ЁЯз╡ тЪбя╕П #Navalny, in handcuffs, expects his second verdict in one day NOW, about to be ready any minute now. HeтАЩs joking about cucumbers he pickles in his cell. I will translate his SECOND last address in one day but here is the previous trial coverage
#Navalny is facing TWO court hearings today; one is happening now. I'm listening to his speech. He's trying to explain: he was not hiding from the court; he was in a coma. The whole thing is so absurd that it is impossible to comment. In a nutshell: they just want him locked up. pic.twitter.com/LXEdJX7rIm
— Zarina Zabrisky (@ZarinaZabrisky) February 20, 2021
The expert explained that the negative assessment applies to all persons depicted in the video, and the commentary contains a statement, the judge said.
More from World
You May Also Like
1/ HereтАЩs a list of conversational frameworks IтАЩve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someoneтАЩs head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
тАЬGun to the headтАФwhat would you decide now?тАЭ
тАЬFast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?тАЭ
4/ Other QтАЩs re: decisions:
тАЬPutting aside a list of pros/cons, whatтАЩs the *one* reason youтАЩre doing this?тАЭ тАЬWhy is that the most important reason?тАЭ
тАЬWhatтАЩs end-game here?тАЭ
тАЬWhat does success look like in a world where you pick that path?тАЭ
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
тАЬWhat would the best version of yourself doтАЭ?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
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: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someoneтАЩs head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
тАЬGun to the headтАФwhat would you decide now?тАЭ
тАЬFast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?тАЭ
4/ Other QтАЩs re: decisions:
тАЬPutting aside a list of pros/cons, whatтАЩs the *one* reason youтАЩre doing this?тАЭ тАЬWhy is that the most important reason?тАЭ
тАЬWhatтАЩs end-game here?тАЭ
тАЬWhat does success look like in a world where you pick that path?тАЭ
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
тАЬWhat would the best version of yourself doтАЭ?
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x