I think the article highlights two foreign policy imperatives, and the associated needs those create.
We need to reduce our dependence on the USA as a long term project. Still allies, but we need to have far more ability to act independently from them, and to have an ability to push back, in a friendly way, when its their actions destabilising national security.
We need to pull back from this war mongering attitude we've adopted toward China. Labor has been doing this fairly well. I'd call the link in you're comment a sad exception rather than the rule.
We need this pull back, not only to show China that we can co-exist, but to reduce the mistrust from other South Asian nations that we're a reliable partner that understands the power balancing the region already undertakes vis-a-vis China and the USA.
The media performs a similar role. Commentary by John Queripel and Fred Zhang argues that Australian reporting has often made China the default villain, elevating security theatrics over diplomacy and recasting ordinary commercial activity as an “assault” or “surrender”. Whether one agrees with every example, the broader caution is sound: a public sphere saturated with threat language cannot easily sustain calm, evidence-based debate.
I read a lot more using Lemmy than I did on Reddit. This is mainly because I have a rule, if I post it, I read it, then there's all the interesting blogs people post to read.
So, find a community, maybe you're country/state maybe a field of study like philosophy or geology. Start finding relevent and active publications visit them regularly or setup an RSS reader, post then comment often on the texts you find. Even if its just you posting in the community, you'll find people tend to breeze in when something interesting happens.
But don't just read, comment and try to consider the article, blog or essay rather than just consuming it. I listened to a podcast with Cory Doctorow a couple days ago, he said blogging has been a fantastic way for him to develop ideas, then revisit them and develop those ideas even more.
This has real, 'we have facts, and alternative facts' vibes. Or, IHRA definition attempting to redefine anti-Semitism, vibes.
I think it's better to find another term in drilling down on what you mean, instead of a post-hoc re-defining of an established term.
In this way, you communicate better what you mean, but having gone to the effort of finding/thinking of that description you'll also have come to understand the issue your considering better.
Peter Singer, in the last pages of Practical Ethics, compares an egoist point of view as opposed to an ethical point of view. Distinguishing the pair, he writes, Egoists will have long term planning, but their plans are in essence concerning their own interests. While an ethical point of view will attempt to take the position of an impartial spectator. In this way he demonstrates that both can be rational points of view to take, while the egoist view may still be lacking.
With this in mind, I think the word you're looking for is 'egoist'.
I think the Boomer generation will become known for living through a time that promoted and valued that egoism world view. Whether it's due to the, the relative prosperity and peace of the 'West' in their time, the after effects of the US civil rights era (the hippies grew up), the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and James M Buchanan, or the associated degradation of State, Union, and Community power against private and monied persons.
This egoism point of view is apparent even in the common joke about the British middle class never being done renovating their kitchens. The critique being they cant identify a different and valuable use of their time and resources because their values framework stretches only to their own 'front door'. This is of course is a satire, not to be taken literally about any individual, but there seems a broad truth being highlighted.
Here's the passage, being out of the context of the rest of the text might have an issue that I don't see. If so, sorry, but the books worth a read, it challenges the readers notions about all kinds.
It is a lasting reminder that the most meaningful public spaces are often shaped not by budgets or infrastructure, but by people who genuinely care about the communities they serve.
Woah, woah, woah. Your original comment was about the book? I wondered which you meaned between the two, and dismissed the comment being about the book as it didn't make sense alongside the comment.
So let me get this right,
Your saying 'How to Sell a Genocide' as the books "title does leave a bad taste and doesn't communicate scientific rigor"?
If so, fair enough, everybody's got an opinion on things. It's a racy title for sure.
But then the last part of the comment, if we're talking about the title of the book still, makes no sense,
but it being a opinion piece with little value that should not be read
This indicates you've read the book? But, have you? If yes, then don't mind me I assumed wrong. But if no, then how do you know it's an opinion piece with little value if you haven't read the book?
And who describes a whole book as an opinion piece? Especially considering most books have gone through referencing and fact checking processes. And doubly in cases like this where legal teams for news/media companies will inevitably be sniffing about.
I'm confused by your comment.
I just want to clear up any possible confusion about the location of this library below,
And reasoning for book removals from libraries can be pretty shallow in the US according to my perception, though that's more of a school and minor library thing.
This is a library in Sydney, Australia. Near where two terrorists shot and murdered more than 10 people at a Jewish party at Bondi beach late last year.
AI is a unique situation of corporate malpractice, see doomsaying from all AI CEO's, at the same time as all the protections and safeguards in finance have been removed by those financial wizards in Washington.
It needs to take over markets, drive productivity, and deliver world changing returns otherwise the valuations don't make any sense and the market flops. Of course the people making the big money now plan to exit at advantageous times. Leaving bag-holders, this has been witnessed with the SpaceX/AI float earlier this year, and nobody lifted a finger to stop our retirement savings being used to line the pockets of the Epstein class.
Because learning for kids/young adults isn't really the point anymore. The point of doing the learning is to "pass test" or, "get job" or, "move on to the next link in the education chain". So young people often feel faced with a choice, engage with the process to accomplish the tasks, or dissociate from the process entirely.
This systemic issue is likely why steiner schools and the like are seeing increased interest from parents.
Thats 8000 people with experience running social media that could use their knowledge and wealth to build the Fediverse and competitively reduce Meta's monopoly.
If even a small group of them realise the agency they have, it could be damaging to Meta, and an acceptable form of growth for the Fediverse as a whole.
I'm assuming anybody that works at Meta still now must be so signed up to their horrible practices, so i don't expect much from former Meta employees. I'd be happy to be surprised though.
I don't want a fucken culture war between the generations like what happened with baby boomers. Gen X forward are all fine by me, live your life, be conscientious of other people and where they're at in life, and for shits sakes lets be open to changing our societies based on different generational challenges. The generational wars were always stoked by cynical conservative bread and circuses propaganda, fuck em, stop paying them attention.
