Yeah it's actually one of the ways I caught a previous manager using AI for their own writing (things that should not have been done with AI). They were supposed to write about something in a hyper-specific field and an entire paragraph ended up just being a rewording of one of two (third party) website pages that discuss this topic directly.
"AI" is a parlor trick. Very impressive at first, then you realize there isn't much to it that is actually meaningful. It regurgitates language patterns, patterns in images, etc. It can make a great Markov chain. But if you want to create an "AI" that just mines research papers, it will be unable to do useful things like synthesize information or describe the state of a research field. It is incapable of critical or analytical approaches. It will only be able to answer simple questions with dubious accuracy and to summarize texts (also with dubious accuracy).
Let's say you want to understand research on sugar and obesity using only a corpus from peer reviewed articles. You want to ask something like, "what is the relationship between sugar and obesity?". What will LLMs do when you ask this question? Well, they will just attempt to do associations and to construct reasonable-sounding sentences based on their set of research articles. They might even just take an actual semtence from an article and reframe it a little, just like a high schooler trying to get away with plagiarism. But they won't be able to actually mechanistically explain the overall mechanisms and will fall flat on their face when trying to discern nonsense funded by food lobbies from critical research. LLMs do not think or criticize. Of they do produce an answer that suggests controversy it will be because they either recognized diversity in the papers or, more likely, their corpus contains reviee articles that criticize articles funded by the food industry. But it will be unable to actually criticize the poor work or provide a summary of the relationship between sugar and obesity based on any actual understanding that questions, for example, whether this is even a valid question to ask in the first place (bodies are not simple!). It can only copy and mimic.
Is this referring to what I said about Markov chains or stochastic processes? If it's the former the only discriminating factor is beam and not all LLMs use that. If it's the latter then I don't know what you mean. Molecular dffusion is a classic stochastic process, I am 100% correct in my example.
Okay so both of those ideas are incorrect.
As I said, many are literally Markovian and the main discriminator is beam, which does not really matter for helping people understand my meaning nor should it confuse anyone that understands this topic. I will repeat: there are examples that are literally Markovian. In your example, it would be me saying there are rectangular phones but you step in to say, "but look those ones are curved! You should call it a shape, not a rectangle." I'm not really wrong and your point is a nitpick that makes communication worse.
In terms of stochastic processes, no, that is incredibly vague just like calling a phone a "shape" would not be more descriptive or communicate better. So many things follow stochastic processes that are nothing like a Markov chain, whereas LLMs are like Markov Chains, either literally being them or being a modified version that uses derived tree representations.
But that's so vague. Molecules semi-randomly smashin into each other is a stochastic process
Because it's close enough. Turn off beam and redefine your state space and the property holds.
What term is that?
Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.
Of course, the term "authoritarian bootlicker" is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro's revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.
I think you'd be calling him a tankie.
That is a funny way to say, "our AI models suck so we have people provide manual answers".
It coincides with their switch to more and more "AI" black box models. Whereas before they would use a hand-tuned heuristic model to describe whether you are turning, merging, or continuing on a road, they just use a less correct but automagic model where they still inevitably have to tune it a whole lot but it is "AI" so it has the approval of the petty lords of management.
Incorrect entrances and closed roads are another example. They're just using satellite and street level imagery and tossing it at some models that spit out things like "door 99% confidence" and "road 98% confidence" while neglecting the question of, "are you actually allowed/able to use this?"
PS under basically every correct answer in this category is a team of poorly-paid "labelers" whose answers directly turn into the data in the map. Your door-that-is-not-an-entrance was marked entrance because someone making $8/hr only had 10 seconds to review before moving to the next question.
lmao the futurology grifter
I thought he was head of AI not maps tho
It is of course up to data providers to say when it's being used incorrectly. They can do that whenever they want to. Why couldn't they? It is in no way unprofessional to call out bullshit.
I... agree but isn't then contradicting your previous point that innovation will come from large companies if they only try to secure monopolies rather than genuinely innovate?
Nope.
I don't understand from that perspective who is left to innovate if it's neither research
Who said there's no more research?
not the large companies... and startups don't get the funding either.
Both are, on average, just doing boring work minorly translating research in the hope to become more monopolistic, just at different levels of the good chain. The former eats the latter.
The Biden-Harris administration will say they are troubled and then provide $3 billion more to Israel.
You will understand why better when you take a look at who they say this to and who they don't.
