Non-Monetized Together #svalien

News

When you’re as privileged as I am, taking any political side is evil.

I can’t blame struggling people for getting involved because politics impacts their lives. Yet a political effort can only thrive when the masses are cruelly manipulated by leaders who are themselves too privileged to feel threatened by political developments.

Imagine if I decided to be active in competitive politics. I couldn’t dare let my followers lose interest in political engagement, so I would have to always ALWAYS create the narrative of an enemy plotting against my political team. I would promise my followers prosperity if we defeat this enemy, but then if we do, I come up with a new enemy for my victims to worry about. Works every time.

You can also read this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/im-sharing-the-privilege-of-not-having-to-depend-on-politics-constantly-fe73b89101c8.

Who would support a political movement that doesn’t convince them that their lives are at stake? If I don’t get my followers to feel this way, they may no longer feel that they need to rely on the false hope of my political movement to survive! Never mind that I’m too privileged to feel threatened by my side’s political enemies!

I would also need to make sure that my subjects have a narrow, ignorant, prejudiced understanding of these enemies. If my team becomes too open-minded, they may question my authority! They may come up with ideas that benefit them more than they benefit me!

But maybe I don’t want to brainwash my followers into a lifelong state of fear and paranoia. Maybe I care less about ordinary people having my political views and care more about these people making innovations in the way their political orientation views the world. Since I can make the decision to neither treat people cruelly nor hoard my privileges, I won’t get involved with the political sphere.

Instead, I decided to create an online space that functions as an alternative to politics. Where ordinary people can temporarily retreat from their oppressed mindset as political follower, share productive ideas using honest two-way dialogue, and work towards solutions regardless of whether top brass will approve. This context is called “The Context That Isn’t Limited In The Same Way As The Political Context” or #svalien. It applies to everywhere on Nonmonetized Together.

With this context, I can use my privilege to make an online space in which I can give other people that privilege! As long as you don’t use political tactics, you and I will have equal say in how this community functions. If you try political techniques in Nonmonetized Together, they will flop just as hard as #svalien techniques would in the political arena, not because of free-speech restrictions, but just because our social values are so different. Make sure to return to using political tactics once you return to the political sphere as #svalien tactics won’t work so well there.

In this article, I will collect some recent tweets from politicians and political figures, remove them from the politicized context they come from, and place them in this more open context, so the readers can have an open discussion about what these tweets have to say. Make sure to put the number associated with the tweet in front of your comment so people know what you’re responding to.

Tweet 1: “When the ISIS terrorist attack happened in Moscow, the BBC first reported it as a “terror attack” but then edited it to “attack”.

 

Instead of owning up to the double standards of their reporting of Hamas terror on Oct 7th, they’re downplaying ISIS atrocities.” – @ArchRose90.

This could be an especially productive discussion point for a website such as Medium since a good chunk of this article’s viewers pay careful attention on how they word their posts. It’s good to hear their perspectives.

Tweet 2: “Thankfully the Western world has long progressed past the idea of castrating and torturing criminal suspects. I hate the ISIS terrorist too but if you want to live in a society where the police can cut off your penis if you are merely suspected of a crime I can’t help you.” – @DrewPavlou (along with a screenshot of a post from @violetcity_ saying “But it was totally okay for him to murder innocent people? His ear is more important than the 133 lives he and the rest took? Gfy He’s lucky that they didn’t cut his penis off”)

What’s a response that addresses @violetcity_’s point in a productive way instead of going on a phallic sidetrack?

Tweet 3: “Some of the excrement that carried out the Moscow attack. They massacred over 100 people. I hope the Russian authorities torture them to death 💀” – @GoldingBF (along with a photo caption of them in holding)

I’m including this one as a challenge for you commenters. Do you have what it takes to have a clear head while talking about such an emotionally charged comment? Could you ensure it becomes a conversation in which everyone benefits? If so, congratulations!

