
"I don't want CP in video games" is the motte. "This particular censorship is desirable, at a minimum" is the bailey.
plural
1hr ago
Yeah, and it shouldn't matter either way. If you think it's important to tease apart the minutiae of this example in defense of something that is clearly not pornography then I'll take this conversational detour as an agreement that people deciding that things need to be censored or banned based on a passing familiarity with the content should be ignored.
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
1hr ago
I mean ideally people should be aware of the issues around network security to the point of being able to make reasonable decisions on whether a given networking device is safe to use much like they do every day with other devices and vehicles and activities. No one looking at a lot full of cars doesn’t make sure the car has airbags and seatbelts and antilock brakes. That’s not a super deep understanding of automotive technology, it’s pretty basic. And in home network security I think you should know enough to look for the basic security features. I wouldn’t buy a networked baby monitor that didn’t have at minimum password protection and encryption. I’m not an expert but I know enough to know that unencrypted information can be viewed by anyone with the appropriate receiver and that a device not protected by a fairly strong password is open to hacking. I think people are treating PNP devices differently than they treat other similar devices. It’s not that they are incapable of due diligence, it’s that they see computer devices and the systems around them as too complex to understand. They aren’t.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1hr ago
In Australia we have 18C. Speech is free so long as you're not racist. Plus we have pretty aggressive anti-defamation laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_18C_of_the_Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975
Trump banned diversity training in the goverment in his first administration. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/
In contrast Biden administration was super woke. Trump and people like Rufo will work together anyhow. I wouldn't have too high expectations, but there is going to be considerable difference even from a mostly ineffective Trump who pushes right a bit, versus a Biden administration pushing quite far left.
There are those who want a neutered right, and frame the alternative with negative exaggerations and fearmongering. The reality is like Democrat administrations purged a lot of people in the goverment to put their own loyalists in charge, it isn't only fair for the right to do this to govern in a different manner than that, but also the only way to change things.
Wanting a neutered right, is not the agenda of genuine moderates but people who are on the same side as Biden.
How we got here was through Republicans like Romney called moderate but who supported BLM. And through liberals, framed as more moderate than they are, but who actually are quite far left culturally and implemented those changes. Only a political coalition that genuinely opposes the intersectional agenda can genuinely push it back.
The right is the only coalition push back these things. Can the center do this? Well, some of the people called far right, or considered part of the right if one tries to objectively judge how much they pander to different identity groups, ironically people like Trump are closer to the center than many other people (falsely) labeled moderate like Mitt Romney.
Those usually carrying the moderate or liberal labels, are insufficiently against the whole woke agenda, and too much for it. So they won't push back and can't put it away. What some of them seem to be doing is to sometimes try to pretend they are already doing this. So there isn't going to be a genuine attempt by liberals and people like Romeny to put the woke away, but there might be attempts to define wokeness narrowly, and still support the same agenda. The limited hangout maneuver.
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Yes, but that will solidify idpol and it will still be fashionable but not dominating the national conversation, until the focus passes and a new Floyd hysteria emerges. That something isn't as discussed as much as previously, does not stop it from being a problem. Moreover, it can coexist just as it continues to coexist with covid focus or the Israel conflict with Palestinians. Moreover, foreign policy presidencies tend to be presidencies engaging in idiotic destabilizing expensive wars that make the MIC richer, but are actually damaging towards their country and the world. Which isn't to say extreme isolationism is the solution.
Identity politics are always here to stay, the question is if we got a sane and fair arrangement, or one that gives valid reason for people to oppose and incentivizes political conflict. Which doesn't change unless the ideology of modern new left liberals and even those in the establishment conservative parties who aren't actually conservative who agree with them stops being influential. Because it is an agenda that does try to screw over, and increasingly at that, the progressive intersectional coalition outgroups, such as white Christian men. The way to have peace, and to relax culture war intensity is to enforce something better and more even handed. Which as is the case always with even handed policies, sharing elements with other groups, shares in a vein diagram ground with the genuine far right. Additionally, it is itself definitely seen by those with the new left liberal agenda as far right, and labeled at such. Although, that isn't actually accurate, and has to do with the strategy of the far left to label everyone other than them with pejoratives.
What is important to understand is that we are never going to get a fair arrangement that reduces culture war intensity, under the hysteric paranoia of the far right, that leads people to oppose reasonable positions because they associate them with the far right. In fact there are issues where even the most hardcore people on the far right have legitimate grievances about their favorite groups being mistreated. And it is in fact possible and preferable to the current situation to share grounds with anyone on issues they have a point, and refuse to share ground with them where they are wrong.
From liberal-ish space, what would aid to relax tensions, is an attitude of compromise and understanding that there has been a real problem of cultural/identitarian progressive overreach. That overreach and progressive extremism also relates to the neutering of the right.
2rafa
2hr ago
You mean the thing he did at the very end of his presidency which might well be struck down by his own Supreme Court anyway?
2rafa
2hr ago
Sure, but that isn’t no understanding of free expression, it’s just a different one. For most of the history of the US states had various laws banning various kinds of speech, so did the federal government during the wars. Absolute free speech is a 20th century interpretation of the first amendment.