This is not something that generally happens to white people speaking some French in the US. It does not raise the ire of this psychology. On the other hand, they love to target brown people speaking Spanish (almost exclusively, in fact). There is, naturally, spillover where white people speaking Spanish or brown people speaking Hindi would get targeted.
As others noted, and as these examples suggest, this is an instance of xenophobia and racism. Language is being used as a proxy, really, and provides a way for these people to unleash the frustrations they have been taught, societally, to have against them. Generally speaking, these are people that will call any brown person that speaks Spanish a "Mexican" regardless of their actual place of birth, where they were raised, or ethnic heritage.
But this is just a surfacr-level analysis. The next question is why they are taught to target people with xenophobia and racism. Why are there institutions of white supremacy? Why are their institutions of anti-immigrant sentiment? How are they materially reinforced? Who gains and who loses?
At a deeper level, these social systems are maintained because they are effective forms of marginalization. In the United States, racial marginalization was honed in the context of the creation and maintenance of chattel slavery, beginning, more or less, as a reaction to the multi-racial Bacon's Rebellion. In response, the ruling class introduced racially discriminatory policies so that the rebelling groups were divided by race, with black people receiving the worst treatment and the white people (the label being invented for the purposes of these kinds of policies) being told they would receive a better deal (though it was only marginally so and they were still massively mistreated). This same basic play had been repeated and built upon for hundreds of years in the United States. It was used to maintain chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and modern anti-blackness. It was used to prevent Chinese immigrant laborers from becoming full citizens and becoming a stronger political influence in Western states.
It was and is used to maintain the labor underclass of the United States, which also brings us to xenophobia more specifically. The United States functions by ensuring there is a large pool of exploitable labor in the form of undocumented immigrants. It does this at the behest of the ruling class - the owners of businesses - who have much more power to dictate wages and working conditions when it comes to this labor underclass. They make more money and have more control, basically. But this pissed off and pisses off the labor over class, as they have lost these jobs (or sometimes are merely told they lost them even if they never worked them). To deflect blame away from the ruling class for imposing these working conditions wages, the ruling class instead drives focus against the labor underclass itself, as if working that job for poor pay and bad conditions their fault. This cudgel should remind you of Bacon's Rebellion again: it divides up workers so that rather than struggle together they fight amongst themselves on the basis of race or national origin. The business owners are pleased, having a docile workforce to exploit.
So while racism and xenophobia are themselves horrific and what is behind the "Speak English!' crowd, it is really just an expression of the society created by this system that, by its very nature , pits workers against business owners while giving business owners outsized power (they are the ruling class, after all).
Another important element to this is imperialism and how imperialist countries carefully control immigration (it used to be basically open borders not that long ago). But I'll leave that for any follow-up questions you might have.
This is how the American system works. He's just not being classy about it.
Congressmembers do insider trading all the time and move into industry positions after they leave, having helped those exact industries (following the requests of their lobbyists). Congressmembers go straight to the top of boards for weapons manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc.
Regulators and other officials do the same thing. They cycle back and forth between the industries they're supposed to reign in and supposedly the job where they do reign them in. Work for the FCC -> work for a telecom -> FCC -> telecom.
In terms of the Supreme Court itself, it is an illegitimate body that has legitimacy only because the other two branches give it to them. Their major powers are not in the constitution and they have very few rules to follow.
You are right that gaining power to establish justice is what really matters, not "the rules" (which are always selectively applied). But it really depends on what you mean by the "good guys". If you mean Democrats, unfortunately they are also deeply embedded in this system and are not champions against it. They maintain power through the same kinds of industry connections and exit strategies and insider training. Their electoral apparatus is built on getting donations from companies and their executives so that they can buy ads and canvassers and phone bankers and data nerds to reach out and drive likely voters to turn out for them.
I've been in high-ish level Dem offices on various occasions. They put a lot of effort into shmoozing with donors and doing everything they can to get more money from likely donors. Big and small, though big get the most attention. The idea of building their base of power from the action of motivated grassroots individuals is rejected. And that's the only real base of power that is likely to reflect justice.
Aid trucks remain stranded at the Southern entry points, with Raremoved closed over Israel crossing Biden's supposed red line. Israeli citizens - not IOF - routinely block the trucks and destroy their contents while the IOF watches. Israel maintains its blockade of Gaza that it has imposed since 2007 that prevents aid from entering any other way and used pressure campaigns on Turkey and Guinnea-Bissau to hamstring the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
It's important to remember that the oppression of Gaza and Palestinians is a central project of Zionism that spans multiple leaders and requires the active consent of several coordinating parties, with the US imperial apparatus at the top and the Israeli Zionist project just below. If Netanyahu died today virtually all of Zionists' policies would remain in place. Netanyahu was not in power when most of them were instituted.
