He claimed, and until today I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he was trying to curry favor with a notoriously bribe-able President. Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue, but I wouldn't be able to do business with nearly any company in the US if I made that a dealbreaker. This clears the bar where I'm willing to cut ties and demand that everyone else do the same.
Just because you're on Sauron's side when it wins, doesn't mean you'll be on Sauron's side at any other point in the future.
One of the things I find interesting about classifying literally any kind of trait within bounds of 'normality', and the culling / suppressing / discouragement of anything outside of that definition, is that there will just be new 'edges', and in short order these edges will be 'other', suddenly outside the definition because times are bad and it has to be someone's fault.
And so an ad infinitum until the single supreme ruler is the one entity representative of normal, atop a mountain of dead abominations.
> One of the things I find interesting about classifying literally any kind of trait within bounds of 'normality', and the culling / suppressing / discouragement of anything outside of that definition, is that there will just be new 'edges'
There is a general rule I've discovered many years ago, through playing EVE ONLINE and learning understanding how society works. Not the modern EVE ONLINE, the old EVE ONLINE. It was really good for that.
Every new generation grows up with a new norm. Whenever hardship or challenges are being removed, then the new generation, having never needed to learn how to deal with them, will have a lower tolerance of them in general.
Your "new edges" generally aren't actually new. They've always been there. It was just that nobody really cared, because they weren't the end of the world: People knew worse.
can you provide that history? the best I can find is a single story where they incorrectly reported four children as dead, which I can only really find being discussed in reddit comments. surely if they have a 'documented history of being wrong' you're referring to something more material?
Depends how much you weight you place on 'anti-Israel NGO'. Assessing for myself by simply watching the content, I do not find it objectionable. Referring to what is happening in Gaza as 'ethnic cleansing' is not biased language, it is calling a spade a spade. IMO.
The Wikipedia page for ngo-monitor.org is quite revealing:
> NGO Monitor is a right-wing organization based in Jerusalem that reports on international NGO (non-governmental organisation) activity from a pro-Israel perspective.
Someone said I shouldn't be trusted because I'm a zionist. Not because I've gotten things wrong or made errors, but because of who I am. That's a classic ad hominem.
By contrast, I correctly pointed out that Forensic Architecture has a history of getting things wrong. That is true and useful as one heuristic in evaluating their present argument.
So there is a clear difference.
With that said, it is fair of you to ask me to refute the specific claims. Here are some problems I notice based on a skim.
- No independent verification: raw audio/video isn’t published, no hashes/chain-of-custody, and key artifacts are "available upon request" (shot-marking files, scripts). They also use ML denoise for speech enhancement. In a poisoned info space, that’s a giant trust-me step, no good for OSINT.
- Model guided by testimony: the minute-by-minute reconstruction claims relies on witness walk-throughs in a 3D model to fill gaps. Wartime testimony (especially in Gaza) is notoriously unreliable, yet the writeup reads like courtroom certainty.
- Headlin eexaggeration. "point blank range" reads like the whole event was muzzle-close. In the report it’s basically "8 shots from between vehicles" + one inferred 1–4m shot. That’s not killed point blank.
- Overconfident negatives: no exchange of fire is a strong claim based on limited recordings. Absence of audible return fire in a few clips isn’t proof.
- Quick search reveals names of 15 dead are
PRCS: Mustafa Khafaja; Ezz El-Din Shaat; Saleh Muammar; Refaat Radwan; Muhammad Bahloul; Ashraf Abu Libda; Muhammad al-Hila; Raed al-Sharif.
Civil Defense: Zuhair Abdul Hamid al-Farra; Samir Yahya al-Bahapsa; Ibrahim Nabil al-Maghari; Fouad Ibrahim al-Jamal; Youssef Rassem Khalifa; Anwar al-Attar.
UNRWA: Kamal Mohammed Shahtout.
The IDF claims that the six in the Hamas civil defense force were militants. I can't personally verify this, but I'd say that's a rather important detail missing from this article.
The main character suffers from DID. From trauma that happened when he was little. Maybe you didn't watch the whole thing, that seems pretty "human drama"-ey to me.
That's not human drama. That's a sensationalized depiction of a really rare disorder that 99% of the audience has no experience with and cannot relate directly to.
Of course that's human drama, the entire show is drama. Even the "spy thriller" subplot is motivated by death of Whiterose's partner and the need to put the world back the way it was.
It's the wage theft versus retail theft problem, no matter which one has higher 'real' costs, society has decided that one is the 'real' problem that we should prioritize.
Back in the day, Google eng had pretty unguarded access to people's gmails, calendars, etc. Then there was a news story involving a Google SRE grooming children and stalking them through their google accounts...
reply