First, I think she’s a shameless exaggerator.

Second, this is so stupid. Forget your health: how do you actually think you’re effective without rest? Every human being knows exactly how rest works, because we can all run this test ourselves.

This myth persists that some people can force themselves to be effective with minimal rest by pure will, despite the fact that every one of us has experienced sleep deprivation at some point, and all of us know that without sleep we have the intelligence of a 9 year old.

Anyone who claims to be the exception to this biological rule is either lying or they’re stupid because they didn’t sleep and now have the intelligence of a nine year old.

Also: not “needing” sleep is often something said by people with insomnia. People like Trump and Musk do survive on only a few hours of sleep a night. But this isn’t because they’re strong or smart: it’s because their brains are not functioning correctly and they can’t get sleep they need.

Sleep isn’t optional. This PM is fucking up their job by walking through life confused and disoriented.

I addressed this in several other responses.

I’m aware that there is a strong consensus among the actual scholars who study this. The issue is that a consensus is being obstructed throug editorial control by elites. The question being debated, imo, isn’t whether Israel committed genocide (we all know they have). It’s whether Wikipedia breaking standard procedures is a sound strategy to circumvent the suppression of truth by elites.

I think the case in both directions is strong. It’s very appealing in the short term.

Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?

Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.

I want to be clear.

I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.

This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?

I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.

The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.

I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?

Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.

It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.

I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.

Deep take. Thanks for sharing.

I think the comment being posted accidentally in the wrong thread makes more sense.

What does this mean?

WOW. So that’s where that video came from.

This is such a wild portrait into this attorney. They’re a lawyer in the Israeli army, so I can’t not assume that they’re ultimately complicit in so many atrocities. And yet they also did something incredibly selfless and dangerous in the name of justice, which most humans will never ever do.

It must be enormously painful to sacrifice your career and entire family’s social standing to bring a gross abuse to light, and then have much of your own society say, ‘Now that we’ve seen this proof… We’re going to stick with our position. You thought we’d change when you proved the claims of rape? No, we’re just going to admit that we endorse rape.’

I do appreciate their bravery, because the release of this video, imo, has been one of the most impactful events in the narrative of Jewish Israeli self image. This event did force a reflection. It forced Israeli Jews to confront that their actions were inconsistent with their belief that they are a righteous people. Unfortunately, it seems that when faced with this incongruity, they resolved the conflict by accepting that they’re the bad guys rather than insisting on stopping it. But I think accepting it did move the world another step towards accepting reality. And that’s progress towards the day the occupation is ended by external pressure.

Reported experiences vary between the hundreds of hostages, but in general, public statements have been inspecific declarations that they went through hell. A smaller number have spoken more publicly and described specific horrible abuses. Prisoners released by Israel largely mirror this, which is consistent with an abundance of public evidence that Israel operates extremely brutal extrajudicial torture camps.

But honestly, I’m not sure why we’re still talking about this. This started because you said that you believe it’s important to exercise skepticism towards sensationalist claims, and I pointed out that it’s equally dangerous to ignore credible atrocities because they are too shocking.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is really not that complicated. If you’re unaware because you’re not following it, that’s fine, but then I think it’s ignorant to demand extreme forms of evidence for things which are already well documented that you can’t be bothered to review.

The US is materially supporting a state sponsor of terrorism in broad daylight. This is publicly acknowledged by experts and major figures within Israel. Do with that information what you will.

You know, that’s kind of a weird response. Because what I asked was whether or not my interpretation of a set of events fulfilled your criteria for credibility. And instead of answering a pretty simple yes-no question you asked whether Greta Thunberg has published photos of her unclothed body.

I feel like you responded in your head, and then imagined my response, and then wrote a response to that.

But I think I can infer that you’re unconvinced.

Now I gotta ask: if that’s your standard of evidence, do you also doubt the veracity of the Israeli hostages returned from Gaza who attested to being tortured and abused?

If not, I think you’re exercising some pretty “selective” skepticism. And if so, congrats on your neutrality but Jesus Christ, that’s fucked up. When anyone gets back from captivity and alleges that they were abused or raped or violated, requiring them to expose themselves to you as the price to have their claims considered is quite gross. It’s not even an effective form of proof. Most torture is markless, and bruises are easily faked.