Opinion polls now show increased support for Netanyahu since October and if you dig just a little deeper you'll find that the primary complaint of Israelis is that he's not even more militaristic, more brutal, and "protecting" Israelis in this fashion. In other words, the illusion of immunity was broken and they are lashing out. Imagine who would have power if Netanyahu died.
Biden provides unconditional support to this genocidal project and this is more or less in line with decades of US policy, although he is even to the right of Reagan in that he won't pick up a phone and actually draw a line. A return to the status quo, which was still horrible for Palestinians, is a bridge too far for the Biden administration. And as you can see, that administration enjoys wide cover from tired and bad faith talking points from a media apparatus that equates the humanization of Palestinians with antisemitism.
If you oppose genocide and consider Palestinians human, then our shared enemies include but also go beyond the current leaders of the United States and Israel. The deeper underlying forces are political economic. They're why when students demand divestment the University administrations would rather sic cops on them than lose a little cash. They're why military contractors nearly always get their way. They're why people like Biden and Netanyahu receive support in the first place, including the tired and politically incompetent lesser evil vote nagging. Political power is not to be a sheep following the orders of wolves, but to become educated and work together.
The ruling class of the United States has always been like this. This is a country founded by and for slaveowners that gladly governed in their own favor.
I'm holding out for titanium do I can add it to my EDC loadout and totally dunk on that loser Travis at the office.
If you own the copyright then yes this is 100% legal.
There are already apps that are like this. They usually add a couple features to the paid release so that people feel like they are getting something extra for the money. The good ones will eventually move those features to the open release eventually. However, this incentivizes keeping part of the app closed source so that nobody can just rename and re-release the paid version.
It is 100% up to you for how to handle these tradeoffs. Personally, I think so long as you are principled and ready for some criticism - and can handle it gracefully - getting paid for work that builds your open source app is a very good idea. We don't all have the luxury of maintaining high quality unpaid side projects!
They're also not even the same category. Organic vs. non was about what kinds of chemicals amwere allowed to be added. Herbicides, pesticides, that kind of thing. GMOs are about whether a certain technology was used to genetically engineer the plants (artificial selection vs. the techniques of molecular biology). But they get all mixed up together as a result of marketing and a public that does not receive information any other way.
There are dangers with GMOs but they're about farming sustainability and corporate power, particularly the use of IP law. The food itself, so far, is perfectly safe.
Also, organic food is not necessarily safer. You can still put fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on organic crops, you're just restricted to the use of certain kinds. You still need to wash organic produce to get rid of potential residue.
Is there any chance you'd want to, at least in part, get away from the instant hit of info? It's possible to train your brain out of that habit if you'd rather be doing something else. No judgment if you'd really rather find something Iike you described.
Sure but I've gotta ask: why not write 7 paragraphs of run-on sentences like a true proletarian!?
Employees and employers are always in a war of information. Employers work together with their crony class traitors (like HR) to come up with plans to increase profits and mitigate losses based on what they can glean about employees. They are asking you all these questions as a form of intelligence gathering. Maybe they're trying to get a handle on where they most need to begin recruiting. Maybe they're trying to get a handle on why people are leaving. Maybe they're using the information gathering privilege to intimidate people. Maybe it's something else.
Either way, it's rarely in an employee's interest to provide accurate information like this to an employer. If they were actually worried about people leaving they could just raise salaries and figure out if there are specific working conditions to improve like getting rid of abusive managers or changing work responsibilities. But those aren't the questions they're asking.
The only question is how to avoud questions or lie. Avoiding is best. "I hadn't really thought of that. What is your opinion?" is a good default. Or, "have other people been talking about that?" If they try to force an answer, just lie. You see yourself there in 15 years, whatever.
This may be a sign that they feel weak in their labor market, though. I think this is actually a good time to ask for a raise and promotion. It's also a good time to start looking for other jobs, as a big exodus of people that they're not handling appropriately means everyone's working conditions are probably going to get worse. They seem to be in complete petty tyrant mode.
Tabasco is tasty and Italian food mythologies are fairly silly.
I would recommend using this as an opportunity to build out and use a backups system. Whenever I get a new laptop, for example, I just make a(nother) backup on the old laptop and restore whatever I want to the new one. If there are any files I want that are normally excluded from backups, I either tweak my rules to include those files/put them in a different directory and repeat the process or just make a new manual external backup copy temporarily.