Tweet 4: “MAGA this is you. Accept it or not, your children will learn in history class how Donald Trump was a traitor, a rapist, a criminal… I can go on and on. And you’re gonna have to explain to your children how you aided and abetted him.

 

This is an inescapable reality. #DonPoorleone” – @petee224.

I want to open this comment up so it applies to people who don’t believe that history teachers are infallible (should be all of you). In the near future, who do you think will be the most trustworthy (or least untrustworthy) source that will look back on Trump and inform the public, “he’s a traitor, a rapist, a criminal!” Who do you think will be the most trustworthy (or least untrustworthy) source that will disagree? Make sure to answer both questions. If you still think the answer is “history teachers,” that’s fine, then feel free to answer the question as @petee224 asked. Once you answer both questions, take the evidence from your side and hold it up against the scrutiny of the most trustworthy source on the opposing side! This way, you can put up a strong defense for your point instead of just dunking on easy targets. Remember what I said about how political figures benefit by showing only the worst of the other side! You don’t have to do that Nonmonetized Together. There’s also the possibility that this challenge will result in you changing your mind. Or you may change the minds of others. Or at least learn things you wouldn’t have learned otherwise. All great outcomes.

I understand that “The Context That Isn’t Limited In The Same Way As The Political Context” will be an unfamiliar experience for many of you, so don’t feel insecure if you make a mistake. A lot of people will. I will be patient and we can always restart the discussion over from the beginning if you accidentally slip into the mindset of the oppressed person.

If you want to learn more about this new context, you can read the linked article below. I hope Nonmonetized Together brings some exciting new intellectual opportunities and experiments for you! If you want to take advantage of the Internet’s untapped potential for mental empowerment, you’ve came to the right place.

https://write.as/non-monetized-together/why-i-added-svalien-to-the-nonmonetized-together-title

#Freedom #Power #ISIS #News #Terrorism

Discuss...

This article was originally published to Medium on March 6, 2022 (https://medium.com/illumination/what-the-news-isnt-telling-you-587fb24261cf?source=friends_link&sk=8201c7ed210b374eb5cc35e72336054b).

My previous ILLUMINATION article was about the struggles the media can have with providing backup evidence on their stories about current events. In it, I recall how I read current events articles and think about ways the articles could have possibly misrepresented the event, while acknowledging that maybe they did, maybe they did not. I would only know about the accuracy if they made their original sources available to me!

I thought I should write an article where I detail this process. I will go on Google News and pick out five of the top articles on the front page. Then, for each article, I will put forth the topics that the journalist failed to cover, questions they could have answered, and sources they could have linked to. My hypothesis is that at least three of the five articles will either not provide sufficient evidence or leave important questions unanswered.

Before I begin, I should clarify that even though I am highlighting areas that I think the article should explore, I do not want to imply that their coverage of these areas should come to a particular conclusion. I am merely stating questions that the article could have answered, not answers that they could have put forth. Also, remember that news stories often update over time, so the story might be slightly different when you click on the link.

Off we go.

The top articles on my Google News feed. I discuss all five of these articles in this blog post

My first article will be the one about road closures at the top of the photo. Here it is: https://www.cp24.com/news/high-winds-prompt-road-closures-in-downtown-toronto-burlington-skyway-1.5807738.

Not only do we not know the original quotes that CP24 are paraphrasing from, we also do not know if the info was obtained through email, social media, in-person discussion, or any other method. Also, CP24 are not revealing anything about the sources other than that they are “police,” “firefighters,” and “Environment Canada.” I am not saying they need to say their name but maybe they should reveal their job title or department?

Also, the article does not say how long we can expect these roads to be closed for. Though, it is probably too early to tell as this is a breaking news article at the time of writing

Next up is the story about Ontario’s COVID deaths: https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-reports-21-net-new-covid-19-deaths-1.5807610. The Sunday data in the article is not mentioned in any of the summaries yet, but there is a link at the bottom of the page that directs you to where the figures will eventually appear. So, I have no problem with this article.

