What are you reading, watching and listening to? - All languages

[Raphael]

I don't understand why I did this, because I usually don't have a masochist streak, but for some reason, I spent parts of last night hate-listening to two podcast episodes featuring two Israelis who talked at length about how evil Zohran Mamdani supposedly is and especially about how evil his Jewish voters supposedly are.

Wow. The hostility, condescension, incomprehension, cluelessness, complete refusal to even try to understand the current political situation in the USA, and almost complete lack of self-awareness were something to behold. I say "almost" complete lack of self-awareness because there were some occasional glimpses of self-awareness, but not much came of them.

I so much wanted to give those two out-of-touch delusional spite-filled shitheads a piece of my mind.

That said, to be fair, I should mention that there were some occasional periods of thoughtfulness and reflection. It's just that the thoughtfulness and reflection were usually along the lines of, "How could things go so wrong that so many of our people voted for someone so evil?" If anything, the combination of occasional periods of thoughtfulness and reflection with stubborn refusal to understand anything was what made the listening experience so weird.

[bradrn]

I don't understand why I did this, because I usually don't have a masochist streak, but for some reason, I spent parts of last night hate-listening to two podcast episodes featuring two Israelis who talked at length about how evil Zohran Mamdani supposedly is and especially about how evil his Jewish voters supposedly are.

Wow. The hostility, condescension, incomprehension, cluelessness, complete refusal to even try to understand the current political situation in the USA, and almost complete lack of self-awareness were something to behold. I say "almost" complete lack of self-awareness because there were some occasional glimpses of self-awareness, but not much came of them.

What exactly was it about the political situation in the US which you’d want them to understand better? (Genuine question — I’d like more details about exactly what they were saying…)

[Raphael]

For reference, the podcast episodes in question are at https://open.spotify.com/episode/34FO2dJB0ksNKFiXmMHEfb and https://open.spotify.com/episode/2D4SXXjyceQZiBdzFAZHtC

What would I want them to understand? Well, first of all, that the USA currently has a President whose supporters include a lot of Nazis, Nazi-adjacent types, and "Well, technically you can't prove that I'm a Nazi"-types, and who has at least some of the second group among his actual staffers, and that said President is currently trying to turn the country into a de-facto one-party state with no legal outlets for dissent, no critical institutions, and no limits on what he can do. That within said President's party, a camp that's open and aggressive about their hatred for all Jews is currently apparently in the process of winning an internal power struggle against a camp that has traditionally pretended to love Jews as long as they live a safe distance away.

That across the political spectrum, support for Israel either has collapsed or is currently in the process of collapsing, so that, even if you see support for Israel as a good thing (which I don't), soon, from a cold hard facts calculation, politicians who oppose Israel but don't have anything against diaspora Jews are the best bet in an environment increasingly featuring political activists who are against Jews and don't make distinctions in that regard.

And, of course, that women from any kind of demographic background have much more solid grounds for being allergic to the idea of Cuomo as Mayor than non-Israeli Jews have for being allergic to the idea of Mamdani as Mayor.

[bradrn]

even if you see support for Israel as a good thing (which I don't)

I do happen to consider it a good thing, but presumably that’s no surprise to anyone who knows me.

soon, from a cold hard facts calculation, politicians who oppose Israel but don't have anything against diaspora Jews

More significantly, I’m not yet convinced it’s true that Mamdani doesn’t ‘have anything against diaspora Jews’, given his continued reluctance to condemn openly antisemitic slogans and displays. I’m hoping to be proven wrong about that, but now that the election is over we can only wait and see.

[Travis B.]

soon, from a cold hard facts calculation, politicians who oppose Israel but don't have anything against diaspora Jews

More significantly, I’m not yet convinced it’s true that Mamdani doesn’t ‘have anything against diaspora Jews’, given his continued reluctance to condemn openly antisemitic slogans and displays. I’m hoping to be proven wrong about that, but now that the election is over we can only wait and see.

I see nothing from Mamdani that indicates that he has a problem with diaspora Jews myself; the "antisemitism" he is accused of is practically all related to the State of Israel being a Jewish state (and yes, from all appearances he is for fully equal rights for Jews and Palestinians within Israel, if that somehow constitutes "antisemitism").

[bradrn]

soon, from a cold hard facts calculation, politicians who oppose Israel but don't have anything against diaspora Jews

More significantly, I’m not yet convinced it’s true that Mamdani doesn’t ‘have anything against diaspora Jews’, given his continued reluctance to condemn openly antisemitic slogans and displays. I’m hoping to be proven wrong about that, but now that the election is over we can only wait and see.