If you have good backups then your new drive can be populated from them after creating new partitions. Optionally, you can also take this opportunity to reinstall the OS, which I personally prefer to do because it tends to clean up cruft.
Also, if you go this route, your data on your old drive is 100% intact throughout the process. You can verify and re-verify that all the files you want are backed up + restored properly before finally formatting the old drive for use in the NAS.
As has consistently been the case for people in our position, our power comes from our ability to organize and take collective action and to develop the question you asked even further and for the conditions in our own countries. This in contrast to what our rulers tell us gives us power (in reality, they give us instructions on how to maintain their power), which is usually some kind of institutional cooption, like joining an NGO or nagging people to vote for their oppressors or doing some slight participation in a milquetoast political party.
Increasing our organization and choosing good actions to take is not an easy process, though it is often surprisingly simple to describe. To be more organized we have to meet with one another, we must gain the skills to convince others to join up with us, to compile the information needed to contact interested parties, to strategically work in coalition with other organizations, to train each other regularly in the core tasks or running any organization. To choose the right actions to take, we must read political theory and history, teach this to each other, and understand how it applies (or does not) to our current situations. The political theory that is the most useful is that which is usually not taught, not even to criticize, but is glossed over or told stories about - it's the political theory of the left and a fearless critical reading of history.
Because our institutions educationally neglect us so severely, particularly when it comes to the tools for our own liberation, it can take a while before you might feel like you are confident or ready to go. That is okay and normal. There's nothing wrong with taking some time to read or to simply try things out a little first.
So I would recommend two things.
The first is to begin reading the political theory of the left and history. There may already be great authors and movements where you live, or there may have been some in the past. They can help you get an idea for who our enemy is (the ruling class) and what different movements have attempted (successfully and not) in the past. Try just one book at first. I often recommend that people start with Blackshirts & Reds by Michael Parenti, as it is a good primer in what we all need to unlearn, or at least take a skeptical lens to, when it comes to the mass media telling of history and politics vs. what actually happened. The value of reading is that it will help you and everyone you talk to choose good actions to take collectively. Those who do not understand the nature of the system we must fight will choose the wrong actions and may even hurt our interests. So education is not just a good thing in itself, it is a tool of political organization.
The second is to get involved with an organization that does mass left politics. There are certain kinds of organizations I would recommend avoiding and I'll explain more if you ask about it. But most organizations that take a proper ground-up approach and are not an NGO will probably be a useful experience for you and your ability to politically organize. It will likely be useful even if you eventually leave that group for another!
I spend most of my time on working with others to destroy it.
Don't have a genocidal sundowning segregationist nominated without a rank-and-file voting process with multiple candidates. Or accept that you are not really in charge of any of this when it comes to The Democratic Party and therefore you should place your political focus on ways to build and wield power that do not depend on it.
Thank you.
Thank you for being interested and wanting to learn more! We can only liberate ourselves with more people like yourself.
Which books other than the one that you mentioned(thanks for that), would you recommend? Introductory ones that are modern/contemporary, if possible.
There are too many options, is the main challenge. I would usually want to suggest something that builds on your interests or addresses some topic you're really interested in, in particular.
I think one good angle to begin with is media criticism. It builds a very useful ongoing skill and also teaches many important facts and lessons about who controls us and how. It's simultaneously fascinating, upsetting, horrific, and banal. Blackshirts & Reds touches on it. Parenti also wrote Inventing Reality, which in my opinion is a book that is similar to but slightly better than Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky (which I also recommend). There is also FAIR.org, a website which focuses almost exclusively on media criticism, and the podcast Citations Needed that has a number of episodes dedicated to media criticism and current events.
There are two modern texts by the same author that I think are also very useful, though they are also (recent) historical critiques. I would recommend them if you are interested in some valuable but possibly upsetting historical explorations of what does not work, but is close to working. The books are The Jakarta Method and If We Burn by Vincent Bevins. The first will give a strong sense for just how far our oppressors will go and what we must think about if we want to win. The second is about challenges to organize, mostly but not always in rich Western countries.
