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

Really enjoyed digging into recent innovations in the football analytics industry.

>10 hours of interviews for this w/ a dozen or so of top firms in the game. Really grateful to everyone who gave up time & insights, even those that didnt make final cut 🙇‍♂️ https://t.co/9YOSrl8TdN


For avoidance of doubt, leading tracking analytics firms are now well beyond voronoi diagrams, using more granular measures to assess control and value of space.

This @JaviOnData & @LukeBornn paper from 2018 referenced in the piece demonstrates one method
https://t.co/Hx8XTUMpJ5


Bit of this that I nerded out on the most is "ghosting" — technique used by @counterattack9 & co @stats_insights, among others.

Deep learning models predict how specific players — operating w/in specific setups — will move & execute actions. A paper here: https://t.co/9qrKvJ70EN


So many use-cases:
1/ Quickly & automatically spot situations where opponent's defence is abnormally vulnerable. Drill those to death in training.
2/ Swap target player B in for current player A, and simulate. How does target player strengthen/weaken team? In specific situations?

You May Also Like

Хајде да направимо мали осврт на случај Мика Алексић .

Алексић је жртва енглеске освете преко Оливере Иванчић .
Мика је одбио да снима филм о блаћењу Срба и мењању историје Срба , иза целокупног пројекта стоји дипломатски кор Британаца у Београду и Оливера Иванчић


Оливера Илинчић је иначе мајка једне од његових ученица .
Која је претила да ће се осветити .

Мика се налази у притвору због наводних оптужби глумице Милене Радуловић да ју је наводно силовао човек од 70 година , са три бајпаса и извађеном простатом пре пет година

Иста персона је и обезбедила финансије за филм преко Беча а филм је требао да се бави животом Десанке Максимовић .
А сетите се и ко је иницирао да се Десанка Максимовић избаци из уџбеника и школства у Србији .

И тако уместо романсиране верзије Десанке Максимовић утицај Британаца

У Србији стави на пиједестал и да се Британци у Србији позитивно афирмишу како би се на тај начин усмерила будућност али и мењао ток историје .
Зато Мика са гнушањем и поносно одбија да снима такав филм тада и почиње хајка и претње која потиче из британских дипломатских кругова

Најгоре од свега што је то Мика Алексић изговорио у присуству високих дипломатских представника , а одговор је био да се све неће на томе завршити и да ће га то скупо коштати .
Нашта им је Мика рекао да је он свој живот проживео и да могу да му раде шта хоће и силно их извређао