THE PANDEMIC is a global health calamity, with 3.1 million people dead in little more than a year. Yet almost nothing is known about how it began, and the first attempt to discover the origins went nowhere. In the next few weeks, the World Health Organization and member nations must rally anew to launch a credible investigation into how and where the pandemic got started.
No one should underestimate the difficulty — it might take years. But understanding the origins of this pandemic will help immensely in preparing for another one.
The recent joint WHO-China investigation found the most likely source of the coronavirus was a direct or indirect zoonotic spillover to humans. However, the mission reported that more than 80,000 wildlife, livestock and poultry samples were collected from across China’s provinces, and none tested positive for the virus before or after the outbreak. The investigating team said the least likely pathway was an inadvertent leak from a laboratory in Wuhan, where the outbreak first exploded. The leak hypothesis was not investigated, although it is known that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was carrying out risky “gain of function” experiments on bat coronaviruses, which involve modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically changed to respond as human respiratory cells would.
China has strenuously denied that a leak came from the lab, calling it a “farce,” and pointing instead to frozen food packaging from abroad. Whether China likes it or not, a serious investigation must encompass zoonotic spillover, the possibility of a laboratory leak and any other possibility backed by evidence.
A group of scientists, in an open letter released Friday, correctly called for a “full scientific and forensic investigation into all possible origins” of the virus, and provided a set of unanswered questions about the laboratory and its work. Some of them concern the mystery of a sickness that overtook six men in Mojiang, Yunnan province, in 2012. Three of them died after clearing bat guano in an abandoned mine. “To this day all the coronaviruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 come from that Mojiang mine,” the scientists say, yet the Wuhan institute, which collected samples, has cloaked its research in obfuscation and secrecy. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the United States and other nations are writing recommendations to the WHO for a broad phase-two investigation.
The WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has declared that a second investigative phase is necessary, and that no theory is off the table. The WHO is a member-based United Nations organization, and it lacks unilateral regulatory powers. Yet a credible phase-two investigation could not be more important. The WHO member states, meeting in late May as the World Health Assembly, must insist on the launch of a far-reaching inquiry with the proper staff and a wide-ranging mandate to go wherever the evidence leads. The virus origins may be hard to locate, but it should not be for lack of trying.
Read more: The Post’s View: We’re still missing the origin story of this pandemic. China is sitting on the answers. Josh Rogin: The WHO covid report is fatally flawed, and a real investigation has yet to take place The Post’s View: Where did the pandemic begin? China holds the key. Madhukar Pai and Manu Prakash: India’s covid-19 crisis is a dire warning for all countries The Post’s View: The WHO needs to start over in investigating the origins of the coronavirus
National security has always been a prominent discourse in Pakistan, as well as an integral goal of policy actions. The idea of security has evolved significantly over time, with scholars and analysts exploring its other dimensions such as economic security, energy security, food security, cybersecurity, etc. However, the governing circles in Pakistan are still clinging to the classical notion of national security which is related largely to military and defense. It is due to this narrow understanding of security that Pakistan is not being able to deal with both internal and external threats to national security.
It is immensely pertinent to grasp that political instability, chronic economic crisis, and social fault lines are deeply related to the issues associated with national security. In 2014, the National Action Plan (NAP) was formulated in Pakistan as a comprehensive policy action to root out the scourge of terrorism and extremism from the country. It spelled out kinetic measures in this regard such as military operations and intelligence enhancement along with long-term measures such as deradicalization, institutional reforms, and socioeconomic uplift. The reason why the objectives of the NAP could not be attained fully is that the whole institutional and analytical emphasis was placed upon short-term kinetic measures.
Although considerable gains were made against terrorism in northwestern Pakistan, extremism is still a simmering issue which again threatens to fuel the menace of terrorism. There have been minimal overtures by the government to bring about deradicalization in a true sense through well-directed reforms in education and media. Needless to say, prolonged economic downturn and a lack of political will are exacerbating the socioeconomic decadence across the country. All these factors combined have cast a shadow over the national security paradigm of Pakistan. Uneducated, unemployed and, hence, alienated segments of society are always vulnerable to militant outfits during their recruitment drive, eventually causing a threat to national security.
The state could launch military operations, widen the intelligence network and put people in jails in the name of national security, but all this would have a minimal impact unless a determined effort is made to win the hearts and minds of the people. And that can only happen through political ownership and socio-economic uplift of the nation. A literate, politically conscious, and financially secure nation would always act as the first defense against the enemy.
Apart from that, there is a legislative initiative in the form Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) to curtail crime and anti-state activities in cyberspace. This law again makes the mistake of viewing digital interaction purely through a security lens. One could ask why there are no substantial and meaningful efforts regarding digital education and the digital empowerment of the nation. It goes without saying that a digitally illiterate populace would easily end up falling into the hands of anti-state elements operating across the digital spectrum, thus undermining the fight for national security.
On the other hand, there is no doubt in the fact that Indian intelligence has penetrated deeply into the heart of Balochistan, the largest province of Pakistan. The arrest and subsequent confession of Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, an Indian national, substantiate this fact. But can the threat from India be countered solely through kinetic measures involving law enforcement agencies? Why is it so hard to understand that the state’s longstanding neglect of the province has indirectly pushed it into the hands of the hostile elements? It can be stated with utmost confidence that if the government starts working on winning the hearts and minds of Balochs through justice, socio-economic development, and political ownership, the threat of India can be countered effectively in a matter of few years.
National Finance Commission (NFC) is a constitutional body in Pakistan established for the purpose of vertical and horizontal distribution of fiscal resources among federation and provinces. Its formula of distribution is particularly unjust to weaker provinces like Sindh and Balochistan. Some fiscal prudence on the part of the government could go a long way in addressing national security issues in Balochistan. Apart from that, Pakistan’s economic base is signified by stagnant productivity and recurring macroeconomic challenges, causing debt to pile up with each passing year. Poor economic straits have deprived Islamabad of power and prestige in the international arena. Resultantly, India does not regard Pakistan as an equal in terms of resolving the decades-long Kashmir dispute between the two arch-rivals.
Moving on, Pakistan is facing a plethora of internal and external security threats to CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor). A recent unsuccessful assassination attempt on a Chinese ambassador in the city of Quetta is being viewed from this perspective. Fiscal challenges have deprived the government of adequate funds to be spent on the security of the entire CPEC network and the associated personnel. This case again reinforces the fact that economic security is highly imperative for overall national security.