Critiquing geopolitics can also be useful. There are too many books that come to mind on this topic. A perennial favorite is Michael Hudson's Super imperialism, which gives a nice argument for the coercive power of the US dollar and global debt structures. This is a useful topic to get a handle on because it's the very first and best tool chosen to crush any fights for the common person. Not even radical fights. Just simple things like winning an election and then nationalizing an industry so that you can feed your people rather than let foreign companies of your former colonizers extract and own all your stuff. Any fight to improve conditions in a country that has been targeted for extraction will have to fight these same groups and their complex of actors, including financial instruments, NGOs, propaganda blitzes, etc.
If you prefer to build from foundations there is really no substitute for reading seminal theories, though they won't be modern. Unfortunately, we are fighting the same fundamental system that people were fighting 150 years ago, though we are now the beneficiaries of seeing those experiments and learning from them. As foundational works I would recommend reading Marx and reading Emma Goldman, which will help lay foundations for understanding critiques of capitalism from both a Marxist and anarchist perspective. Marx's main work, Capital, is very difficult to read due to the way in which he methodologically laid out concepts, so I usually recommend that people read Heinrich's summary and then Michael Roberts' commentaries. Those two disagree with each other about a few things so you'll get a nice balance. For Goldman I recommend reading Anarchism and Other Essays. Once you have a foundation in Marxism I recommend reading Lenin, as his theoretical and organizational developments were key to the very first sustained anti-capitalist revolution on the planet. In addition, his theories on imperialism are incredibly relevant even today, as imperialism remains the primary tool of our oppressors.
I've been recommended State & rev and I have read it, but it seems that eventhough I get the idea, I don't have the foundation and context(didn't understand who all the people mentioned in it are) to fully understand it. Maybe I need to reread it.
That book will be very hard to understand without having some contextual knowledge of Marxism and of some of the arguments that lefties were having at the time. It's a theoretical work by Lenin where he lays out his conception of how socialists should treat the state (before, during, and after a hypothetical revolution) as well as how to specifically position a national anti-capitalist movement against cooption into reformism via liberal democratic institutions, particularly in the context of Tsarist Russia (while commenting on Germany as well, where most people that weren't like-minded with Lenin thought revolution would first occur). It's a very interesting book with many great quotes and theses but I would not start with it if the references aren't making a lot of sense.
Are there any books that you'd recommend about organising and the associated skills/strategy needed for it?
For the skills I personally don't think there are any particularly good books about it that are both modern and in English (there may be non-English books that are good but I haven't read!). The core skills are best acquired through practice and in finding opportunities to learn from experienced organizers. They will have books that they like, but imo it's a good idea to be skeptical of them. This is because most books on organizing are by people who are not particularly successful or who have succeeded in contexts that are actually fairly different from our own most of the time. For example, there are many skills in union organizing that are valuable for left organizing in general (many of them came from lefties in the first place). Those are great to learn. But if you go to the books about union organizing they tend to be pretty crap, in my experience, as they teach a formulaic approach and the authors are often just... not actually very good at it. Or they teach an approach that works great for organizing a factory when anti-capitalist sentiment is already high and it's the 1920s. When you go to apply their approaches to lefty organizing you'll end up in jail or something.
Anyways I recommend learning this from an organization. Find one that takes the skills of organizing seriously and has strategy and planning meetings rather than debate clubs. They will be the ones to learn in.
I can't wait to get a Smart AI refrigerator that tells me I have a bunch of food that isn't really in there even when I didn't ask it to.
The metrics here are those most relevant to finance, which is not synonymous with innovation. Startups are notorious money sinks that are only invested in due to a promise of monopoly profits later, basically a gamble. They usually fail, and dramatically. Finance is necessary for private capital investment and liquidity but when it grows too large it becomes parasitic and also tries to dictate policy. The real estate bubble that China is now dealing with is a direct result of financialization and an expectation that it would be "too big to fail" and that real estare finance would get bailed out by government.
China is tackling this issue by limiting the impact of finance on its economy, changing its lending terms and what it guarantees, including not bailing out real estate finance. This has the direct effect of making startups and venture capital less common as they simply can't make as much money from pure speculation. They don't have a state-funded safety net for their worst gambles and interest rates are higher.
Overall, this is a good development. China's finance sector absolutely needed to be limited and it is good for the state to take on a greater role in running companies.
In my place I'm seeing communal polarisation increasing. Or it is becoming more evident. How would one oppose that in a populace where religion and caste hold good sway, without the opposition giving it more power accidently?
That is a very difficult question to answer! You may already know better than I do, being embedded in your local context. But I can suggest some things to consider.