I see nothing from Mamdani that indicates that he has a problem with diaspora Jews myself; the "antisemitism" he is accused of is practically all related to the State of Israel being a Jewish state

I mean things like his continued reluctance to condemn hateful slogans like ‘globalise the intifada’.

[Travis B.]

More significantly, I’m not yet convinced it’s true that Mamdani doesn’t ‘have anything against diaspora Jews’, given his continued reluctance to condemn openly antisemitic slogans and displays. I’m hoping to be proven wrong about that, but now that the election is over we can only wait and see.

I see nothing from Mamdani that indicates that he has a problem with diaspora Jews myself; the "antisemitism" he is accused of is practically all related to the State of Israel being a Jewish state

I mean things like his continued reluctance to condemn hateful slogans like ‘globalise the intifada’.

From reading about Mamdani and that phrase, he specifically says that he would not use that language and that he discourages its use. I feel saying he does not "condemn" it is a pro-Israel gotcha used to label people who are opposed to the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state as anti-Semites.

[rotting bones]

"Intifada" is Arabic for protest, i.e. an uprising that doesn't count as revolutionary action. In mainstream movements, they are peaceful. IIRC the first intifada was fully peaceful even in Palestine. (I could be wrong. Check the history of the various intifadas.) Since the Palestinian resistance has turned violent, it's possible to argue that any of their terminology is possibly antisemitic. What are Arabs supposed to do, not refer to the protest movement with the word it's called by in Arabic? That way, the only way to definitively avoid antisemitism is to kill all the Palestinians and anyone else Israel starts a war with.

[bradrn]

"Intifada" is Arabic for protest, i.e. an uprising that doesn't count as revolutionary action. In mainstream movements, they are peaceful. IIRC the first intifada was fully peaceful even in Palestine. (I could be wrong. Check the history of the various intifadas.)

The First Intifada was not peaceful, but the violence was, relatively speaking, low-level — Molotov cocktails, stone-throwing and such. To my understanding that actually achieved its intentions of causing a change in how Israelis saw Palestinians, culminating eventually in the Oslo Accords.

On the other hand, the Second Intifada was very violent, and far more centrally coordinated, involving tactics like suicide bombers in crowded spaces. It’s also the one which is more prominent in the memory of both Israelis and Palestinians. When we hear the word ‘intifada’, this is what is brought to mind.

What are Arabs supposed to do, not refer to the protest movement with the word it's called by in Arabic?

They’re speaking English here, not Arabic. There are plenty of less charged English synonyms available: ‘revolt’, ‘uprising’, etc. etc. They do not need to use a word which specifically brings to mind the mass murder of Israelis.

(Of course, I have no grounds to object to Arabic-speakers referring to intifāḍa while speaking Arabic — there it’s just an ordinary word.)

That way, the only way to definitively avoid antisemitism is to kill all the Palestinians and anyone else Israel starts a war with.

I hope it should be clear by now that this is a statement I find repugnant.

[rotting bones]

The First Intifada was not peaceful, but the violence was, relatively speaking, low-level — Molotov cocktails, stone-throwing and such. To my understanding that actually achieved its intentions of causing a change in how Israelis saw Palestinians, culminating eventually in the Oslo Accords.

You are right. I'm seeing the Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out terrorist attacks. Am I wrong in thinking most of the mainstream protesters restricted themselves to non-violent demonstrations? Wikipedia says the number of Israelis killed was on the order of 200. In the July Uprising in Bangladesh, on the order of 1000 people were killed. Despite their much lower population during the First Intifada, Israelis killed on the order of 2000 Palestinians.

On the other hand, the Second Intifada was very violent, and far more centrally coordinated, involving tactics like suicide bombers in crowded spaces. It’s also the one which is more prominent in the memory of both Israelis and Palestinians. When we hear the word ‘intifada’, this is what is brought to mind.

I don't know anything about what Israelis and Palestinians think. I can only report I have heard Palestinians clarify that they are using "globalize the intifada" in a non-violent sense or in the sense of disruption: https://zeteo.com/p/gaza-columbia-stude ... sts-israel I have also heard Jewish anti-Zionists use and defend the slogan.

They’re speaking English here, not Arabic. There are plenty of less charged English synonyms available: ‘revolt’, ‘uprising’, etc. etc. They do not need to use a word which specifically brings to mind the mass murder of Israelis.

(Of course, I have no grounds to object to Arabic-speakers referring to intifāḍa while speaking Arabic — there it’s just an ordinary word.)