I will follow up that with the one about Quebec’s COVID statistics: https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-still-on-the-decline-in-quebec-with-a-decrease-of-20-hospitalizations-1.5807690. This article has absolutely ZERO citations. While the statistics should probably be easy to find shortly, I have some questions about the findings:

When they say that unvaccinated people are 7.7 times more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 and 15.4 times more likely to end up in the UCU, who are they comparing them to? People who have one vaccine? Two? Three? There is no way to know if, for example, totals from people with one vaccination and totals from people with two vaccinations are combined and then compared to unvaccinated people. Of course, this would provide useless data, since they would combine two wildly different groups of people to the unvaccinated group. This needs to be clarified. And when they say that Quebec is encouraging people to report the status of at-home rapid tests, how many people are complying?

On the upside, the article does clarify a lot of the limitations about their findings. That is the only reason for me to well-informed, though.

Shifting focus to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-canada-doing-enough-about-the-war-in-ukraine-1.6374221/what-an-investigation-into-war-crimes-could-mean-for-russian-aggression-in-ukraine-1.6374691

At least this article cites the names and positions of the analysts that are quoted, but some of the quotes could be taken out of context. However, at the bottom of the page, they clarified the method that was used to find them — Reuters files.

There are still some claims in the article that must be confirmed. They should link the statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine, as well as explain why the true number is unknown and expected to be higher. I would also like to see evidence concerning the calls for a tribunal to investigate Russia. The article reports that the tribunals will be similar to the 1993 trial against Bosnia — in what ways? Are there any ways it will be different?

The last article is about the leader of the inquiry: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/06/karim-khan-british-barrister-icc-russia-war-crimes-inquiry

Unlike CBC News, The Guardian’s article did not link to Karim Khan’s statement on investigating the conflict. Well, I shouldn’t say that. The article links to another Guardian article with a video, but the video won’t play for some reason. Maybe there is a clip in the video that shows confirmation, but I can’t say for sure.

This article has a ton of information, and I can’t think of any questions it leaves unanswered, save for “where are you getting these facts from?” There are a few citations in the article, but there are many other claims that are left incomplete. There are too many examples to list them all, but some of them include comments from the Legal 500 that Khan is “a go-to lawyer,” his involvement with the international criminal tribunal of Rwanda, and an open letter he wrote about how he aimed to reduce intimidation as the defence council for the Kenyan vice-president.

Hence, four of the five articles still have a lot of cleaning up to do. It must be truly difficult for most people to let go of the idea that most current events reports have a high enough standard of publication to be trustworthy. I don’t see the point of checking articles on current events if they don’t bother to provide sufficient evidence. Hearsay does not have the right to be this powerful.

January 2024 update: I recently changed my mind and started carefully following the news.

#Media #MediaLiteracy #CurrentEvents #JournalisticStandards #News

Discuss...

Medium Comments:

I feel like a lot of news stations are more gossip about events that are happening anymore as apposed to being a genuine opinion free, source for information. There are always alternative motives for the broadcasters that output news anymore and I feel like the politicized nature of it all is a good example of how much they don’t care to present news at it is. I would like to see a news outlet that creates video works without emitting any judgements or opinions for people to really gather all the facts and have an informed opinion. Sorry went off on a little rant about the news. Lol I enjoyed your article and I like that you are pointing out additional information that could have been added or shared to create a more well rounded story !! 🙏❤️😁

Sabrina Johnson

Glad you enjoyed my article. I don’t think news sources are going to be less opinionated because opinions are sometimes part of the news story, especially if the topic is politics or activism. But I do hope they link to more sources, cover the topic in more detail, and wait a bit more before publishing.

Kevin the Nonmonetized

Yes great points. Thank for your sharing your thoughts and opinions 🙏

Sabrina Johnson


They just want clicks and will write anything to get them nd the ad revenue. Truth is of no importance. Nice insight.

Ants Space in Time

Thanks!

Kevin the Nonmonetized