The first is that religion is not a simple good or bad thing when it comes to organizing. It is another consciousness that can compete with or work with a liberation project. It will depend on its structure, how it exerts powers and who it antagonizes vs. helps. There are two big negative forms of political religiosity that are dangerous to liberation. The first is the obvious reactionary conflation of religion with tradition and factionalization, where it is used as a way to create a societal rift and oppression on the basis of religion. This is largely a distraction from the material basis of oppression, but is it very effective and harmful. The second is when religion is used to "check out" of struggle. For example, I know a local religious leader that tells people that it's okay that so many children are killed by Israelis in Palestine because they are martyred in heaven, the only thing that really matters. While this soothes some of the pain, it can also lead to a form of material apathy and turning away from action. With that said, there are also things like liberation theology and working with religious groups towards liberatory ends. It's something that has to be navigated on a case-by-case basis. It is not wrong to, for example, adopt the position that X group is copptonf Y religion and that this should be rejected, even if you do not personally subscribe to religion Y in the first place. You will be more powerful if you (as in, any organization you may be in) find a group that focuses on religion Y from an angle that is compatible with yours and for you to keep each other safe and strong.
Regarding caste, does this mean you are in South Asia or otherwise interacting with th concept of caste as derived from it? This is also a very challenging thing to consider and there are very good points to be made for addressing caste first vs. class first and how they overlap and are different. If you are in India, I would focus on how you might oppose Hindutva from an angle that is caste-critical and whether there are people in your area that are interested in opposing both. People who have been assigned a lower caste will be more likely to see the injustice and be able to act in their own favor and build momentum, though you can also find and make good use of "caste traitors".
Anyways your question is really about communal polarization. This is not something you can simply prevent as its own quantity. What you can do is build towards the better factions within that community and push your own projects. Our enemies create this polarization, they create and maintain fascists and the false consciousnesses that divide us against ourselves. We can't create unity that centers those false consciousness, is what I'll suggest. Class consciousness is at least a correct consciousness that opposes this division and if you include the additional valid liberation struggles you'll be able to build from firm ground.
I should say that this is not the kind of thing anyone can do alone. All of this would only be realistic to discuss as part of an organization to which you would be contributing your efforts and knowledge. So my real advice is to see if you can identify an anti-capitalist group in your community that seems at least 70% good and see if you can join it. And please do so as safely and securely as possible (in-person communication is best, do not use Whatsapp or Facebook etc).
I've seen leftist n leftish organisations being affected by this.
Lefty orgs are basically always in some form of drama or crisis, so this isn't necessarily an odd thing, haha. I can't give a useful opinion without knowing more about how they've been affected, though.
Think of how you look at it when the coercion is overt.
I'm sure we both oppose forced labo rand rape (overtly coerced labor, overtly coerced sexual contact). Do you think one is more harmful than the other and takes a unique psychological toll? Edit: what about for a person who endures both?
There are some subtleties due to the different kinds of content that count as porn, but hopefully this explains why many left feminist organizations advocate for the abolition of the sex trade.
In addition, remember that one in seven people in the sex trade in the US are trafficked.
That by not being ridiculously overtly bigoted, they have actually interrogated and rejected their own bigotry. The former is basic and mostly relies on social conditioning. The latter requires reading history and people who are criticizing things with which you may identify and therefore take very personally. The latter is not taught in school and school does not provide the tools (outside of literacy) to do so, so it's a difficult, painful, abd regrettably rare thing to see, usually requiring sone trauma to change.
lmao
Ah okay. Thank you for helping me understand!
I was referring to the primary aid borde crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Maybe I had a typo, maybe not. If my next word has "removed" in it, then part of the name is censored. Rafah. If not, I originally had a typo.
Thanks again!
For nonfiction I would recommend books about media criticism and history. Manufacturing consent and The Jakarta Method, for example. These can help set you up for further reading. For media criticism, it will help you recognize when to keep reading about the people that journalists talk to and who they don't, why they are writing this article rather than that one, and identify others that take a media critical approach, as they are good people to read. For history, I think it is good to read widely and critically. We are not taught particularly thorough or accurate history in school. Much is left out or glossed over with selective narratives. For example, I was taught that the US Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery, because the text was from Texas and my teacher taught from the book. This was, of course, nonsense. A People's History of The United States is a pretty good way to start out if you want to start with US history. That might be better than The Jakarta Method, actually.
For fiction, it really depends on what you enjoy! What kinds of stories or topics do you find most interesting?
?
The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
This is getting repetitive and I think it is because you aren't really trying to understand what I am saying. Please let me know when you are ready to have an actual conversation.