mozz

Legend of Kage for NES was an awesome minimalistic beautiful game and I’ve never met anyone else who thinks so

Examples of articles using ADL as a source: this this this and this

Check my explanation and in particular the link I gave, it explains a little bit more. The OP article is just a little confused about how Wikipedia works. Actually, down near the bottom, they get a lot bit closer to how it works:

By deeming the ADL “generally unreliable,” Wikipedia is telling users that “the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.” Wikipedia is not poised ban the ADL outright; enough editors have argued that some aspects of the ADL’s work, such as its database of hate symbols, should still be considered an acceptable source.

That's actually a lot closer to what happened than is the headline or the early part of the article.

I used to do a pretty frequent task to find any image in my media directory, which has atime longer ago than a week ago, which hasn't already been crunched in some previous round, and crunch the hell out of it with either mogrify -quality or pngquant. All of these softwares like to keep full-quality copies of a basically infinite number of images which there's about a 99.9% chance will never be needed again, and you can crunch them down to a tiny fraction of their original size, and they still honestly look more or less fine.

What is this "ban"?

Maybe I am the clueless one, but Wikipedia has general guidelines and not system enforced "bans" on things like sources. It has this list which recently changed to show the ADL as green for all topics except for the Israel / Palestine conflict, and red for the conflict, and that carries quite a bit of weight but it is at the end of the day still just a guideline document for editors to use when evaluating an absolute Niagara Falls of edits which get made to a whole universe of topics any one of which may or may not adhere to any reliable source standards at all, let alone the ones in that document.

All it's really saying is, if you put in the ADL and nothing else as the source for a claim, and someone else disputes it, you won't have a leg to stand on in the ensuing disagreement unless you can also find somewhere else to source your claim. Which, if no other reliable source is saying it, and it concerns the Gaza war or Israel / Palestine issues in general... kind of makes it sound like whoever added that little caveat had a point, and all the emoting that's happening about a "ban" and how unfair it is, is exactly as good faith as it sounds like it is.

What the FUCK

I expected you to be making this up but you are not.

According to the consensus, Russia is now revising its abandoned plans and concentrating on a major assault in the Donbass region, where some 15,000 people are reported to have been killed since the Maidan uprising in 2014. By whom? It should not be hard to determine with many Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) observers on the ground.

Imma stop you right there my guy...

It's not true, he's still with us

The IDF is far better equipped than all the other countries in the region

Individually, probably so. Collectively?

There's a fuck of a lot of countries there. Some of them (Saudi Arabia) have bigger militaries than Israel even individually, and some of them (Iran) have lots of land and people and some certain amount of money, and lots of alliances with lots of rowdy guys with guns and rockets.

Israel and MBS and the West being all buddy buddy with each other and fuck what 99.9% of the people in that part of the world think about it, is one of those things that can change.

it's just funneled there to keep the military industrial complex happy

I won't at all disagree with that. All the homies love big weapons packages. Whatever else is going on in the world, throwing over a hundred billion dollars to weapons suppliers is always a popular decision in DC.

and kill Palestinian children as a byproduct

I don't at all believe that killing children is affirmatively a priority in Washington. I think that depending on the nationality of the children, it can be an acceptable item on the balance sheet to be factored in against other priorities. 😢

The whole concept is I think just completely made up.

I've exhausted for the day my digging-up-reports patience, but somewhere there is a UN report where they looked in some detail into the theory that Hamas was rounding up random people and having them just stand around perfectly still right next to Hamas during fighting, so that the poor IDF would be tricked into shooting them which they hated doing but they had no choice. At least in the case they were looking into, they found that no, of course they are not doing anything like that, Israel is just telling outlandish lies about where all these dead civilians came from.

I won't say it never happens in any form. But to me it comes across like those comedy action movies where the bad guy grabs a hostage and the good guy grabs his own hostage from some random passerby. Like, ha ha! If you shoot at me, you'll also kill this random Palestinian lady! And we know that's like kryptonite to the IDF!

"What's the matter, tough guy? Don't they have a right to fight their enemies? Don't they have a right to defend themselves, with or without international support?"

There's a summary here. I know nothing about the field, and I know his theories were controversial, but just glancing over them right now quickly, they look pretty sensible to me. Also, even if they weren't totally right from a modern perspective and needed some refinement, it looks like what they replaced at the time (Skinner's total batshit early-days-of-psychology theories about how language worked) was pure nonsense.

I suspect that a certain amount of criticism of his linguistic theories is from people who had sour grapes about his political theories. It's hard to remember today how unanimous was the rabid disagreement with Chomsky's political views all the way up until the rise of the internet made "the US isn't always the good guys" an acceptable view outside of the fringes. Up until the mid-90s, the guy was more or less Judas Iscariot.

I honestly don't care if the Arab world stomps them flat.

Standard disclaimer, this isn't an attempt to excuse Biden's support for Israel which is and has been unconscionable. But that being said:

I think the possibility of Israel being stomped flat is part of the calculus that underlies American support for them. They're surrounded by powerful enemies like Iran, and a whole unanimous coalition of nations full of military and political leaders who go to sleep at night dreaming of the lifelong stamp of heroism that would stem from being part of the holy alliance that finally wiped them out.

Whatever crimes against humanity their "defense" forces commit and are committing, the TV scenes of Arab soldiers gunning down fleeing Israeli civilians, ripping down the flags in Tel Aviv amid burning corpses, taking city after city, fighting a 20-on-1 dogpile of a war that would end with Israel erased from the map forever, guilty and the innocent alike, would get played on American TV in campaign commercials for 50 years. If it happened under Biden, the Democrats wouldn't win another election for at least a generation. Probably more.

And it could happen. The world is not a nice place. Part of running the State Department is dealing in horrifying outcomes like that, and it happens every year in a few places across the globe, to people we haven't taken pains to make friends and allies of (and sometimes even to people like the Kurds that we have).

We used to love like brothers and sisters various leaders all over the world who did genocidal things like Netanyahu, and I'm sure we still do, but it's not an everyday thing now like it was in the 80s and 90s. But there's some kind of crazy disconnect that fuels American support for Israel. There's a popular theory on Lemmy that it's simply because Biden is evil and loves genocide, and certainly AIPAC is a part and simple racism and lack of care for dying civilians in the Mideast is a part, but to me I think one of the powerful drivers is the fear of what might happen if the rest of the Middle East ever got the idea that they could try to fuck up Israel and the US might not be there to make sure it didn't happen.

Let the accusations commence. Like I say, I'm trying to explain, not to excuse, and besides nothing in any of that above would have stopped them having the CIA snatch Netanyahu three months ago and deliver him to the Hague in a rubber sack with a note that says "We still love Israel but this guy can get fucked."

I find it very interesting that he didn't start out in political science, but had a background in cognitive and mathematical realms where you can either be right or wrong based on how well your theory matches the reality, and if you're wrong you have to fix your theory and try again. And then also that when he started analyzing political topics, he showed an uncommon-for-the-field ability to analyze statements and theories to see if they were true (which made him some kind of wild and radical outlier compared to how more or less every single other professional at the time liked to look at the world).