It is high time the governing circles in Pakistan realized the ever-evolving nature of security and institutionally embraced its various dimensions. A holistic approach in this regard would enable the country to address national security issues in a comprehensive and sustainable way. Needless to say, this idea has become highly relevant in the era of 5th generation warfare. A country can amass all sorts of weaponry but if it doesn’t mend its internal fault lines, it gives a chance to hostile elements to make it fall under its own weight without even using force.
"discourse" - Google News
May 01, 2021 at 06:41AM
https://ift.tt/3vxwMvI
Deconstructing National Security Discourse in Pakistan - International Policy Digest
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Ethan Latour, left, and a couple of disc golfers at the Center Chains course in Waterbury Center. Photos courtesy of The Stowe Reporter
This article by Tommy Gardner was first published April 29 in the Stowe Reporter.
A man who penned a recent letter complaining about people encroaching on a Waterbury Center disc golf course is a government official who issued his complaint under a fake name.
Ethan Latour, the deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Finance and Management, wrote the April 16 letter under the pseudonym “Walter Blind.”
In the letter, addressed to Waterbury town officials, Latour accuses “malcontents” who live next to the Center Chains disc golf course at Hope Davey Park of “complaining with thinly veiled elitism” about the players who use the free, public course.
Latour was outed as the author when he sent a copy of the letter to the Stowe Reporter, and included his personal cellphone number and personal email address. It’s the same phone number Latour would occasionally list in his government email signature when he was working communications for Gov. Phil Scott.
Latour was promoted to deputy commissioner of the finance department in January.
“You got me,” Latour said Friday when reached at that number, sighing in dismay when asked about his opining on the hot-button disc golf issue under a pseudonym.
“It’s kind of tough, you know. You sometimes have an opinion that you’d like to express, but because you’re a public official, you can’t do it,” he said. “I made a mistake here.”
Latour’s boss, Adam Greshin, commissioner of the Department of Finance and Management, did not return numerous phone calls seeking comment but said in a short weekend email that Latour spoke to him about the letter.
“Ethan may have made an unfortunate personal decision on an issue he feels strongly about. It appears to be an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment,” Greshin wrote.
Greshin did not respond to other questions about whether he felt government officials ought to feel free to weigh in on issues or whether Latour would be disciplined.
Latour said he had been reading posts on the Center Chains Facebook page recounting grumblings from abutting property owners, some of whom had taken to sitting on the course and scribbling observations into notebooks.
“It just kind of rubbed me the wrong way,” he said.
In his letter, Latour said if Waterbury officials formally respond to complainers, “it will prove the few have power and influence over the many. And if you have the time, privilege and energy to yell and scream loud enough, you’ll get your way, regardless of the collateral.”
He said he wrote his letter mostly out of catharsis and regrets hitting the send button.
“I apologize if I hurt their feelings,” he said.
He said he particularly regrets using a fake name — Walter is the name of a college friend; he randomly chose Blind — when he could have just signed his own name to an issue he cares about.
“This is the first time I’ve done this, and it’ll be the last,” he said. “Outside of work, I have few passions, but disc golf is one of them. And I like being able to use the Waterbury Center course, and I think a lot of people feel that way.”
He said he regularly logs more than 5 miles playing 36 holes at the course.
Friction over frolfing
Center Chains — a free course where players toss Frisbee-like discs into chain link baskets over 18 “holes” — is a hot-button issue in Waterbury.
The disc golf course marks its 20th anniversary this year and has become one of the most popular courses in Vermont. In 2018, UDisc, a popular disc golf smartphone app, had Center Chains at the top of its list of most-played courses in Vermont, above professional-level, pay-to-play courses such as the ones at Smugglers’ Notch Resort.
With popularity come growing pains. In 2010, abutting property owners complained about players letting their dogs run amok as well as wayward discs and their tossers coming onto private property.
Friction has increased since 2016, after the 40-acre Moulton Farm property was subdivided into a 10-lot housing development.
According to Waterbury Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk, in recent years, after many years without complaints, some residents who live near the course started grumbling about “untoward activities,” from golfers trimming and cutting trees to urinating and defecating on their properties.
He said the town recreation department has been tasked with dealing with issues and coming up with stricter rules and regulations. He said some of them, like the prohibition of alcohol, can be difficult to enforce, although those getting drunk and unruly are likely in the minority and easy to catch, especially if players self-police their actions.
“It doesn’t excuse really boorish behavior,” he said.
Shepeluk was on vacation last week and was unaware of Latour’s letter. He said he disagrees with the Scott administration official’s assertion that “the few have power and influence over the many,” if the few — in this case, property owners — are being negatively affected by the many.
Latour, for his part, is concerned he did more harm than good for the cause of burnishing Center Chains’ reputation.
“I don’t think I’ve done much to help that,” he said. “Probably the opposite.”
Missing out on the latest scoop? Sign up here to get a weekly email with all of VTDigger's reporting on politics. And in case you can't get enough of the Statehouse, sign up for Final Reading for a rundown on the day's news in the Legislature.
This is the second article in a two-part series. Part one can be foundhere. To receive more stories like this in your inbox,sign upfor The Discourse’s West Shore newsletter.
Sitting on the southern border of the District of Highlands, B.C. is a 65-acre property that has been a point of contention since 2016.
The property, owned by O.K. Industries Ltd., is the site of an impending gravel quarry. In recent months, visible tree removal has sparked protests from residents, with bright-coloured signs of disapproval dotting the roadway near the parcel of land.
The Highlands sits close to Victoria — B.C.’s capital — with a sparse population of about 2,500. Its neighbours are among the fastest growing municipalities in the province. But the Highlands is different, by design. From its inception, the community’s vision for itself was as a forested refuge, away from the city.
Related story: The Highlanders: A community unites against urban incursion
On the face of it, this is a conflict like many others. A company proposes some new development, and environmentally minded community members stand in opposition.
It’s rare, though, to find a community so unified against a proposal. In a typical scenario, you may see the environmentalists on one side, and the people arguing for the economy and jobs on the other.
But the Highlanders are very nearly aligned. Three separate groups are now fighting the project on different fronts, even as development of the quarry begins.
The community opposes the project despite an Official Community Plan — developed by the community in 2007 and updated in 2013 — that suggests the area could support economic activity and perhaps gravel extraction. Residents oppose the project even though existing industrial activities and landfill sites take up two sides of the property. They continue to oppose it in the face of a B.C. Supreme Court decision declaring that they have no legal grounds to do so.
Residents can give you many reasons for their opposition — mainly environmental concerns over impacts on land and drinking water — but none of these matter so much as the simple fact that the community does not want the quarry to go ahead. They say they’ve lost faith in a legal system that, instead of protecting the community’s wishes, imposes laws that take precedence over the will of the people.
