I guess the #fediverse is less for curating things but for tight-knit "communities", i.e., self-affirming opinion-bubbles. The main difference between here and there is that the fediverse still seems to be more conversation-based and less sloganeering-based as X. OTOH: The myriad of topical threads I can find there is far better than in the fediverse, at least of what I know and see of it. Here I am because of people, there I am because of topics. Can't have both, it seems.
It's a bit funny to me that as many people had been calling Xitter a "hellsite" already for years, it was actually easier for me to fill my feed with things that give me joy over there than it is here. And somehow also less aggressively depressing things. Yes, I put quite a bit of thought & effort into how I curated things over there. I do the same here. But somehow here is harder for me.
« A senior U.S. official said Palestinian Authority officials do not want to send workers to the Rafah crossing, only for it to be attacked by Hamas and they be killed. »
You can't make that shit up. Palestinians are so utterly... Unbelievable that "Progressives" still support these morons.
Perhaps keep in mind the consequences of the temporal aspect of the verb.
"factum" is the past participle passive of "facere", i.e., "something made". That is: the "fact" is a) something made by a human or other agent, and b) has been made in some past whereas it is *now* accessed by a third party. And in so far as it is already there (because it was made in the past) it *is* a given – to the individual that approaches it in the present. Also, as someone in the past and now in the present deals with it, it is c) a *communal* thing available to more than one person. It is this trait that d) makes it "objective", not "subjective": It lies around in the open, accessible to more than one person, not confined to one and only one individual. That does not mean that today's conntations of "objective" and "subjective" (as "material" vs "imaginary") are involved – which is a later development (although already made possible by St. Augustine in his creation of the self as inner space) – but more that the factum can be part of common reality (which it helps to create) whereas something that is only accessible to one person may not become part of that reality or constitute some such.
Interestingly, the most overlooked disciplines that deal the with facts and their *sizes* are jurisprudence and legal doctrine. Because it is these disciplines who "create" (or rather: reconstruct) situations and facts by subsuming available information under legally relevant general rules or laws (similiar to the natural sciences of the past centuries). A legal case in court is thus a discussion and deliberation between prosecutor and attorney (the communal aspect again) about what facts are at issue, and a great amount of effort comes into play as both parties aim to show how this and that information (or allegation), subsumed under this or that general rule, creates this or that legal fact with this or that consequence – or not. Judge and jury, not part of the (re-)construction of facts, then decide which (re-)construction is convincing and which not, and what follows from that.
Anyway, what determines the contours and size of a fact and how or whether at all they can change (increasing and shrinking like a balloon, over time) is one of the questions that keeps my mind buzzing.
As of this article, Shoigu becomes Secretary of the "National Security Council", replacing Nikolay Patrushev, the hardline nationalist and confidant of Putin (and his former boss in the KGB).
«As the Russian Security Council Secretary, Shoigu will among other issues oversee the work of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, which recently became directly subordinated to the president.
Apart from that, Shoigu will also become the president’s deputy in the Military-Industrial Commission. Now Putin is its chair, while Dmitry Medvedev is his first deputy in this body.»
The "Military-Industrial Commission" «answers directly to the President of Russia. It coordinates between the Defence Ministry of the Russian Federation, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and the defense industry of Russia.» https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Commission_of_Russia
So what Shoigu is effectively going to do is concentrating on procurement, replenishment, and logistics for the Russian army. And that makes good sense given his successes as Minister of Emergency Situations in the area of civil protection (1991–2012). (Prior before he became Defence minister responsible for the implementation of the army reforms already under way since 2002). He streamlined the Ministry, equipped personnel, and showed very good skills in natural disasters management.
So, no, this is not Putin dismissing Shoigu. This is Putin preparing for a long war in Ukraine and for that establishing the necessary economic and institutional changes for a continued materials supply to the Russian army.
An hour long conversation between Bari Weiss and Dr. Einat Wilf on Israel, Palestine, the 100 years of conflict, and a possible ways ahead in what Dr. Wilf calls "Arab Zionism". To me Dr. Wilf presents the most coherent and cogent scenario how Israelis and Arabs, Jews and Muslims, may co-exist, esp. after the now by-gone era of "land for peace". I admire Dr. Wilf's clarity. She may be wrong but conceptionally it's the best assessment I've seen in a very long time.
Thanks. I should have pointed out more clearly that any alternative to a liberal democracy – or at least: representative democracy with at least some form of division of powers, constitutional rights like free assembly and free press, and delegation of political will – becomes a form of government that, *because* it cannot provide means for sustaining disagreements and slow down the pace of debate, necessarily becomes oppressive, authoritarian, and, by that: violent.
Most people think that the prime feature of liberal democracies is that "the will of the people" is somehow and somewhat realized. Although that is a necessary condition of liberal (and I'd claim: every representative) democracies, the value and merit of this form of societal organisation and governance doesn't fall or rise by the question whether and how well this "delegation" is enacted.
That we have structural and legal means to sustain disagreements, esp. harsh and combative ones, is a trait of liberal democracies perhaps even more important. And it boils down to: How can we slow down the pace of the deliberation, how can we come to a procedure that not only takes into account the various aspects of a topic but is capable, via deliberation, to apply a method of contolled gradual complification so that we don't break down topics into pieces but raise their complexities (and thus number of aspects and facets) by the very process and method of deliberation?
Speed is of essence here, or more precisely: the slowing down of the process the more complex and contentious the topic / deliberation becomes. Without division of powers (etc.), you run into top-down command hierarchies – successful in the short term, but devastating in the long run.
While there may be representative democracies (not necessarily liberal once) with more efficient ways of conflict resolution and decision finding (e.g., the Haudenosaunee Confederacy or the Quakers), these are most often models designed for small populations. Liberal democracies on the other hand are currently the best way to accomodate differences in opinion without breaking apart the society of large populations.
The advantage of liberal democracies becomes even clearer when contrasted with non-liberal societies of large scale that generally tend to be authoritarian. Authoritarian or autocratic societies cannot deal with disagreements (esp. harsh once) except via force, oppression, and violence, which leads to silent populaces, complicit populations, or all out resistance movements.
So perhaps the benfit of liberal democracies should less be seen how well the "will of the people" is represented and applied, but by the way they allow for diagreements to occur and abide. They allow for the time necessary to sort things out without their societies breaking apart in the meantime.
Ah, someone realises that the climate movement is not just a privileged but an ableist movement. Which only says that political movements come with a price and that, as usual, it is the weakest who have to pay.