The modern period where we take great pains to excise religion from the public sphere is not the historical norm. The norm is that many - if not most - political, and indeed geopolitical, events throughout history had religion woven into them. It is not difficult to find examples of this throughout European history and pre-history. I know you are making a statement on what you feel "ought to be", but I assure you this "ought" is not the usual course of business in world history. A solid quarter of people today live under regimes where politics and religion are deliberately intertwined, a historical aberration.
There's a subtle irony of this rule, which is that in order to stay in compliance with this law a savvy Priest tends to weave more sophisticated moral teachings into their Homilies that make it very obvious what or who they are advocating for or against without explicitly naming them.
The selection process for Seminary and becoming Ordained is much more rigorous and difficult than a credentialing exercise that you pay for. I share your cynicism about masters programs, but I don't think it's applicable here. Funnily enough, my favorite professor in college was one of my math professors who was also a Catholic Priest and would say Mass on the weekends at the nearby chapel. Extremely hostile to using technology to teach us, except in very narrow circumstances, and I am all the better for it and so is everyone who had him. We have a much firmer grasp of the theory because he made us write it down (a lot). There are few things more rewarding in life than feeling that "click" in your brain that unlocks a new permanent level of understanding.
You are acknowledging that technology, specifically the smartphone, is bad for learning environments. This is a statement that extends beyond the classroom, because why would a smartphone be bad in the classroom for learning but not bad for learning when they're doing homework outside the classroom?
I'm old enough to have straddled the analog to digital transition. This likely results in a higher amount of internalized skepticism about technology than those who grew up as digital natives. With that out of the way, I think your lockdown plan is a bit misguided. We should not lockdown technology like this, we should ban it for learning. I know that may sound insane, but every interaction I have with younger people who grew up as digital natives shows they have a weaker and weaker grasp of everything from the underlying theory of whatever technical issue we are talking about to the basic ability to communicate their thoughts in writing. This is only going to get worse with AI.
There's a reality here in 5-10 years from now where there's a bunch of olds who know roughly how things work, and the following generation who has no clue and not only has no impetus to learn, but no ability. That's the difference between the prior "old man yells at cloud eras". At least in prior instances the follow-on generation could actually learn the job.
I think the reasons are a little more complex. The geography and history dimensions are plainly and obviously different, but criticizing Iran is wrapped up in layers of criticism of political Islam, which is harder to do for the people who tend to prioritize the plight of Palestinians. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the logical end state of the governing ideology of Hamas, and it's probably just easier to ignore the inconsistencies here than to emphasize with what's going on in Tehran right now.
> it's probably just easier to ignore the inconsistencies here
For people who actually actively think of both, that may be the case?
But "ignoring" presumes the comparison feeling potentially valid to them in the first place. It's not ignorance or even an inconsistency if the comparison would feel so apples-to-oranges that it doesn't even occur to them.
Maybe my view is distorted here, so here's a question to check that. Among the people you see complaining about how little attention is being paid to Iranians compared to Palestinians, (a) what fraction of them are themselves Iranian (excluding those with, say, loved ones in Israel), and (b) if you feel part (a) is small, then what is the largest group of people (and what percentage would you say it constitutes) that you would say you most often find making this comparison?
I think they’re overwhelmingly white, conservative, American, and usually are religious. We may be indirectly saying the same thing. The Palestinian cause is wrapped up in a number of other issues where the demographic overlap is not likely to include the same people I observe being upset about the lack of coverage of this protest movement in Iran. I don’t have a good explanation for that phenomenon, other than the perception that Persians are not members of a group-type that would otherwise elicit sympathy on the dimensions of identity, ethnicity, and so on.
I'm not saying you're wrong (or right), but that you're simply jumping to a much more complicated explanation than what I'm seeing. My point was much more straightforward than that.
All I'm saying is: you addressed (b), but what about (a)?