The company, meanwhile, is a little mystified. It has followed the rules. It came to the community to seek a workable solution before seeking a permit from the province, though it didn’t technically have to. It says its intentions are good: supporting local jobs and the economy while supplying the gravel that a growing region needs for its roads and buildings.
The two sides haven’t sat down together since the unsuccessful rezoning process in 2016. Now, the conflict plays out through protests, lawyers, courtrooms and the media.
The company has no plans to stop developing the quarry. It is, according to representatives, just following the rules.
“I recognize that the legislation, the way the laws and the rules work, are not quite how some of the Highlands population would like to see things unfold but those are the legal rules that we as a company are obligated to follow,” says O.K. Industries corporate advisor Mel Sangha.
“But there’s still people that aren’t happy with it. I don’t know how to change the legislation. Maybe it’s the legislation that’s the issue.”
On that, the company and the community members can agree.
Janice Fisher holds up a protest sign in front of the O.K. Industries Ltd. quarry site. Almost every vehicle that drove by Fisher honked in support of the protest. She waved and smiled with each sound of support. Photo by Shalu Mehta/The Discourse
A case for the O.K. Industries quarry
Sangha says the company’s original intention was to have the property — purchased in 2015 — rezoned by the District of Highlands to allow for a quarry operation. After the gravel is extracted the plan was, and still is, to turn the site into an industrial business park.
The company identified this location as a viable spot for gravel extraction for a few reasons. Sangha says its proximity to the O.K. Industries facility in downtown Victoria meant trucks would travel shorter distances to ship gravel to the company. Due to a lack of industrial space in the Greater Victoria region, Sangha says the next most-viable options would have been in Sooke or on the Malahat. He says shipping gravel from farther distances would make the operation more expensive, driving up costs for gravel, and would mean trucks are travelling farther, expelling more carbon emissions into the air.
“It makes the most sense,” Sangha says about the quarry location. “From a practical point of view you want less road wear and tear, you want less heavy truck traffic, you want the roads to be safer and you want less greenhouse gases to be emitted.”
There is already an industrial park to the south of the property. North of the impending quarry site is the Tervita Highwest landfill facility, which accepts contaminated material, according to the District of Highlands. Northwest of the proposed quarry is the Millstream Meadows site, which is owned by the Capital Regional District and is undergoing remediation. Millstream Meadows was used as an unregulated landfill for septic discharge between approximately 1941 and 1985.
The rest of the area around the O.K. Industries property includes a residential subdivision, the District of Highlands municipal office, Hatcher Swamp and the Millstream Creek watershed, which is undergoing enhancement of its salmon habitat. It is also adjacent to the western boundary of Thetis Lake Regional Park.
The property itself is zoned as Greenbelt 2, meaning it only allows uses that are residential and agricultural, including home-based businesses, buildings and structures.
Community values drive decision-making
O.K. Industries applied to rezone the property for industrial use in 2016 but the application was denied by the District of Highlands.
The district says the denial was out of concern for Highlands drinking water and ecologically sensitive areas, including Teanook Creek in the northern portion of the property and a wetland and woodland in the central portion of the property. The district says residents are also concerned about noise, vibration, dust and traffic impacts from the operation.
At the time, Sangha says, O.K. Industries expressed that if rezoning wasn’t approved the company would go to the province for a quarry permit instead. This would mean land use decisions related to the quarry would be put in the hands of the province, rather than the district. But the district still held firm in its opposition to the quarry.
Karen Burns, who was a Highlands councillor at the time, says the Highlands community has been vehemently opposed to the quarry operation since 2016.
“It was pitched to us as, ‘We’re going to have this wonderful industrial site for you in 25 years, as soon as we get all this rock out of the way,’” Burns says. “It was quite obvious that people in the community were just like, ‘No way.’ So the council rejected it.”
The District of Highlands office sits amongst tall trees. It’s not visible from the roadway, just like many houses in the municipality. Photo by Shalu Mehta/The Discourse
Taking it up with the province
Once the rezoning was denied, O.K. Industries applied directly to the province for a mining permit, as intended. In response, the District of Highlands wrote letters to the B.C. Minister of Energy and Mines and Premier John Horgan, who is also the local MLA, explaining the municipality’s opposition.
Over the next three years, O.K. Industries would undertake assessments performed by third parties to address community concerns.
“We engaged a review to answer concerns raised by the public,” Sangha says. The province granted a permit on the basis that the operation is legal and the potential issues were dealt with, he adds.
The permit, issued in March, 2020, requires that a water management plan for the site be prepared and implemented. It also says quarrying at the site can’t have a negative impact on the quality or quantity of neighbouring existing domestic groundwater users. Groundwater levels and water quality must be monitored. The permit says “drilling and blasting must not negatively impact the surrounding environment and properties in a significant way.”
A 2019 document from an O.K. Industries open house says the permit application was revised to reflect a smaller environmental footprint. The quarry would be limited to 95 metres above sea level — the same level as Millstream Road, Sangha says — to avoid creating a hole. The proposed quarry area was also reduced from approximately 52 acres to 40 acres. Buffer widths between Teanook Creek, Thetis Lake Park, the tributary to Millstream Creek and Millstream Road were increased as well.
But those concessions haven’t changed the community’s position. At its core, the community doesn’t want the quarry operation in the Highlands.
“It’s been said in so many ways … that we do not want their business, their industry, their activity in our community,” says Scott Richardson, chair of the Highlands District Community Association. “It’s as simple as that. We’ve asked them to listen and they don’t … and nor do we feel that the mines ministry has really heard us.”
In fact, Richardson says the quarry has unified the community even more over the last few years. Now, three different arms of the Highlands — the municipality, independently organized residents and the community association — are working to maintain agency and have their voices heard.
While the municipality and the community association pursue separate legal avenues to affirm the community’s right to have the final say, the Not OK community group is making noise through public protest, seeking to connect with communities with similar struggles and looking towards a bigger goal of reforming the Mines Act.
A map of the O.K. Industries Ltd. quarry property and surrounding area. Screenshot taken from O.K. Industries Ltd. open house documents
Communication breakdown
Sangha says O.K. Industries Ltd. hasn’t sat down at the table with representatives from the District of Highlands since the failed rezoning process in 2016. While he says he respects the decision to let the courts handle this issue, he says he’s willing to try and come to a resolution. But he’s not sure what that would look like.