I’m not asking you to “believe women” or accept any victim narrative unexamined. I’m just pointing out that you can judge victims credibility without demanding that they submit to your leering gaze. Don’t believe Greta? Fine. I think that just as the hostages are far more credible witnesses to their own treatment than Hamas, the hundreds of flotilla activists testimony is far, far more credible than IDF. But you do you.

So where does this fall for you?

Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.

Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.

So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.

I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?

That’s pathetic. You’re either an artist or a philosopher. No engineer would be able to write such nonsense

(What no art education does to a mfer)

I’m actually an automation engineer!

Look: it’s fine to be unfamiliar with ideas, but please don’t be rude and stubborn about not knowing something.

You should read Einstein’s writing. Sagan too. If you place technical knowledge as the highest (or only) form of intelligence then maybe they’ll break through for you.

Can I ask how old you are, and what your parents do/did growing up?

I don’t want to come off as mocking, but it sounds like you don’t understand the role art plays in a functioning society.

Artists explore ideas at the lowest level of a chain of creativity that extends up to scientists and decision makers. In the same way that rocket engineers rely on physicists and chemists to uncover the science that underlies engineering, and physicists and chemists require mathematicians the uncover the math that underlies physics and chemistry, artists essentially research the human condition to allow their society to weigh whether building a rocket is worth doing; where it should go; what it should do; who should be on it; etc.

Our collapsing society could in some part be blamed on the fact that our economic system has failed to fund research into the ideas and social technologies that we need to transition away from obsolete social systems.

It’s so bizarre… surreal… darkly comic – I don’t know the right phrasing for this – that Ben G’vir so embodies this Israeli form of double-speak. He will deny and confess in the same sentence.

He is the kind of guy who will say ‘Any accusation that I am a torturer is a lie! Also, though, I do believe that torture is appropriate and I’m very committed to acting on that belief.’

So much has happened, many people don’t know or remember. But I feel like the Sde Tilman riots were a turning point. Soldiers caught on camera raping a man in detention. And the public outcry including from members of the government was ‘They’re innocent! And also completely justified in raping that man! We’re not criminals! And also we will bring furious violence against anyone who tries to hold us accountable under the law!’

Trump does this too, though even he isn’t as skilled at it. ‘To call me a fascist is slander! How dare you! But also I don’t consider that a bad thing.’

It’s very dark.

OAN: "I was saying Boo-urns."

I appreciate this answer, because it at least tries to reason from first principles. You can’t, imo, have this conversation without actually defining what we consider to be the problem.

I think the key concern is that age – particularly during teenage years – typically correlates with a power imbalance. And the concern is that the younger person could be exploited and/or suffer harm. However we need to remember:

1. It’s possible for relationships to have a power imbalance and no one is harmed or looks back with regret.
2. It’s possible for relationships between people of the same age to be very harmful/regretable.

So the questions I have are: how correlated is a specific age gap with severe harm? And what would we advise in this situation?

I think that a 16 year-old probably has around a 50% of getting badly hurt in a relationship with another 16 year-old, and probably a ~65% chance with a 19 year-old. Because a 19 year-old can probably manipulate a 16 year-old better than their peer, but they’re also presumably a bit more experienced and mature, which can be a good thing.

I’m making these predictions presuming that they’re sexually active, btw. Which I think is probable. But if they’re not, I think that the risks go down to around 10% chance in both cases. This is just my gut impression. So I’d just advise any 16 year-old in a relationship with a 19 year-old to move VERY slowly physically, and talk frequently to an older friend or sibling. And if your partner wants to do anything you’re uncomfortable talking about with your older friend or sibling, that’s a sign you shouldn’t do it.

If you follow that rule, I think 16 and 19 is no big deal. Because I really want to emphasize: a lot of the risk already exists when a 16 year-old dates someone their own age.

Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.

But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.

Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?

For a second I misread and was like, wait, what? Then I clicked and was like, ok, wow. That’s a take…

Respectfully:

Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you’d like to be true?

(Be honest.)