The "polarization is the problem" narrative to me is bad because it implies the status quo was a stable and acceptable set of trade-offs. It's the equivalent of a pollyanna "why can't we all get along" but the we in question is white supremacy and its targets.

like i understand that conflict mediation requires mutual concessions (i did my MA in conflict studies) and while it's important to meet people's deep needs across spectrums of difference, certain things are just not up for negotiation.
Also while peacebuilding work is good. It's not just "seeing each other as human" it's literally about transforming structural issues. (hence Galtung's distinction between positive and negative peace wherin negative peace is like a ceasefire and positive is a transformed society.
And I think that to whatever extent that kind of peacebuilding work is applicable, it's not between fascists and people who think fascists are bad. Fascists are not invited. They are only invited if they seize territories and can't be crushed. Then secret negotiations.
The US is always like "we don't negotiate with terrorists" but literally every president negotiates with who they consider to be terrorists. It's all just down low. But that's just because counter-insurgency failed.
So even from the conservative imperial perspective of the US gov you don't have to normalize terror cells as 'equal participants in an inequality of needs'. And i obv think our perspective should be uhhhh, a lot more advanced than that of US military.
So maybe this means i'm digging my heels into bunkers and supporting polarization but, there are a lot of possible paths and most of them suck, but none of them should involve the normalization of actual fascism as distinct from like meeting the needs of rural USians etc.
Also to state the obvious, the contradictions of the status-quo were only considered quiet before to those who didn't have a boot on their neck. Everyone else already knew it wasn't stable and led to whatever """"polarization"""" currently exists.
But when you look at it like that the idea comes a little more clear. 'Polarization' in this case is often running cover for the normalization of reaction against basic calls for removing the boot from ones face.
Oh and you may also be interested in a kind of dark but useful concept in peacebuilding called "ripeness theory" which basically states if either side has any hope for winning the cycle of violence will continue. Mediation only works when a conflict is "ripe" -very deep into loss
Maybe I'm beating around the bush. In short, I think antifascism is good and fascism is bad. Maybe that makes me part of the problem / a wrecker / unenlightened. *shrug* I don't care.
Galtung (who I always forget is on twitter) added to my thread that Ripeness theory is too cynical which I think is fair.

More from Machine learning

Starting a new project using #Angular? Here is a list of all the stuff i use to launch my projects the fastest i can.

A THREAD 👇

Have you heard about Monorepo? I created one with all my Angular (and Nest) projects using
https://t.co/aY5llDtXg8.

I can share A LOT of code with it. Ex: Everytime i start a new project, i just need to import an Auth lib, that i created, and all Auth related stuff is set up.

Everyone in the Angular community knows about https://t.co/kDnunQZnxE. It's not the most beautiful component library out there, but it's good and easy to work with.

There's a bunch of state management solutions for Angular, but https://t.co/RJwpn74Qev is by far my favorite.

There's a lot of boilerplate, but you can solve this with the built-in schematics and/or with your own schematics

Are you not using custom schematics yet? Take a look at this:

https://t.co/iLrIaHVafm
https://t.co/3382Tn2k7C

You can automate all the boilerplate with hundreds of files associates with creating a new feature.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
प्राचीन काल में गाधि नामक एक राजा थे।उनकी सत्यवती नाम की एक पुत्री थी।राजा गाधि ने अपनी पुत्री का विवाह महर्षि भृगु के पुत्र से करवा दिया।महर्षि भृगु इस विवाह से बहुत प्रसन्न हुए और उन्होने अपनी पुत्रवधु को आशीर्वाद देकर उसे कोई भी वर मांगने को कहा।


सत्यवती ने महर्षि भृगु से अपने तथा अपनी माता के लिए पुत्र का वरदान मांगा।ये जानकर महर्षि भृगु ने यज्ञ किया और तत्पश्चात सत्यवती और उसकी माता को अलग-अलग प्रकार के दो चरू (यज्ञ के लिए पकाया हुआ अन्न) दिए और कहा कि ऋतु स्नान के बाद तुम्हारी माता पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर पीपल का आलिंगन...

...करें और तुम भी पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर गूलर वृक्ष का आलिंगन करना। आलिंगन करने के बाद चरू का सेवन करना, इससे तुम दोनो को पुत्र प्राप्ति होगी।परंतु मां बेटी के चरू आपस में बदल जाते हैं और ये महर्षि भृगु अपनी दिव्य दृष्टि से देख लेते हैं।

भृगु ऋषि सत्यवती से कहते हैं,"पुत्री तुम्हारा और तुम्हारी माता ने एक दुसरे के चरू खा लिए हैं।इस कारण तुम्हारा पुत्र ब्राह्मण होते हुए भी क्षत्रिय सा आचरण करेगा और तुम्हारी माता का पुत्र क्षत्रिय होकर भी ब्राह्मण सा आचरण करेगा।"
इस पर सत्यवती ने भृगु ऋषि से बड़ी विनती की।


सत्यवती ने कहा,"मुझे आशीर्वाद दें कि मेरा पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करे।"तब महर्षि ने उसे ये आशीर्वाद दे दिया कि उसका पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करेगा किन्तु उसका पौत्र क्षत्रियों सा व्यवहार करेगा। सत्यवती का एक पुत्र हुआ जिसका नाम जम्दाग्नि था जो सप्त ऋषियों में से एक हैं।