“We’re open to dialogue, I just don’t know where to start,” Sangha says. “The conversation started in the courts and continues in the courts and protests on the streets … until those avenues are exhausted and maybe at that point there might be some desire to sit down and say, ‘OK how should we proceed?’”
But Richardson says any opportunity for dialogue is a year too late.
“It’s been over a year [since the province issued the permit] and it would have been nice if they listened,” he says. “They would have found out that we don’t want it … and maybe it would have been a good time to consider looking somewhere else and meeting with the community to figure out what they want.”
While he recognizes the company’s need to make money and remain operational, as well as the need for gravel and asphalt in the region, Richardson says he wonders if O.K. Industries believes money to be more important than the company’s reputation and environmental issues like climate change.
O.K. Industries approaches its work in the context of the Capital Regional District, Sangha says, and its need for more gravel and asphalt as the population grows and develops. He says widening the lens outside of the Highlands brings perspective to the company’s work and the benefits of having a quarry operation nearby.
Sangha questions why residents are so opposed to the O.K. Industries site but aren’t as vocal about the landfills or the industrial park south of the quarry property.
A sign at the entrance of the industrial park south of the O.K. Industries Ltd. quarry on Millstream Road. O.K. Industries Ltd. operates a quarry for a third party under contract at this site. Photo by Shalu Mehta/The Discourse
Both Richardson and Burns say they’ve accepted that there’s already an industrial park in the area and are willing to work with it. They’ve also accepted that the landfills exist and can be remediated in the future. But moving forward, they want the focus to shift to what they call “re-wilding” the properties when the opportunity arises — restoring natural habitats again and giving back to the planet. To them, the quarry seems like a step in the wrong direction.
“There was this old idea that the South Highlands would be the economic engine and that it would reduce the taxes for the rest of us living in the Highlands and we could preserve the rest of the Highlands,” Burns says. From her understanding, “It was never envisioned that there would be a mine on the site. People were thinking of a green campus, low-impact commercial development and low-rises.”
The district’s official community plan, the same one that notes potential for gravel extraction, also includes a sustainability objective intended to guide decision-making that explicitly lists reducing dependence on materials extracted from the earth and the creation of associated wastes. It also says the Highlands “will strive to diversify its economy while preserving [its] natural systems, including the aquifers.”
Looking at legislation reform
While this years-long dispute has the Highlands and O.K. Industries on the face of it, Richardson and Burns both say that ultimately the legislation needs to change before a dangerous precedent is set for the rest of the province.
The Not OK group is starting to research reforms to the Mines Act. Burns says they hope to reach out to other communities in B.C. that may have experienced a similar issue of the province overriding the will of a community. They are likely to find company.
The BC Mining Law Reform Network also promotes changes to mining practices and mineral development laws. One of the network’s objectives is to ensure policies respect community decisions and are environmentally sound.
“The network is not against mining, but it is against mining at any cost, or price,” the network’s website says.
“We have this Mines Act that just overrides community values, bylaws and procedures,” Burns says. “I mean, this could happen anywhere.”
"discourse" - Google News
May 01, 2021 at 07:47AM
https://ift.tt/3u9714u
OK Industries v. the Highlands: A fight for agency — The Discourse. - The Discourse.
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
The rule we established for this Toronto Raptors team in last week’s 3 Lessons has held steady. Never commit to a direction for the team, so long as you don’t want constant frustration and confusion. The play-in momentum has been cooled by a couple of tough losses with a few more tough ones on the horizon. Raptors Twitter has reversed course more times than a family road trip with a crew of forgetful children.
Luckily, I’ve finally managed to separate myself (somewhat) from the results, and just ride this thing out, win or lose. In that time, I’ve learned some. We start with Khem Birch, arguably the GROAT.
1) Birch is a perfect fit defensively
Although the numbers are over a small sample and are likely very inflated, Khem Birch has had a transformative effect on the Toronto Raptors. In his time with the team, they are 24.9 points per 100 possessions (!!!!) better when Birch patrols the hardwood, per Cleaning the Glass. Absurd. That number would be the best in the league if it were to have persisted for the entire season.
It is on both ends too, as 10.3 of those 24.9 points per 100 possessions that we gain come on the defensive end. Birch is not a Rudy Gobert or Joel Embiid, e.g a player who erases mistakes and acts as a defense unto himself. Rather, this number is a testament to his fit with the other Raptors starters, excellent defenders in their own right. With four quality defenders in front of him in the starting lineup in Pascal Siakam, OG Anunoby, Kyle Lowry, Fred VanVleet, and occasionally Malachi Flynn instead of one of the guards, Birch just needs to be the glue that holds these pieces together.
He just needs to be on time to help.
Or just flash to a spot with his hands up to cause enough hesitation in the opponent for his teammate to recover and keep everyone else in position. He’s fast enough for that job.
The Raptors (at least the starters) don’t leave their centre out to dry, that five-man just needs to be there when they need him. With Birch’s athleticism, smarts, and anticipation, he fits that role and more, mixing in the odd spectacular play.
I still haven’t developed a sophisticated opinion of him as a big-man stopper a la Marc Gasol, as the Raptors opted to have OG Anunoby guard Nikola Jokic for the bulk of last night’s game against the Denver Nuggets in a matchup that has been a fiesta for the past couple years. But everything else checks out.
I don’t know if I’m completely crazy, but I have no idea why we’re not just slotting Birch in at starting centre next year, provided he signs with the team. He’s unselfish, gritty, smart, athletic, a great fit, and likely won’t be too expensive at a position where there seem to be diminishing returns past a certain point unless you have a Jokic or an Embiid. I think that makes sense, and look to spend elsewhere. I am a Khem major through and through.
2) OG is playing with house money
One of the more interesting things to monitor this season has been the local perception of the players, a constantly fluctuating topic. Of Toronto’s young core, Pascal Siakam has been the most polarizing test case, with opinions of him varying wildly and shifting game-to-game, obviously a product of his inconsistency. But it seems beyond irrational at times. VanVleet is not immune to criticism from the fan base either. The discourse around OG Anunoby, however, has been consistently positive.
He’s established himself as perhaps the most impactful player on the team over the course of the season, largely because his defense, which is comfortably among the best in the NBA, stays consistent. His consistent positive effect, independent of his offense, makes it easy for him to stay on our good side. In the last couple weeks, we’ve caught a glimpse of Anunoby’s offensive potential, which is beyond that of a super-charged role player — my presumed ceiling of his offense. What I fool I am.