Tits_Mcgruff
2hr ago
It’s not a game where they have a warning “all these characters are over 18” despite being set in highschool.
Not only is their age stated during the course of the story, they are shown being spoken to as if they’re adults by their own parents. When they visit their parent’s home, the mum makes it clear she doesn’t either of them to move back in.
Their design IMO doesn’t strike me as appearing obviously underage. Based on the art style they look like young adults to me.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2hr ago
But the ECHR does caveat hate speech, dangerous speech and so on
Yes, that's what "no right to free speech" means.
2rafa
3hr ago
English law does recognize the concept, since it’s part of the ECHR which is British law. But the ECHR does caveat hate speech, dangerous speech and so on.
NullHypothesis
3hr ago
“People do not have a right to feel comfortable in their ideas. This is a university. This is a place to challenge people’s ideas. Discomfort is not the same thing as danger.”
Interestingly this statement is said by a pro-palestine student protestor. The previous time I heard this sentiment was from conservatives criticizing universities for being too left-leaning/left-biased. The question is, would this student be just as supportive if someone came to their school to push far-right talking points? The difference between the two is that one side has far too many proponents of its idea explicitly calling for the death/genocide of another group and the other side gets their views and ideas framed as violence and calls for genocide. Also, in my opinion, the universities have been far too tolerant of one but not the other.
It's only tolerance if you tolerate the intolerable. It's only freedom of speech if you support the speech of those you disagree with the most. At the same time, is it morally/ethically inconsistent to choose to hold people up to their own standards?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3hr ago
English law doesn't even recognize that concept; the US's notion of protecting it was a reaction to it being non-existent.
Later nations gesture vaguely at the concept, but if it's in their law, it's always explicitly prefaced with "unless we really don't want to".
orthoxerox
I realized I can change my flair color to Barbie pink
3hr ago
Rudy did everything right.
NullHypothesis
3hr ago
Same reason why women can denigrate men based on their height but men can't judge a woman based on her weight, even though one is a mutable characteristic and the other is immutable.
For a woman, a lot of her social status and worth does stem from her appearance. To insult a woman's appearance, or to even rank her lower relative to her peers in terms of attractiveness, is to denigrate her very existence. Their looks determine who they get to date, who becomes friends with them, and how people treat them. A woman's academic or athletic ability relative to her peers is not as important since women aren't competing with each other on the basis of academics or athletics, especially when it comes to the dating market. Also, women are more neurotic and take these things more personally than a man would. A man that complains women call him ugly would be labeled a loser and an incel. A woman complaining is a victim that needs protection, and being a victim (only for women and minorities) gives you social brownie points nowadays.
Notice it's not really men pushing against this sort of ranking, it's mostly women. The only men that do are male feminists or men who have to criticize in lieu of reputation harm.
Glassnoser
3hr ago
Don't all countries with legal systems based on the English common law have freedom of speech?
Why is this more offensive than ranking people according to academic or athletic ability?
Because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
their right to freedom of speech
Australia recognizes no such right. Also, the people who made the list are generally recognized as subhumans [due to their age], so nobody's expecting them to have rights in the first place- the hysterics are because lists like that are hard evidence the brainwashing campaigns were ineffective.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
3hr ago
Wait till you hear about how many people in India insist their kids are delivered on auspicious dates; though since c-secs are the norm for anyone who can afford them, and those are usually done when the baby is ~mostly done baking in the oven, shifting the date about by a handful of days isn't the biggest deal in the world.
But yeah, he's got his priorities straight. Maybe it would be different if he had accumulated a million TBIs, but basketball is a comparatively civil sport.
Glassnoser
3hr ago
Are you saying it is typical in the US to restrict where students can eat lunch?
orangecat
4hr ago
Can you respond to his point about the judge that said it does not exist in her courtroom?
That seems to me the bigger issue.
durdenhobbes
4hr ago
I'm more impressed than anything that Gobert had the wisdom as a man, father, and husband, not to suggest his wife make medical decisions based around a basketball game.
Why is this more offensive than ranking people according to academic or athletic ability? Why is this considered offensive, but describing an individual woman's attractiveness is not? Why is putting multiple women onto a single list to compare them worse?
I find this somewhat baffling. There are numerous references to violence against women and sexual assault in the article as though the connection, which I cannot identify, were totally obvious. As fast as I can see, this list is totally innocent and their right to freedom of speech gives them the right to do this.
Irrelevant. Obviously, people can choose to regulate something specific away. The question is whether there has been "any" innovation in "any" other industry (that is, the non-bits ones that have more regulation). Unless you're claiming that the US has no regulation on the oil/gas industry, the shale revolution, which literally has changed the world at a geopolitical scale, is a huge counterexample.
But there are many others. Space X. Ozempic. Etc. It's really hilarious to have all the huge techno-optimists, who think that AI and tech more broadly is going to revolutionize literally everything, and at the same time, they imagine that the tiniest amount of regulation on fucking light bulbs will grind literally everything to a halt.
More options
Context Copy link