That is, if you believe this comparison is merited, then surely Iranians would at least be making it themselves reasonably frequently? Now I don't know I'm living in a bubble, or if I'm just not keeping up with the news (I know for a fact there is a lot of news I'm missing, so I wouldn't put this past me by any means), but I simply don't see Iranians themselves going, e.g., "Why was there so much worldwide support for Palestinians but not for us?!"... is this something you do see?
If so, I'd love to hear more about it (links or even anecdotes would be great)... but if not, I'm suggesting that maybe the comparison just isn't apt, is all.
In fairness (to myself, I guess) I did start this thread out by saying that I do think this is more complex.
With regard to your question, my mistake I thought I implied an answer to (a). Of the people I see complaining about this, a very very small fraction are actually Persian. It's really just one person, and she's someone I met through my wife while living in LA. There's not that many Iranian ex-pats living in the US relative to ... people who are not Iranian ex-pats, I guess, so if the point you're making is "Iranians who do not live under the regime don't care about this criticism" it's certainly possible you are correct, as I have n = 1 evidence to the contrary. My commentary was more on the general case, though, and I'm not sure how meaningful it is to try to discern the exact percentage of "Iranians not living in Iran are upset the media isn't covering the regime murdering its own people". This would be par for the course, no? It's not like it would be a surprise. So, what does it matter if the percentage of Iranians complaining about this issue is high, or low?
There's a very critical bit in my comment that is missing in your response unfortunately -- I'm not sure if I'm communicating it poorly, so I'll try again, with more emphasis.
> I'm not sure how meaningful it is to try to discern the exact percentage of "Iranians not living in Iran are upset the media isn't covering the regime murdering its own people". This would be par for the course, no?
I'm lost here, because that was not at all the percentage I was talking about -- and it didn't need to be even remotely exact, either. I was asking what percentage of Iranians (whether local or expat, although local would be even more relevant here) you see/hear about that compare the global reaction to their situation to the global reaction to Palestinians' situation.
This comparison bit is absolutely critical. It's one thing to be upset the media isn't covering some situation you feel deserves more coverage. It's a whole 'nother thing to be pointing toward the Palestinians as if whatever is happening regarding them has any bearing on another case. (And, let's be clear, it carries an implicit accusation of bias/hypocrisy/etc. in the media and/or public.)
> So, what does it matter if the percentage of Iranians complaining about this issue is high, or low?
Assuming "this issue" refers to what I meant and not what you described:
It matters a ton because my entire point is that for the argument to stand on its merits, Iranians themselves would have to agree with you. And yet I have not even heard of one single Iranian (and I assure you I know n > 1) who has even brought up Palestine in the discussion, let alone drawn a comparison between the two. Given the conflation above in your comment, it's not even clear to me whether your n = 1 data point was doing so either, but perhaps they were.
Again: this could be my bubble, but your experience seems to confirm what I'm saying too.
If hardly anyone in the population itself finds such a comparison apt enough to draw, then I'm sorry, that means it simply isn't. At that point, you have a perfectly sufficient explanation of why "all [one's] friends who posted non-stop about supporting Palestine have NEVER made one mention of supporting the Iranians protesting that regime": because they the situations aren't comparable to begin with, regardless of any biases one may allege.
I see. I can't say I've ever heard of or seen Iranians attempting to compare the situation back in Iran with that of Palestinians in Gaza. To be clear, though, I never claimed (or at least I didn't intend to) that the situation in Gaza and in Iran currently is or was comparable. I think, or at least I thought, the comment that generated this stub had to with with perceived bias in media coverage of the events themselves, to which my point was that there are probably reasons that Americans - as complex as the political dynamic is in this country right now - would sort themselves into groups that would care about one and not the other.
The case for intervention in Iran is much stronger, from the perspective of the United States, if you zoom out and realize that a larger fight in the Pacific is brewing and it would be wise to remove a player from the board who would happily provide access to fuel and refining capacity to PRC. Not saying I agree with this, necessarily, but it helps to steel man the more sophisticated cases when you are trying to understand complex geopolitical events.
