mozz

I read this with a little bit of skepticism... like okay let me provisionally accept this, criticizing Biden over Gaza is absolutely just and right, and there absolutely is a divide between the establishment left and the "rank and file" in terms of how they see the issue, and he's losing support because of it. And at the same time, I'm reading this wondering whether it's a genuine article about the issue or just an excuse to throw shade at Biden and bring a little anti-union shade into the equation also.

Most unions (management or not) are heavily anti-genocide, with little bits of disagreement about how far to go with it (e.g. whether to divest from all weapons production work that might help Israel). Most unions (management or not) are heavily pro-Biden for obvious reasons. I would describe the divide as a little bit less "management vs rank and file" than it is "do we care so much about Gaza that we'd erode support our favored candidate because of it." (And there's a pretty good argument that they should care to that extent; I'm just saying that's more where the divide lies, with most deciding to support him anyway.)

Here's my take on what I discovered in the article as my way of answering what was the goal of the article:

Instead of adopting an increasingly rightwing rhetoric and policy toward immigration, Neumann-Ortiz said, Biden should use his executive authority to expand protections for undocumented immigrants and campaign on protections for immigrants that his administration has implemented – like a 2023 measure the Department of Homeland Security quietly passed to protect non-citizen workers whose workplace rights have been violated from deportation.

“You’re not going to win those Trump supporters, but you are definitely eroding and alienating your own base,” said Neumann-Ortiz.

This year, Biden has touted legislation to crack down on the southern border and limit the number of asylum seekers accepted on a daily basis there

Here's a summary of Biden's immigration changes. Not listed in that is the fact that he formed a task force to find the families of all those separated children who were just loose kicking around in the system growing up in hell after Trump's family separation policy, and tried to reunite them with their families. Maybe the sum total number of people impacted by that is small, but to me that perfectly encapsulates the difference in humanity in Biden's immigration policy versus Trump's and the current Republicans.

Sure, you can give him a hard time because while trying to work out a deal to get desperately-needed aid to Ukraine, he adopted some of the rhetoric of his opponents and offered them way more than he should have, in terms of conceding to the terrible things they want to do at the border, to try to bargain for help for millions of other non-Americans who were at risk of dying somewhere else in the world. Using that hard time as an argument for why he affirmatively wants to do bad things on immigration, and a reason to give more power to the opponents instead of to him, is very very clearly a whole bunch of nonsense.

, and even used the pejorative “illegal” in his State of the Union address.

Blow me. Be fair if you're going to give criticism; don't do this way, or it's going to make me look at the whole rest of your article like "wtf what are you tryin to pull man."

Did someone disagree with you and you confused it with squashing dissent and reacting with violence?

I'm not tryin to be jokey about it, maybe that's unfair. I am more or less one of the liberals you're talking about and I can largely agree with a lot of your criticism in general (and I get it, getting frustrated at people who are defending an unjust system and won't get the point of how important it is to change). At the same time, the whole point of discourse and engaging with someone on the internet is to exchange ideas; you might have something new to bring to the table that they need to listen to, or they might have something new that you need to listen to. Isn't that fair?

I voted third party for years and years because of exactly the frustration you're talking about, and now in this particular election I'm talking a lot about "saving democracy" in a way I wasn't before when I was arguing with people about earlier elections... it's not always some kind of mean liberal trick, where they're pretending to care about something like that just to squash your dissent.

I think it varies by the politician. I've spoken with people who worked in politics who really looked up to the people they worked for as people trying to make a positive difference in the world (sometimes even succeeding), and I've spoken with people who said the people they worked for were just the absolute worst people you can possibly imagine on a personal level. Just like 10 times worse than you think, making your skin crawl to even have to interact with them.

@LesserAbe@lemmy.world @r0m2@lemmy.world Gotchu

The segment presents a detailed discussion between the host and Rachel Maddow, focusing on the legal consequences faced by individuals involved in attempting to undermine the democratic process, drawing parallels with historical instances of attempts to subvert democracy. The dialogue touches upon several key points:

1. Legal Actions Against Trump Lawyers: The discussion opens with reference to the legal predicaments of various lawyers associated with Donald Trump, including John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. The emphasis is on the disbarment and criminal consequences they are facing or may face due to their actions in challenging the election results, suggesting a breach of ethical duties as lawyers.
2. Historical Parallels: Maddow draws parallels between current events and historical attempts to subvert democracy, highlighting the importance of institutions like the Bar Association in maintaining democratic integrity. The discussion mentions the role of the Catholic Church in the 1930s in countering fascist movements and emphasizes how institutions have historically been crucial in upholding democracy.
3. The Role of the Bar Association: The conversation highlights the Bar Association's efforts to ensure that lawyers uphold ethical standards, particularly in light of attempts to use legal claims to cloak actions aimed at undermining democracy. This reflects a broader institutional commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
4. The Importance of Adjudicative Processes: The dialogue stresses the significance of legal and adjudicative processes in establishing facts and reality, particularly in the context of defamation cases related to the 2020 election and its aftermath. These processes are viewed as essential for publicly testing evidence and facts, thereby establishing a consensus reality.
5. The Power of the Criminal Justice System: Maddow and the host discuss how the criminal justice system serves as a venue where evidence is made public, tested, and where falsehoods can be exposed in a fair and adversarial setting. This is contrasted with the spread of misinformation and lies, which the legal process can help to counter by establishing incontrovertible facts.
6. Entertainment and Education: Maddow touches on the educational and sometimes entertaining aspects of legal trials, particularly in revealing absurd claims (e.g., smart thermostats swaying elections). This highlights the broader educational value of the legal process in demystifying and debunking baseless claims.