This evolution has been really impressive and has been thoroughly enjoyed by all. But now that it’s happened, there is no going back. When Anunoby inevitably experiences some growing pains, will the fan base turn? Perhaps it won’t be as harsh as the perception of Siakam, but it’s tough to imagine it being quite as cheery with Anunoby as it is currently.
So, let’s enjoy this moment while we can before the weight of contracts, expectations, and labels weigh too heavy on the young, budding star in Anunoby.
3) The Raptors play in May
Unless the Raptors can stand tall against some giants in the next few games and the Washington Wizards stop winning at the pace of the 2015-16 Golden State Warriors, their streak of playoff appearances will come to an end. The streak of above .500 seasons in the We The North era will also end. But we can finagle some streaks here yet.
As a result of the shifted schedule, the regular season extends deeper into the spring this year. As of now, in a typical year, we would be watching playoff basketball. Instead, we are still slogging through the regular season, and the Raptors will be playing some May ball.
So, now, when we’re making arguments about franchise prestige, we can subtly note that we’ve played beyond April in six consecutive years and then hope and pray that our adversary doesn’t take into account what that means for this season. This argument will likely gain in strength in a few years.
The Raptors are presumably set up for sustained success in the future, and if this is the case, then this pandemic season will be cushioned on both ends by playoff appearances. We can then say things like, “wow I can’t remember the last time we didn’t play in May” and be completely genuine. It’s a small silver lining but a silver lining nonetheless.
Until next week, when the Raptors have rattled off three straight against the best of the west and we once again have to shift our expectations of this season.
"discourse" - Google News
April 30, 2021 at 11:30PM
https://ift.tt/2Sddk8Z
3 Lessons for the Raptors: On Birch’s defense, the OG Anunoby discourse, and May basketball - RaptorsHQ
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
This article also appears in the Opinion Today newsletter.You can sign up here to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.
Today, Times Opinion published a guest essay by the Black linguist John McWhorter, which is an adaptation drawn from his new book, “Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter.” His article both uses and refers to several obscenities — most notably a slur against Black people, the use and history of which is the topic of the essay. Instead of using a phrase like “the N-word” or “a slur against Black people” in this article, we print the word itself. It’s an unusual decision for The Times — and we want to share the reasoning behind it with you.
McWhorter traces the history of this particular word from its inception to its current place in our culture. He argues that the evolution of the use of this slur not only mirrors “a gradual prohibition on avowed racism and the slurring of groups” but also demonstrates a cultural shift in the concerns of the words our culture considers truly profane: from the sexual and scatological referents of the classic four-letter words to the sociological referents of slurs. While the taboo against using most four-letter words has gradually faded, the taboo against slurs has intensified.
We wanted to present our readers with this argument in the clearest and most respectful way.
Generally speaking, at The Times, we don’t use asterisks or dashes to obscure obscenities. But even if we were willing to break with this practice, McWhorter’s piece is about the word itself — its etymology, sound and spelling. Using asterisks or dashes to veil the word would render this discussion incomprehensible, as would using a phrase like “the N-word.” Employing that phrase as a stand-in would also make the essay hard to follow, since part of the article concerns the distinction between the use of “the N-word” and the slur itself. So we came to the conclusion that printing the word was the right solution.
McWhorter’s argument has implications that go well beyond linguistic curiosity. As he writes, “What a society considers profane reveals what it believes to be sacrosanct: The emerging taboo on slurs reveals the value our culture places — if not consistently — on respect for subgroups of people.”
Tracing the evolving use of this slur and the controversy it engenders — even within The Times — shows us how our society and what it respects have changed.
Yna Flores, left, of San Jose, and Korina Gov, of Milpitas, listen during a “#StopAsianHate” rally in Saratoga on March 27. Hundreds attended the gathering in support of the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders communities. (Anda Chu/Bay Area News Group)
Recently, several leaders I greatly admire led “Fight the Hate” rallies, spurred by the growing hate crimes against our Asian-American neighbors. We’ve witnessed, with horror, similar attacks against Blacks and Latinos, and we must continue to stand in solidarity to rally against racism.
Yet we must do more than “Fight the Hate.” We must also take positive, proactive steps to “Spread the Love.” In San Jose alone, where our population is nearly 40% Latino, 35% Asian and nearly 5% Black, we can show with our words, our wallets and our deeds our appreciation and admiration for the rich cultural and ethnic diversity that is the bedrock of our society.
We can take proactive action professionally and personally, through our time, treasure and talent. Here are three immediate ways that we can act:
• San Jose Aspires: Through the leadership of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, SJ Aspires equips and empowers high school students in some of our most diverse yet underserved communities with some of the funds needed to successfully pursue a college degree. The mayor has personally raised more than $5 million this year alone, to provide college scholarships of up to $5,000 for 1,000 high school students.
Why is this important? Only three in 10 San Jose students complete any postsecondary program. Low-income students are two times less likely — with Latinx and African-American students three times less likely — than their peers to earn a bachelor’s degree. It’s why my employer, Bloom Energy, supports this solutions-oriented initiative.
• Latinos in Technology Scholarship Fund: Through the tenacity of former San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley created the “Latinos in Technology Scholarship Fund” to focus financial support for college students seeking STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) degrees at four-year universities.
Why is this needed? In Silicon Valley, only 3% of tech jobs are filled by Latinos. Several years ago, my wife Leslee and I supported a young Latina — the first in her family to go to college — as she secured her mechanical engineering degree at San Jose State University. She is now employed at one of the top renewable energy companies in the world, based right here in Silicon Valley. We are now helping another young Latina earn her engineering degree, also at San Jose State. With annual contributions in the $7,000 to $10,000 range, many of us who have been blessed by Silicon Valley’s success can pass along those blessings to others behind us.
• Reading Partners: Helping underserved students, especially kids of color, cannot be limited to those already in high school or college. The earlier we can help, the more likely will be a child’s pathways to progress. It’s why even a small investment of time — as little as one hour a week for a duration as short as 10-12 weeks — can permanently benefit the life of a child.
Reading Partners provides a way to serve as a reading tutor to a K-6 student in the safe space of a school or library. A little training combined with a lot of compassion is all that is needed to impact an elementary school student. The first student I tutored, at Horace Mann Elementary School in the shadows of San Jose City Hall, advanced a full grade-and-a-half after just one semester of reading together. It was transformative, both for her and for me.
This year, let’s continue to stand up for everyone in our community. It is vital that we are not silent, that we stand up and speak up for others as we battle hate, mistrust and intolerance. Concurrently, let’s also step up with our time and treasure to lift up everyone in our communities. Some may wish to tear us down. We win together, only when we lift others up.
