mozz

They are, indeed. I was actually fairly surprised how little they try to disguise their “we will ding you and pretend you are lying if you express anti Israel opinions.”

I predict that the “mixed” will be based on, at most, like 1-2 arguably-false-in-retrospect stories from at least five years ago and an overall claim like “well they say bad things about Israel and that just makes us pretty suspicious, you get it, right?”. Not anything along the lines of that they are ever careless with the truth.

Brb

Edit: Nailed it. They don’t even try to pretend there’s any factual issue with the reporting.

In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.

Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

In 2017, Al Jazeera aired an investigative report of Britain’s Israel lobby. Following the airing, Ofcom (the UK government-approved regulatory and competition authority) received complaints from many pro-Israeli British activists, including one former Israeli embassy employee. They were accused of anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and infringement of privacy, which was later cleared by Ofcom, who said the piece was not anti-semitic and was, in fact, investigative journalism. Later, a US version of the documentary called “Lobby” was not aired due to pressure from US Legislators pushing for Al Jazeera to register as a foreign entity and therefore labeling its journalists as ‘spies.’ Further, Saudi Arabia and three other Arab nations demanded Qatar to shut down Al-Jazeera. Al Jazeera rebuts the accusations here.

I wonder if the New York Times is “mixed” on its factual reporting based on one story I could find, maybe a little more recent one than 2017.

Joke comments where people don't get the joke and downvote en masse are one of my favorite things on Lemmy.

I wasn't trying to express surprise or sarcasm. Whether or not I personally think it's a good idea, I was fully unironically saying that taking over a city and doing it the way that you think makes sense, if the current system of policing isn't making sense to you, is a good idea.

Honestly, whether or not it works, we need more of that. The whole idea that "they" run the cities and "we" are at the mercy of what "they" have decided to do is not completely true, but it's also not completely false. If a bunch of ACAB people took over a city, destroyed the police department, suddenly realized that it's a bad idea to have no one to respond / only non violent people to respond if some violent crime happens, and then started working on "okay well then what do we want it to look like, avoiding the problems we experienced in the past with the way the police were organized", that would be a pretty fantastic thing. Again whether or not I was on board with how they thought about it before or after going into it. And, non-caricature versions of that (e.g. sending community response teams instead of police for non-criminal matters) has been a reform that's been happening, and it's been working. It's a good thing.

(Actually the citation the one person sent me to the Marshall project went into a decent amount of detail about what we do actually want it to look like. It pointed out that a lot of the fundamental problems are problems of social services, social framework, underlying root causes, and then beyond that, funding for 911 centers and non-police emergency response, and only beyond that does it even become an issue anything that the police do whether right or wrong. Like I said I actually liked that citation and what it had to say. I was only disagreeing with the idea of applying it as justification for the idea of "and that's why the police are BAD!" as a conclusion and as the sum total of what we need to do to fix the system, apparently.)

But anyway, we need more self government in civic society, including policing. Because, yes, that is what the country was literally founded to do, and it's not really fully the system right now.

It was clear to me from his facial expression that he had wound up in a hand to hand fight with the leopard and this was the result. You are right that IDK anything beyond that until someone provided the article yes.

Somewhere there is a fascinating talk that breaks down how modern matchmaking is designed to manipulate the players’ experience - give them less skilled players they can destroy which feels good, make a little boring stretch which will create a hunger for something to happen which can then be filled by microtransactions, and so on. Some company (Blizzard?) actually has a patent on it.

Do you wanna get together with a bunch of like minded people, find a city somewhere where you can vote in new leadership and destroy the police department, and see how it works out?

The hippies tried their version of that back in the 1960s with Vermont, and it turned Vermont into a substantially more pleasant place. Some people tried it in Aspen (read Hunter Thompson's proposals for how he wanted to reform the police department and what the voters did and how it played out; it is fascinating reading.) The libertarians tried it somewhere in New England and somewhere in the Southwest, more recently, and their philosophies in practice were an utter failure.

I am asserting that your solutions will not work in the real world. If you want to prove me wrong, you are empowered to organize and find a place and make it happen and run the experiment. People are actually doing this with non-destroying options like sending mental health professionals on mental health calls, and it's working well, so sure give your thing a shot.

Yeah. The inscription was instructions for how to use this room as a place of safety from them, because you can always see behind you in one or another of the mirrors. Now, when the players encounter them a very short time later, they'll have nowhere to go where they're not vulnerable.

I love it. Have fun guys! You may have difficulty in this dungeon starting soon.

Am I? I am pretty sure I explicitly advocated for a few different things that were neither of the binary alternatives, and pointed out specific problems that could be caused by the “other side” approaches, without simply saying it had to be the opposite binary.

Was that not what I did / not how it came across?

Yeah. All of this (aside from that one thing of taking legal action against the city) sounds pretty good.

How does this relate to the woman who specifically called for the police to deal with a situation that needed police attention, and me advocating for diagnosing and fixing some of the problems that led to a person who should never have been a cop in the first place getting sent to that call?

Yeah. There are quite a few people in the real world who actually are pursuing the sensible course - like places that are replacing cops for every call with mental health professionals, but backed up by police when violence is a clear possibility, and everyone working together. Supposedly that works great. Bodycams are another good example; almost every police agency loves them and the handful that resisted them (e.g. Portland and various police unions) represent a HUGE red flag about that agency.

I do think that both on the internet and real world the two extremes of “stop criticizing the cops cops are always right” and “fuck the police all the time cops are always the enemy” are the majority of the discourse, though. 😢