They are referring to specific protests, known by the word "intifada". You can say "globalize the uprising". But then people don't know which uprising you're talking about.

Personally, I'm not enthused about any sloganeering. And if there have to be slogans, I prefer that they be positive. Revolt may be necessary, but why does a slogan have to encourage revolt? Slogans should remind people of the end goal of the revolt.

I hope it should be clear by now that this is a statement I find repugnant.

As long as the conflict continues, revolts will continue. I just hope the mainstream organizers manage to throw out the racist bigots who definitely exist in these movements.

[bradrn]

The First Intifada was not peaceful, but the violence was, relatively speaking, low-level — Molotov cocktails, stone-throwing and such. To my understanding that actually achieved its intentions of causing a change in how Israelis saw Palestinians, culminating eventually in the Oslo Accords.

You are right. I'm seeing the Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out terrorist attacks. Am I wrong in thinking most of the mainstream protesters restricted themselves to non-violent demonstrations?

I’m not sure, but quite possibly.

I just hope the mainstream organizers manage to throw out the racist bigots who definitely exist in these movements.

Amen!

[Raphael]

Getting very OT.

[Ares Land]

That Hideous Strength - that discussion on the Tolkien thread got me curious, and all C.S. Lewis books are available as free ebooks. (And yes, I know, you all warned me!)

On the good side: it has something I can only describe as British horror; it reminded me of The Wicker Man, or of certain episodes of Doctor Who. The N.I.C.E is properly chilling, and I very much liked the subtle capture of one of the protagonists. Other things I liked: The Head.

The ending, just like people said, just doesn't work. The formula is for some reason the exact same as the one used for the Narnia books.

I really don't think it's anti-science; what it denounces is technocracy and transhumanism, I think.

What I do object to is the sexism, which is extraordinary blatant and open.

[zompist]

That Hideous Strength - that discussion on the Tolkien thread got me curious, and all C.S. Lewis books are available as free ebooks. (And yes, I know, you all warned me!)

On the good side: it has something I can only describe as British horror; it reminded me of The Wicker Man, or of certain episodes of Doctor Who. The N.I.C.E is properly chilling, and I very much liked the subtle capture of one of the protagonists. Other things I liked: The Head.

One of the strengths of the book is addressing how people would join an eeeeevil organization, for reasons that are diverse and very human. In one of his essays he talks about the drive to be in the "Inner Ring"; the novel dramatizes the idea.

What I do object to is the sexism, which is extraordinary blatant and open.

IIRC most of it is a bunch of nonsense about marriage rather than gender. In real life Lewis seems to have gotten along well with women— though he for sure likes to create female villains. I'd also note that he wrote the book years before his marriage, so he should have known better.

[Ares Land]

One of the strengths of the book is addressing how people would join an eeeeevil organization, for reasons that are diverse and very human. In one of his essays he talks about the drive to be in the "Inner Ring"; the novel dramatizes the idea.

Definitely agree; though one of my quibbles is that he goes on and explains the idea, at some length, even though the character's motives are in fact rather clear at that point. (But that goes with the general problem of a rather weak ending after a promising start.)

What I do object to is the sexism, which is extraordinary blatant and open.

IIRC most of it is a bunch of nonsense about marriage rather than gender. In real life Lewis seems to have gotten along well with women— though he for sure likes to create female villains. I'd also note that he wrote the book years before his marriage, so he should have known better.

That is correct, it is mostly nonsense about marriage. Lewis certainly can write strong female characters; the protagonist, Jane is very compelling. I think it makes the suggestion that she be reduced to marital subservience even more jarrring.
'The Fairy' (sic) is another compelling character, and a great villain. Regrettably, she's implied to be an evil lesbian and in fact evil because lesbian.

[rotting bones]

Books I've read a bit of and am planning to get back to a soon as I find more time:

Mordew
Metallic Realms
A Most Agreeable Murder

[Raphael]

Books I've read a bit of and am planning to get back to a soon as I find more time:

Mordew
Metallic Realms
A Most Agreeable Murder

This is a silly comment, but why so big on the "M"s now?

[rotting bones]

Books I've read a bit of and am planning to get back to a soon as I find more time:

Mordew
Metallic Realms
A Most Agreeable Murder

This is a silly comment, but why so big on the "M"s now?

It's a mystery.

[rotting bones]

Continuing The Traitor Baru Cormorant. This book is even more excellent than I remember.

[alice]

Principles of Dependency Phonology, by John Anderson (not the Yes one!) and Colin Ewen. Cracking stuff.