Carl Guardino is executive vice president for government affairs & policy at Bloom Energy, headquartered in San Jose.
From exhaustive fact checks to contentious briefing-room clashes over the administration's "alternative facts," debunking the whirl of lies became a full-time process and started derailing pressing long-term conversations. But as the past few weeks have shown, the mendacity that once seemed like a feature of politics in the age of Trump has outlived the former president's Twitter feed.
The past week alone has featured increasingly ridiculous false claims issuing from the right. There's the one about the Biden administration taking away Americans' hamburgers. And the one about the White House giving gift bags with the vice president's book to migrant children -- that one was effectively retracted by the New York Post and the reporter resigned, saying she was forced to write a false story.
As those pseudo-stories suggest, while we may have dispensed with some problems unique to living in a country run by an inveterate liar, questions remain about how to deal with a continuing torrent of politically useful falsehoods. And they remain because the problem both predates Trump and was exacerbated by him; indeed, it goes to the heart of how journalists think about what they do.
A key tenet of professional journalism from its earliest days has been exposure, particularly the mandate to thrust bad deeds into the spotlight that the doers had tried feverishly to conceal.
Exposure also meant airing a range of ideas, more or less evenhandedly, so readers could sort through them independently to decide what they thought. That last instinct intensified in the late 1960s as politics grew more sharply ideological. Increasingly, media outlets sought to feature a voice from the right and a voice for the left in order to strike a pose of balance and objectivity.
But what happens when the incentives change, along with the meaning of "exposure," and the goal is no longer to persuade people of the merits of an idea but simply to expose as many people as possible to a false story? According to that huckster-like rationale, exposing the idea -- even while debunking it or pointing out its ethical and logical flaws -- plays into the hands of the people circulating conspiracies.
That dynamic predates Trump's rise. Since the 1990s, conservative media has developed a symbiotic (or parasitic) relationship with mainstream news. For all the talk of silos and bubbles and echo chambers, the real power of right-wing media outlets has been their ability to influence the coverage of non-conservative outlets.
Conspiracies about then-President Bill Clinton regularly crept into the national news. In 1995, "60 Minutes" devoted a segment to the death of Vince Foster, a Clinton staffer who had died by suicide two years earlier. In right-wing circles, though, Foster's death was treated as a conspiracy: a murder covered up by the administration.
There, true believers could pick up any number of books and videos and articles all devoted to the Foster conspiracy, which had so much staying power that one of the most-watched national news shows spent time once again debunking it -- not, as host Mike Wallace explained, because the facts were in question, but because the conspiracies circulated so widely.
Fox News was founded the following year and would go on to expand its political influence largely thanks to the coverage its stories received on other networks. Over the years, the relentless and inaccurate flogging of pet issues like "Fast & Furious," Benghazi and of course, Hillary Clinton's email server, seeped from Fox News into other outlets.
Matt Yglesias, writing for Vox in 2018, dubbed this the "hack gap": the more outrage one is willing to perform, the more headlines one gets. And the right has been much better than their opposition at performing outrage.
This prowess holds even, it turns out, when the outrage is powered by something simply conjured from thin air. That was the case with birtherism, an easily disproven claim about President Barack Obama's birthplace. While mainstream journalism had no truck with birtherism, it thrived in the right-wing media marketplace, where politics, conspiracy and entertainment grew indistinguishable.
Fact checks by mainstream media -- including Obama's decision to release a second version of his birth certificate in 2011 -- had no lasting effect on belief in the conspiracy, which actually grew in popularity during Obama's second term in office.
The case of birtherism shows that debunking a lie, unless handled very carefully, doesn't work. Exposing a lie for the falsehood it is can actually spread misinformation further by repeating the false claims. So the more journalists try to do their work -- the work of exposure -- the worse the situation gets.
That dynamic has been amplified by two major media developments of the past few decades: the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which enable the rapid spread of misinformation, and the economic restructuring of journalism, which rewards vast amounts of content delivered at a rapid pace and encourages outlets to cover the outrage of the day. The remaking of the information environment means that journalists are not the only ones who have to adapt -- the rest of us do as well.
During the Trump era, things got trickier. Journalists felt they couldn't turn away: after all, the primary source of misinformation was the president of the United States, and they had to cover him. But in a post-Trump era, it is clear that the problem is not an adversarial or polarized relationship between the press corps and the president. The problem is deeper and more structural: it's the way non-conservative outlets get used to further circulate conspiracies.
There's not much that can be done about the proliferation of right-wing outlets. A new Fairness Doctrine won't do it, and as long as there's an audience hungry for the kind of content provided by right-wing talk radio and broadcasters like Fox News, boycotts and the other economic activism will have limited effects. So when it comes to misinformation, the approach should focus more on containment.
For journalists, part of the solution has to be cutting the cord with Fox News and its fringier cousins. That doesn't mean ignoring it all together -- I've recently argued that we have to pay attention to people like Tucker Carlson, who uses his show to spread hate -- but scaling back the overall coverage of right-wing stories. When outlets do tackle something like Carlson's use of "great replacement theory," they should do so in deeply contextualized ways, so the story is less about what Carlson said last night, and more about the ways unfounded xenophobic and racist talking points get woven into his prime-time show.
For the rest of us, one of the most important things people can do is to resist the temptation of social-media dunking.
I know: sharing outrageous clips to call them out comes with a surge of adrenaline and righteousness -- as though with enough retweets, people will finally understand how poisonous and fraudulent the material is. But that's not what happens. Instead, the misinformation winds up before millions more eyeballs, often without any real context or explanation.
The problem of misinformation is a thorny one. It is particularly difficult to fix because it plays on the virtues of journalism, its commitment to exposure and fairness. But in an information environment in which exposure aids misinformation, the best approach is a deeply unsexy one: to ignore the shiniest, least reality-based objects -- no stories or tweets on illusory beef bans, for instance -- and to deeply contextualize the rest, to help people understand the incentives behind the spread of misinformation, and why it's suddenly everywhere.
That is slow, hard work that likely won't be rewarded with prizes or film treatments or Twitter virality, but it can start the process of defanging misinformation in a post-Trump era.
He remembers a time before small-government proponent former President Ronald Reagan, when Democrats stood before the country and said unabashedly that a big and bold government was exactly what the country needed.
And that makes Biden an old fashioned New Deal liberal in all of the best ways.
The number of times that Biden said "jobs" on Wednesday night -- over 40 -- was almost worthy of parody. But in some ways, it was as if he was making up for what's been missing in government for decades. Americans, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, suffered significant job loss. And Biden fully believes that job creation is one of the most basic functions of government.