To the extent that the protests are being "engineered", certainly there are elements of that, but why wouldn't there be and why would that be bad a priori? The regime is uniquely terrible in the world, and if you listen to Iranian ex-pats who fled it seems clear a lot of the kids that supported the revolution in 1979 quickly realized that it was a mistake, and that they underestimated the extent to which the new regime would prioritize regressive islamism over actually addressing what were at the time legitimate economic inequality issues.
>it would be wise to remove a player from the board who would happily provide access to fuel and refining capacity to PRC.
Washington has an easier way to do that: namely, to use its navy and the Sentinel Islands (controlled by Washington ally India) to prevent the transit of tankers from Iran to China.
Yes, possibly, but running an indefinite blockade or interdiction operation is still costly. It is lower in complexity in terms of operational capabilities required than a decapitation strike against the potential co-belligerent, although this is rapidly changing, but in order to effectively run one you are dedicating a very sizable percentage of your overall combat power away from the front. Additionally, I am skeptical that the Indian Navy could handle such an operation independently. Their fleet size has grown over the last decade, but, as alluded to, interdiction operations are increasingly complex so they would likely need assistance at least at the beginning. It's also, I think, a stretch to call India an "ally" per se of Washington today (maybe "partner" would be more accurate), and I find it hard to believe that India would effectively enter into a world war on behalf of the United States.
There is an argument to be made that a maritime interdiction operation is a better approach, and the information I would need to decide definitively which approach I think is better is likely very classified.
Link to SCOTUSblog coverage, which has the link to the actual opinion. I tend to eschew early media coverage of things like this and just go to the source.
We could probably spin this around in the other direction, too. NASA and prior administrator behavior has a certain bias against SpaceX and Musk. It’s no secret that Musk’s, shall we say, eccentric personality caused him to find few friends in Washington up until he cozied up to Trump. It makes sense that there would be pressure to get an alternative to Falcon 9 and Dragon ready with that additional context in mind.
Did you read the article? There's no evidence cited in it at all. This comment thread made me think "wow, Palantir must be selling PHI to the mob" or something, and The Intercept has the receipts, but the article simply states that Palantir has a contract to run medicaid billing. It then goes on to say that Palantir also works with other government agencies like ICE (bad), and the Israelis (worse than ICE), and the UK (they've crossed the line now!)
It's entirely left up to the reader to fill in the blanks that whatever is going on with this contract is nefarious and bad.
The Intercept used to do good work, but this article is complete trash. At least the author was self aware enough to reference the 2016 reporting.
there is absolutely evidence a government agency is using palantir. the very beginning of the article:
> New York City’s public hospital system is paying millions to Palantir ... automated scanning of patient health notes to “Increase charges captured from missed opportunities,” contract materials reviewed by The Intercept show.
later it explains:
> Palantir’s contract with New York’s public health care system allows the company to work with patients’ protected health information, or PHI ... Palantir can “de-identify PHI and utilize de-identified PHI for purposes other than research,” the contract states.
so a government agency is allowing palantir access to private health information to use for other purposes other than research.
again, i dont know what kind of "evidence" you're looking for, but much of the conversation ive seen revolves around those two pieces of the article.
those two pieces of "evidence" i find to be terrifying if it were any data brokerage, but considering what we know about palantir and its founders/leaders its even moreso. and again, it seems entirely appropriate for the discussions to happen from the "evidence" the article puts forward.
the government should not be sharing private health information with private corporations "...for purporses other than research" and it absolutely shouldnt be using those data brokers to sidestep warrantless data collection protections.
if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens, thats fine, you're entirely within your right to think thats rad, but we're also allowed to think this directional shift is absolutely terrifying.
So, again, there are two relevant paragraphs in this whole article and all they do is point out that New York is paying Palantir to optimize their billing infrastructure, and then it observes that, in order to do this, New York is also giving them PHI that Palantir is permitted to de-identify and use for other "research" purposes.