Needs to disable the back button and do a dialog box if you try to close the tab, though

I think signing up as an election worker is probably a pretty good way to help. I think some shit's gonna go down, yes, and that's one small way to put yourself in a position to be there when it does, instead of just leaving the country in "Jesus take the wheel hope it turns out ok" mode.

(And also yes, improving education and news media would be 2 huge steps for fixing it longer term)

The article says it's not split along party lines.

Honestly, I get it. Dysfunction and corruption in politics has produced a generation of congresspeople who are self-selected for being obstructive corrupt assholes, and dysfunction in media has produced an electorate that's too poorly informed to be able to tackle the (substantial) task of identifying and removing the bums and installing instead people who would be at least passably interested in forming a part of a functioning government.

My guess is that the staffers, in contrast to the a lot of the politicians, are pretty interested in being part of a functioning government. Even if the person you work for is interested in progress, that means more or less nothing if the rest of the system isn't on board, which currently it isn't. It must be frustrating as hell going in to work every day and watching everyone important in your organization just strutting around telling racist jokes and smearing shit on the walls, and then you have to clean it all up and try to turn it into something useful.

(This is by the way one tactic in the process of fascism taking control. Clog up the works of legitimate government to lend a tissue of credibility to your claim "well the whole thing doesn't work, it's better if we push it aside and I just run everything instead.")

the significant strategic importance of Israel to the US and other Western nations, which is the actual reason

Yes, I agree with this. I said "one reason" when I started my message; this is the other reason. Honestly, that side of it, I don't care about in the slightest. The US has a lot of friends and a lot of strategic partners. If one of them starts killing children in large numbers, I think it's reasonable to reevaluate if the strategic geopolitical gains are the diplomatic losses (not to mention the going to Hell for at the end of our lives.)

Most of what you're saying factually about the conflict, I actually fully agree with. A think a whole lot of your statements of judgement could be viewed in absolute exact mirror image from the opposite side, though.

how is (country) to respond?

do they have the right to defend themselves?

How do you fight an enemy like this?

Are Palestinians allowed to say these things about Israel?

Why not?

I could send you any number of videos or news stories about IDF soldiers killing children or people who are obviously innocent, equally fucked-up stories to match your (very real) fucked-up stories about what Hamas is doing. Do you want me to do that; do you not believe that these things are happening? I can send you reliable sources if you want; what's reliable to you? New York Times, Wikipedia, Haaretz or Israeli media? That's a for real serious question. Do you not believe that the IDF is doing atrocities? What source would you believe? UN reports?

(I believe, I should say, that the answer is no: Palestinians should not be able to justify anything they do to innocent Israelis in these terms. I just think it cuts both ways: No murder and rape at the music festival, no starvation of children. Surely you can see that both of those are punishment of the innocent for "crimes" committed by others that they may not agree with or be in any way responsible for? Or no?)

Lack of food to a civilian population is abhorrent by any standard. Don't give me crap about how Hamas is hoarding the aid. Hamas is a profoundly corrupt organization and always has been. The people who weren't starving before, and now are, are doing so because Israel is blocking the aid. These are the numbers; there is not enough to feed everyone. That's Israel's decision and the consequences of it are on the Israeli government.

Would that situation be alright for the United States to impose on Israel to redress an injustice the Israeli leadership and military had committed? A yearslong embargo like the one on Gaza, and then sudden reduction of food aid (which the population was now dependent on) to a small fraction, even as famine and starvation set in? Even to the extent of starving people who never agreed with Netanyahu's policies, or people too young to even understand what was happening?

If you claim the right for Israel to do these things to Gaza, why would the Palestinians or the Americans not have the right to do this to Israelis? What's the difference?

I want you to take a look at this map:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders/

You agree with that factually, right? The 6/6 map showing the present day?

Surely you can see the problem with moving into someone else's house, telling them at gunpoint they need to find a new place to live, telling them they can't leave their new place they live now without your permission (which basically never comes), telling them you'll control how much food and water and any type of goods they can receive and then say you're "wanting peace"? No? Is that reasonable, is a settled peace enforced by overwhelming atrocity at any resistance, visited on both the guilty and the innocent; is that the reasonable outcome from that situation?

Oh, well that's pretty weird, but I think by the standards of creepy stuff in the world it's

In 1929, after returning to the Soviet Union, he attempted to organize a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers

WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK

It was news to me

Herringbone cut FTW

I usually cut regular slices towards the ends, and then when it starts getting thick I switch to a herringbone so that you're still having sane sizes of bread in the middle.

Er... sort of. He brings up some towards the end:

There is a common myth in software development that parallel programming is hard. This would come as a surprise to Alan Kay, who was able to teach an actor-model language to young children, with which they wrote working programs with more than 200 threads. It comes as a surprise to Erlang programmers, who commonly write programs with thousands of parallel components. It's more accurate to say that parallel programming in a language with a C-like abstract machine is difficult, and given the prevalence of parallel hardware, from multicore CPUs to many-core GPUs, that's just another way of saying that C doesn't map to modern hardware very well.

I would add to that Go with its channel model of concurrency which I quite like, and numpy which does an excellent job in my experience with giving you fast paralleled operations on big parallel structures while still giving you a simple imperative model for quick simple operations. There are also languages like Erlang or ML that try to do things in just a totally different way which in theory can lend itself to much better use of parallelism, but I'm not real familiar with them and I have no idea how well the theoretical promise works out in terms of real world results.

I'd be interested to see someone with this guy's level of knowledge talk about how well any of that maps into actually well-parallelized operations when solving actual real problems on actual real-world CPUs (in the specific way that he's talking about when he's criticizing how well C maps to it), because personally I don't really know.