He also believe green jobs can be a part of the solution. The Green New Deal has appeal not just because of climate change but because of the potential job opportunities it offers. Biden said as much: "For me, when I think climate change, I think jobs."
The last president who pushed solar energy, Jimmy Carter, said Americans were being too self-indulgent and needed to move away from fossil fuels. During the energy crisis of the 1970s, when supply shortages led to skyrocketing gas prices, Carter told Americans this directly: "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption."
However, instead of pushing alternative fuels as economic stimulus and job creation, Carter, the moralizing Sunday school teacher and centrist Democrat, was shaming Americans for their consumerist ways. That went over like a ton of bricks.
Still, despite Carter's shortcoming, he and Biden have remained close, and on Thursday, the President even visited him at his home in Georgia. But Biden has also learned from Carter what not to do when selling an idea to the American people.
On Wednesday night, Biden understood that he had to offer -- and provide -- something more palatable. He reached back to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt because he was the president who, like Biden, was unflinchingly a proponent of the little guy.
With one in four Americans out of work, Roosevelt came into office during an incredibly challenging point in US history. In the days after his election, as he was planning for an unprecedented growth of government to rescue the unemployed and transform the nation, Roosevelt confided to Frances Perkins, the first female secretary of labor, "my hope is that I can accomplish something worthwhile for the man at the foot of the ladder."
And, in his 1933 inaugural address, Roosevelt asked for "broad executive powers against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were invaded by a foreign foe." The era of big government had arrived.
Fast forward to the 21st century and Obama spent much of his administration talking about growing the country from the "middle out." But, on Wednesday, Biden went one step further -- saying it was not just about helping the middle class, but also about lifting up the poorest. "My fellow Americans, trickle-down economics has never worked. It's time to grow the economy from the bottom up and from the middle out."
In a 1932 radio address, Roosevelt invoked "the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." And nearly 90 years later, Biden was reaching for those Americans, too, when he described the over $2 trillion American Jobs Plan as "a blue-collar blueprint to build America."
He didn't spend time talking about the value of going to college and getting middle class jobs. Biden spoke about getting good paying blue-collar jobs. "Nearly 90% of the infrastructure jobs created by the American Jobs Plan do not require a college degree."
What's more, these "good paying jobs" should be protected by the strength of unions. Now there's a throwback. When's the last time a president made a full-throated defense of unions in a speech to a joint session of Congress?
But Biden's been advocating for the little guy since his first year in government -- 1973 -- when the years of postwar boom came to a crashing halt and the energy crisis set in.
Truck drivers, who transported the nation's fuel and food across America, were struggling to pay the soaring gas prices. When they rose up in protest, Biden was with them. Literally. He hopped on a big rig, traveled some several hundred miles from Delaware to Ohio, and said he knew why they felt "angry and frustrated." They has been "left out" and mistreated -- and politicians has an obligation to help them.
And that's what Biden did so brilliantly on Wednesday night. He stood before a hurting nation and said that government has a duty to help. And if Congress -- and the American people -- support his administration's initiatives, "There is nothing ... nothing we can't do."
People of color, especially Black people, have long felt pressure to alter their natural hair to conform to what society has deemed "acceptable." It's demeaning, and—quite frankly—sad. And it's time we proudly rocked all of our kinks and curls without being punished for it.
That's why the CROWN Act is important.
“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair," or CROWN, is an act that would prohibit race-based hair discrimination in Texas schools and workplaces. The CROWN Act would make it illegal for employers and educators to deny an individual employment or educational opportunities due to the length, texture or style of their hair.
It's sad that there even has to be a law in place, considering no other race has to deal with their hair being a Civil Rights issue. But here we are.
Dreadlocks can be worn just as neat as any other hairstyle, so why are people of color constantly deemed "less professional" for their desire to pay tribute to their culture?
Blacqbook/Getty Images/iStockphoto
The law hasn't passed in Texas (yet), but with April 27 being Texas' CROWN Act Day, Texas Legislative Black Caucus members are working around the clock to see that it happens.
As a Black woman, I am tired of feeling like I can't or shouldn't enter certain spaces because my hair "isn't done" or straightened. I am tired of being asked if my hair is real or if someone can touch it. It's the hair I was born with, not a science experiment.
This is also the reason people of color get so upset about outside races wearing braids or other protective hairstyles. The issue is not the style itself, but the fact that you have an entire group of people who are seen as "less professional" in the workplace and even denied jobs for rocking styles they created while others are allowed to copy it and receive compliments? It's disgusting.
The CROWN Act is necessary for the culture, and the fact that Texas isn't moving quicker to pass it is quite telling.
Personal opinion: I don’t think the issue with cultural appropriation is the fact that white people or other POC wear braids for “fashion” I think the real issue is that black people may get denied jobs, education and oftentimes get hate for it. pic.twitter.com/n5xPr9AF3t
Many of you erroneously think because a girl has loose curls that her hair is “easier” than yours. If you can’t drive a car, it doesn’t matter what kind of car you have, YOU CANT DRIVE. Her hair may be “accepted” by your community’s standards, but not necessarily by hers.
— Hair by Jennifer-Rose NYC (@JenniferRoseNYC) April 28, 2021
Whether anyone wants to admit it, hair discrimination is race discrimination. And we've had enough.
Politics take up more of our collective conscience now than during pre-Trump presidential administrations. The country just underwent an election cycle and presidential term so divisive and consequential that voting turnout ballooned and curiosity in political processes has enveloped much of the country’s population, even affecting those who would otherwise consider themselves apolitical. There is no sign that the division is waning. Amid these developments, social media, a realm that is a large part of people’s daily lives and oftentimes even serves as people’s main source of information on political issues, depicts a troubling picture of how people approach political discourse on virtual platforms.
Unfortunately, social media agitation that often features ad hominems and heated language has become so prevalent that politicians now weaponize this rhetoric to delegitimize those on the other side of the political aisle. Democrats, for example, are now seen by many conservatives as the party of “cancel culture” in cahoots with “Big Tech” to push their agenda forward; therefore, Republican politicians have portrayed their own side of America’s political system as that which champions free speech. As a result, the propagation of issues bearing miniscule importance may have a role in actually switching people’s votes, given that a whole plurality of those polled in a POLITICO survey believe that “cancel culture” threatens civil liberties. Present-day perturbation in today’s agitated online world and how that atmosphere is exploited play a role in diminishing healthy discourse. Why is this happening?