This tells us almost nothing. You're obviously a cynic (understandable) about technology here, but this journalist could've done a lot more work to actually explain to the reader the nature of this so-called "research". Is it defined in the contract (most likely)? How long do they get access to this data? Are there other constraints? Has Palantir violated any terms of this contract (The Intercept is intimating that they are in at position to know this, since they have the contract materials so they say) with regard to use of this data? Are there reporting requirements if the terms of the contract are violated? Is Palantir required to notify New York about the use of PHI for these research purposes?
The Intercept doesn't tell us any of this, which to me suggests that there's not a lot of "there" there. Did they ask anyone in a position to know about the contract? No, they didn't, all they did was send a gotcha email to the mayor's office. This is not journalism.
>the government should not be sharing private health information with private corporations
How exactly do you think Medicaid/Medicare works? Private corporations handle PHI all the time. There is an entire industry that exists to do exactly that.
>if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens,
TFA doesn't say this.
Look, Palantir and others involved in XKS and all the rest of warrantless and illegal surveillance activity do not get the benefit of the doubt. My problem here is that this article is shit, is intended to generate clicks, and the quality of investigative journalism on this topic is a pile of hot garbage. There's dozens of other questions this journalist should've gone out and investigated but, no, it was easier to drop in two paragraphs that tell the reader nothing, and then build up a bunch of ancillary observations about other work that governments and private corporations do (all legal, btw) to make everything sound as inflammatory as possible without actually informing anyone of anything.
Considering that other agencies have been using palantir (and other data whores) to sidestep established norms on gathering/using information against its citizens, and considering that the article pointed to just some of the other well known instances of those other agencies using that private company, i think its entirely reasonable for people to discuss "this situation is concerning".
if we take all context away and only look at this in some weird isolated island, sure, "lets wait for more information", but ignoring wide swaths of context is honestly kind of silly. we don't do that in the real world: courts take context into consideration, military takes context into consideration, board rooms take context into consideration, household planning takes context into consideration, data hoarding takes context into consideration, and on and on. when we consider wider context, yes, this is an incredibly worrying trend.
i don't know how many different government agencies would need to feed data/slurp data to/from these private data brokers before you would feel comfortable calling it out, but it clearly isn't at that point yet, and that's ok. you're entitled to your opinions, and so is everyone else. much of the conversation here indicates those people are concerned that its very quickly getting worse.
it doesn't matter if its bush's administration, clinton's, biden's, or trump's, this is gathering momentum and i think its wrong, regardless of who is in charge.
we've been moving towards a situation where privacy dynamics are flipping on their head. we are now at a point where those with the most power expect complete privacy and cry foul when people reveal their deeds. while those with the least amount power, if they wish to engage with society on any meaningful level are forbidden to have privacy. this is yet another example of the government and private companies working together making this new lack of privacy dynamic worse.
> if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens,
you're correct here, i misspoke, i should have said access rather than amass:
if you think the government should be able to access enormous dossiers amassed by a private company to use against its citizens that's fine, you're entirely within your right to think that's rad, but others are also allowed to think this directional shift is absolutely terrifying.
Okay, so, your point appears to be that the government sharing any data with the private sector for any purpose is axiomatically bad, and this is because your null hypothesis is that doing so is going to have deleterious effects on privacy norms. If that's your point, it's certainly a defensible one. My original point was that this article does not provide evidence one way or another in that regard because it is (very) poorly researched and executed. Perhaps I am making a meta point that, in order for those who hold your views to more convincingly argue the case, the evidentiary standards need to be raised because otherwise it just looks like noise - and in particular re: Palantir, there is an enormous amount of FUDD and mystery (intentional or otherwise) around what they do, and as a result of this people reflexively revert to "data sharing bad, BigCorp evil" like this is a Marvel comic book movie. Not saying you are doing that, but any time this company comes up the comments become retrenched and the usual technical depth that this website is supposed to be known for goes out the window.
The logic you're applying here is "ICE uses an iPhone app to illegally scan people's faces and hunt them down" -> "Every hospital's iPhone app is just a tool to send your private data to the feds".
reply