Yeah, I heard it happened 30 minutes after some activity got dissolved. (I don’t have a source offhand for that.)

I deliberately chose to quote the words of the perpetrator, and the UN as a recognized observer, because the perpetrator incriminates themselves

“The Israeli forces are saying that they might have hit Aysenur unintentionally - that she was not a target” … “but aimed at the key instigator of the riot”. The UN says Aysenur was “shot in the head” because the perpetrators said protestors “burned tyres and hurled rocks towards security forces”

https://aje.io/yjbpo7

It’s disheartening to hear. Typically the Anti Defamation League draws attention to rising antisemitic behavior whenever there is a tension abroad but often does so to divert attention from the issue abroad.

To be clear, any kind of hostility/prejudice/discrimination to any group is wrong. Supporting one group shouldn’t negate from the other. As someone who identifies with neither group I can see why one or another would resort to name calling — it gets us nowhere. But to shut down discussions because people are frustrated is also wrong.

And then there are people to use these events as an excuse to get away with bad behavior.

I am also pretty upset about geopolitics. It feels like the majority have been conditioned to have such a strong bias and are incapable of any kind of introspection. If we all approached such topics with the willingness to learn from each other and hear different perspectives maybe things would be different. Unfortunately I can't solve the world's problems this week. Maybe next week?

Otherwise, I am dating, but meeting new people and assessing fit is a challenge.

You reacted to me but you didn't listen to me.

Both "sides" have employed justice by "slaughtering innocents" in response to the other side. Both sides think what the other side did was reprehensible and deserving of retaliation. This pattern has been going on for 75 years. It clearly hasn't worked, so maybe we should try something different?

Let’s study the conflict before making such comments.

I am not aware of any conflict in US history where the US did not defend an American journalist dying performing their duty abroad. This is a war crime, and it sets precedent for Americans when they travel or work abroad anywhere in the world.

Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians. Hamas’ attack is a reaction to a 75 year history of tit-for-tat where “Israel” continuously breaks international law including murdering of civilians, the international community condemns them, and the big world powers like the US give them impunity. Like Russia to Ukraine, Israel is an occupying force of the Palestinians — the longest in modern history.

Comparison to Bid Laden is a false equivalence.

I’m still waiting for justice for Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh — the investigation of which currently rests in the hands of her perpetrators. It seems to me that recognizing American deaths only matters when it benefits US foreign policy.

When I rolled my own blog software I wasn’t spending my time writing. Switched to static blog software a few years ago, namely Hexo, because I wanted my articles in markdown. Now I have to troubleshoot someone else’s code occasionally.

I strongly dislike JS. But I have a lot of old school HTML/CSS experience so I don’t mind creating my own layout. It’s mostly the lack of sufficient documentation and how upgrades can break without a hint to what changed. Ug

Your point is important. I was once part of that movement. There is a crucial piece missing:

In the US atheism has come to specifically challenge the assumed Christian majority that influences US society in subtle ways. For instance, Christmas, or the fact that we have “under God” on US currency. It wasn’t anti-religious as much as anti-Christian, and contextually that point of view is warranted.

Since that movement, I’ve noticed that theologists have labeled atheists as “strong” and “weak” in (my interpretation) an attempt to discredit “agnostic atheists”.

I think there will always be a “war” between mindsets so long as humanity survives. The important part is allowing diverse religious or non-religious backgrounds which means one religion can’t be imposing values onto everyone else.

Engagement is what matters, and that’s driven by habits. The protests were disruptive. The switching of apps is disruptive. I see this more as a way to distract and bring up engagement again.

Is it a good idea? Honestly, if they want to succeed I think they should focus on what has become broken with reddit first

Also an atheist. I applaud a well-rounded description of this new community! It also doesn't particularly include atheism which is maybe fine.

I’m happy to see it after seeing some blindly anti-all-religious-people (I don’t know a good word for this) hate comments recently.

Sounds like overcompensation? Some people who gravitate towards, let's say atheism, come from another bad experience and need a safe place to talk about that. Some need that answer to the meaning of life, etc. And some don't

Since this doesn't necessarily include atheists -- How about a philosophy community? Or is it better to have more specific communities?

I've had some non-profits prompt me to up my contribution to cover transaction fees. But they seem to be closer to 3%.

I try to identify orgs where there is actual need so I am not consistent. Some of the big-name non-profits get disproportionate attention, or they spend too much money on fundraising, or they grossly overpay their key people. Other non-profits do good work and are sorely underfunded.

It's not just transaction feels, I find the act of making individual contributions in itself an inefficient allocation of resources.