The strategy the UAW is currently employing is led by the union’s new militant president, Shawn Fain. He was elected in March after the UAW changed its election process from a delegate system to one member, one vote in the most recent leadership election. He has assumed a new posture for the union’s leadership: for example, refusing to endorse Joe Biden for president until he supports the UAW’s efforts to unionize electric vehicle facilities, and rejecting a ceremonial handshake with auto manufacturer bosses before the start of contract negotiations.
In the critical swing state of Michigan, where tens of thousands of UAW members work, the union holds an outsized influence over state politics and, in turn, nationwide races. That means union support will be crucial for Biden’s reelection chances in 2024. Capitalizing on the Biden administration’s tepid support for the UAW strike, Donald Trump announced he would speak to autoworkers this month, drawing condemnation from Fain.
So fucking good. Need this militant take in the labor movement to spread like wildfire.
My only question is, if not supporting Biden what would they then suggest? Not voting? Because voting for the other guy, you may as well disband your union now
The Democratic party should not feel themselves entitled to the union vote. Asking them to deserve it is fair. That they're less evil than Republicans is granted, but that's a very low bar. They should aspire to something better even if they need to be goaded into it.
It's worse than their other denials. They will definitely enact these extremist plans and try to destroy our democracy, but Trump and his team will pretend otherwise until he's in position. How do we know? They told us. The Heritage Foundation is a terrorist organization.
At this point, I fully believe the conspiracy theory that Elon Musk is just a scapegoat/shill who is intentinally destroying twitter because it was a good tool for people to organize against companies and governments.
Those are the motivations of his sponsors (the Saudis etc). He thought it contributed to his trans child’s “woke mind virus” and he definitely threatened to buy it out of rage and then once forced to decided he’d fucking destroy it
Those are the motivations of his sponsors (the Saudis etc). He thought it contributed to his trans child’s “woke mind virus” and he definitely threatened to buy it out of rage and then once forced to decided he’d fucking destroy it
I’ll buy that as a motivation, but I think he’s destroying it because he’s a petty bitch who can’t handle that he was forced by the courts to do something, namely buy Twitter.
Frankly I don’t like the “but we could be spending this better at home” argument because the people making that argument invariably would refuse to actually do so, and instead just give out another tax cut.
That money would never end up going in to a single payer healthcare system, SNAP, education or building out more sustainable infrastructure. We don’t do these things not because we don’t have the money for it, we don’t do these things because they would undermine the influence of large financial and corporate interests.
There is a much better argument to not fund Israel, and it is that they’re attempting to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, have flaunted all of the treaties and agreements they made for near on 20 years, and they’re current leadership was undemocratically put in power.
Because Ukraine is generally a fairly popular foreign ally with little mainstream controversy around supporting them. So if you wanted to undermine support for them, easier to knee cap support for the bill from the other direction.
I don’t know: Does that framing take away from the international law argument? How long has that argument been in play and how has that worked so far? It’s a powerful framing in that it illustrates the power that money being used to fuel hate could instead have for some semblance of good. Even if it’s impractical among today’s US elected officials. Also, arguments like this are how to get negotiation leverage. In general in this political climate, while we might want to be prepared to compromise I challenge the wisdom of leading with a compromise. I say different strategies need to be tried until something sticks.
The framing is a poor one, it is built on a fundamental lie about how money works in the US government. It’s a very weak framing that only ever convinces people who already wanted to defund a foreign effort. More importantly, most of this bill isn’t tied to Israel, it’s tied to other efforts like Ukraine, so really what this is arguing for is to stop supporting Ukraine. Most of the funding for Israel comes through other channels.
So to support this framing is to just undermine support for Ukraine and do little to stop Israel. Support for Ukraine is non-negotiable.
Can you elaborate on what specifically the “lie” is? The logical side of me takes the words “truth”, “fact”, and “lie” very seriously, and I worry that we too often use them to express a point of view including pragmatism. I’m genuinely curious!
As much as I agree, I am not sure whether this is what they are aiming at.
The law’s provision of civil damages means that private actors — including those with seemingly endless resources — can bog you down in costly and distracting litigation,” Shamas said. “This means that Palestinians and those who support their rights become ‘high risk’ — and those who they rely on — charities, funders, banks or social media companies — are chilled from further engagement. The goal is to isolate Palestinians.”
Mozilla is bending the knee to Russia? Is this real life? Have we stepped into an alternate timeline? Whats going to happen to all the psycho FireFox users when they find out this happened, will they stop screaming at everyone to use FireFox?
I'm not sure what you expect to happen. If they don't do this, Russia will ban Firefox. And I do think, it's better for the Russian people to have Firefox available, even if it bends its knee in certain situations. Because I'd wager the alternatives proactively stick their tongue up Putin's.
I know it says the extension is not available from the Firefox addon site if using Russian IPs, but I wonder if they have also gone so far as to make the browser itself not be able to install them in other ways. I would guess they have not, since that would mean a complicated setup in terms of the signatures, like they would have to have a separate FF version and set of signatures per country, or use a central server to authenticate things rather than client validation of signatures. In that case it would be easier to find the addon file somewhere other than the store and install it, since using unsigned addons requires installing a whole separate version of Firefox.
Even if that's how it is this whole thing still illustrates that prohibiting unsigned addons from being installed is user-hostile, because on an ideological level Mozilla probably would use that power to advance state censorship if it came down to it.
Ah yeah, true, getting just the signed XPI should work as well.
And well, it is tricky. The signing requirement allows them to block malicious add-ons, which could also be used for state censorship.
I think, offering a separate path for people to install unsigned extensions, if they need it, while blocking them for the majority and therefore making them inviable for malware to target, that's in principle a smart compromise.
Also, side-note: Folks who are on Linux likely don't need to install a separate version of Firefox. Linux distros tend to compile with the unsigned extension support enabled (just need to toggle the flag in about:config).
I guess in this case the malware angle means it's probably better to require signing, since maybe Russia could successfully distribute malicious fake versions of these extensions otherwise. Still, the centralization here is worrying.
This sounds like the memo is a style guide against biased language which is pretty common.
News is supposed to give you information, not persuade you to take an opinion and normally a style guide helps do that in a consistent voice. I'd be interested in seeing the entire memo.
A style guide is a general guidance regarding grammar, style, common journalistic practice. This refers to a single topic, and it is clearly biased towards the Israeli government's view.
For example (and as the article reads), the memo instructs
to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab war ...
but the very same areas
are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.
Can't they cite the UN now?
I'm sorry, but this is a first step towards the principle of free journalism and towards autocratic systems. That's not good practice imo.
All of that can absolutely be to reduce bias; there doesn't have to be some sinister motive. FWIW, the publication issuing these criticisms is heavily left-biased. Essentially, The Intercept is criticizing another publication for not putting enough bias into their reporting. I would consider that to not be good practice.
One of the main way biases are determined is by what words are chosen to describe a particular situation. From MBFC: "They [publications] may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes),"
All the memo is doing is setting the tone to keep from introducing strong biases. Again, no sinister motive and just sticking to the facts instead of appealing to emotion.
Can't they cite the UN now?
I'm sure they absolutely can if quoting someone from there; no need to jump to conclusions. Style guides are meant to reduce the amount of author / publication bias or otherwise provide a consistent tone among different authors under a particular publication.
Again, I have not seen this particular memo in whole (just the parts that this article cherry picks to make their own point), but I'm aware such guidelines exist and are common.
theintercept.com
Top