America’s white supremacist history is a significant factor in people’s tendency to be aggressive on social media. In a country where many tout nationalistic exceptionalism and might, systemic inequities of class, gender, race and sexuality linger. It is good that these issues are brought into the limelight in think tanks, the halls of Congress, classrooms and casual in-person discussions. Activity on social media from people representing different issues takes on a more mixed image. It is true that worthwhile, substantive content is shared and discussed on social media through informative threads, helpful resources for information, and conversations that may leave users with more knowledge and perspective. However, since people are more likely at a given time to interact with complete strangers in the comment sections and therefore can opine with seemingly more anonymity, some turn to the vast division in people’s beliefs as to what America should become and feel more safe in facilitating tension. Users release flurries of heated remarks and mockery towards one another concerning trivial issues that fail to represent much greater and ongoing problems in society but instead mirror the content of their online echo chambers. This is unsurprising, considering that according to a Pew Research survey, 84 percent of social media users believe that the statement, “People say things when discussing politics that they would never discuss in person,” describes social media sites well. Despite the fact that some people want to express beliefs in good faith, social media has become a platform of increasing vulgarity and frustration.
Another reason for the absence of substantive discussion in social media politics is the boring nature of traditional political discourse. There is a special thrill in spending time on social media looking at hypocrisy among news anchors or what politician drank water mid-speech or which activist humiliated that college student. We naturally enjoy seeing content that reaffirms our moral sanctimony, and we have social media to partially blame for reinforcing that tendency. Social media algorithms are designed to keep users drawn, not informed or satisfied. In fact, algorithms can be the determinant factor in how people see the world, so much so that the line between fact and fiction may blur.
This is where radicalization can fester. If one were to view a few Facebook posts about a conspiracy theory about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the algorithm may understand firsthand that this is the kind of content that appeals to the user. It makes the pattern of content a curious user scrolls through self-reinforce, and it builds a more constricted understanding of reality, regardless of whether it reflects the truth or not. When people are increasingly pushed into hyperpolarized filter bubbles of thought, they find a sense of community and develop a strong animosity toward the “other,” which is psychologically invigorating. These elements of thrill and bitterness in social media controversies have corrupted what would otherwise be substantive discourse. It curiously puts into perspective why QAnon accelerated in popularity throughout the last few years, notably among those who have not been as exposed to politics before. In a time when the current political struggles in America are viewed as moral crusades, connecting Chrissy Teigen’s use of pizza emojis to her alleged association with high-profile Democrats and Jeffrey Epstein in acquiring adrenochrome from children in the basement of a pizzeria becomes psychologically appealing. Yet, it means nothing. Chrissy Teigen just likes pizza.
Why is this lack of substance harmful? Since the middle of the previous decade, a sea change in politics revolutionized online political interaction. As former President Donald Trump changed the character of the Republican Party and further augmented the negative image of conservatism, liberals became increasingly disgusted, yet determined to advocate for change when granted the opportunity. Many of them have taken on responsibilities such as conversing with those in disagreement, posting important updates about political developments and even calling voters in swing states during the 2020 election cycle. Social media, however, is a more prevalent hotspot for people to fulfill their desires for validation or to affirm their moral sanctimony. People on opposing sides of the political binary are much less respectful to each other on social media than in real life for this reason. Since the state of affairs under Trump’s presidency had inflamed division more than in previous years or possibly even decades, people frequently unfriend or block one another because of something one may have said about a certain politician or some other measly nuisance not worth the attention it is being given. This further fed into Trump’s ability to garner a political base because he only empowered the uproar against “cancel culture” as a pugnacious consequence of “liberal tears.” It allowed him to embrace his overt misogyny and non-traditional mannerisms as a bulwark against the liberal sensitivity falsely generalized by those who oppose liberals. This is an important example about how anger, especially when exploited and weaponized by influential figures, consumes Twitter feeds and self-perpetuates.
Furthermore, it is counterproductive to civilized discourse and the prospect of progress when people consistently block or unfriend others for differences on trivial issues. Many who are passionate about politics but block users in disagreement are left with a constrained social media circle that only consists of people with similar ideas and values. This further worsens the atmosphere of agitation because it makes those who narrowed their field of acceptable viewpoints more likely to condemn others’ moral judgement for the slightest differences. It becomes a feedback loop. And it isn’t solely focused between liberals and conservatives. For example, it is not unusual for Biden voters in comment sections to curse out leftists who wanted to vote for a third party, and vice versa. This vitriol is a story vastly different from what happens in person, and blocking others on social media turns a space for potential discourse into an unproductive echo chamber that puts rare dissent at risk of swift condemnation.
Disinformation also plays a crucial role in magnifying frustration and hostility in different social networking platforms. Bots and fake accounts take social media vitriol to a greater level by elevating content that warps the truth. They function as technological sleeper agents, hashtag hijackers and “trolling.” The sources of fabricated accounts tend to be both foreign and domestic, though there is a growing awareness of their dissemination by foreign sources in the wake of election interference revelations, particularly Russian interference. Disinformation does something much worse than just elevate rudeness according to political differences. When lies, “alternative facts” and situations taken out of context conjure up multiple realities, they become psychologically effective in pitting people against one another through emotions of anxiety and rage. A video of then-candidate Biden in October circulated among conservative networks and social media accounts, in which he slipped up and said, “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Those who were in denial about Trump losing the 2020 election referred to Biden’s quote as a Freudian slip, and despite how unimportant that moment was, it became part of a campaign of lies that eventually drove an angry mob to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. It’s one thing when political differences create tension; it’s another thing when social media manipulation makes basic reality disputable. As technological advancement makes media manipulation easier and more attractive, the societal detriments grow.
Diversity of thought is essential to a functional democracy. Democratic discourse has been significantly corrupted and made into a platform of animosity by elements that factionalize perception of reality. While social media should ideally produce beneficial interactions, participation or accumulation of knowledge, the element of thrill behind trivial issues and prevalence of anger have had a negative impact on people’s mental health. Also, isolating oneself from adherents to a different political train of thought will never fuel change. My hope is that in the future more people can be kind and understanding, but also wary as to how different kinds of social media engagement affect their mental health. It’s important to ask oneself whether engaging in combative argument with somebody on Facebook who randomly comments, “Commie Dumbocrats want to RAISE GAS PRICES!! TRUMP 2024!!” is really worth it. People occasionally share concerns about spending too much time on social media, yet maybe it is also important to concern oneself about the return value of that time.
"discourse" - Google News
April 29, 2021 at 04:09PM
https://ift.tt/32Y6c2i
Why did American political discourse on social media become more agitated and less substantive? – The Miscellany News - Miscellany News
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
