Given the cartoons and references to fact-checking, I assume this is about the New Yorker (and not the NYT as another commenter suggested), but I'm a bit surprised because the New Yorker has been one of the most vocal outlets speaking out about the plight of Palestinians, even prior to the current assault on Gaza. Which obviously doesn't preclude the possibility that this guy's coworkers were weird and shitty to him, but like, the NYer has not been shy about discussing civilians casualties in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, or featuring guest pieces from Palestinian authors.
Chotiner alone has done at least a few dozen interviews in the past few years where he's made his opposition to the war in Gaza very clear, and (famously) made its supporters look very stupid and callous by letting them trip over their own words. But... Chotiner himself is a white guy (or at least I assume?), so there is that. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Could very well be some ugly office politics that this author is right to be upset about, even if I'm skeptical about his commentary on the effects of those politics on the NYer's reporting.
A common enough mistake :) Re. your other comment though, I'm not sure the NYer has ever cared about worrying what conservatives will think about their contributors, at least not in my lifetime. I just read a lovely new Zadie Smith essay yesterday where she talked about her commitment to socialist ideals!
Which is ironic compared to the NYT, because I think the New Yorker tends to slip under the conservative media's radar, whereas the NYT has conspicuously attempted to appeal to conservatives but in doing so has only alienated some more liberal readers while still catching a whole lot of conservative ire.
Socialism is one thing, but I think neither publication would be comfortable having an employee who casually mentions they "hate the West" and goes on to insinuate the October 7th attack was acceptable.
But it implies that progressives believe that any change is good, not that just some subset of change is good. I might be progressive but I don't think putting diesel in my petrol car will improve anything.
No, it does not. To repeat myself, they believe the changes they propose are good. Conservatives want to undo the perceived damage done by progressives.
"change==good" can be read as "change is good" or "change equals good". It doesn't say anything about "change I propose == good"
Anyways, your definition is a bit silly - do you think conservatives, when they propose change(even if just to revert to an earlier system), don't think it's good?
Conservatives want to conserve the good order they believe they had. It is backward looking. They want things to be great again the way they were progressives ruined it.
The conservative proposal to roll back the progressive change? OF course conservatives view that as good. It goes without saying. Conservatives speak the language of "preservation" and "restoration"; e.g.,
Many chronic conditions are also "chronic" now but just two or three generations ago were either a swift or slow and painful death sentence. We see more adults with <insert major health problem here> because now they actually survive into adulthood and can reasonably participate in society rather than being confined to their homes (or to a home).
I have to ask... why the extra lettuce? At In-N-Out I sometimes ask for less lettuce because I feel like it's unnecessary filler compared to the other ingredients, lol. Maybe they've just been giving my unused lettuce to you...
Not OP but I also order extra lettuce on burgers. Lettuce is free "crunch", basically. Crunch is good in general - and especially necessary on burgers, which otherwise tend to sliminess.
Lettuce is one of the least appealing things I can imagine adding to a half decent burger. I’ve also never once cooked a burger I’d describe as “slimy”.
Obviously it’s all subjective at the end of the day.
Thanks for lettuce-sharing :-D agree with other post-er on extra "crunch". Personally I like the lightness of the lettuce in contrast with the burger oils and onions, it's the right balance for me. And in my mind it's more free food (my stomach capacity is quite large)
Does it actually? (Genuine question.) The article doesn't get into specifics about how the block is implemented, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some non-trivial way around it.
Or, conversely, I'm unsure if other decentralized platforms would be unable to implement a similar block.
The client checks https://bsky.app/ipcc locally on startup, and if the json object it gets contains "isAgeBlockedGeo : true" it displays the block message.
ublock origin filters can replace the contents of any page using regex.
TLDR it's a single geoloc RPC call clientside. you can just tag it with an adblock filter to kill it. Or use any third party client (my comment to OP has a bunch of them listed).
Interesting though: I wonder how long til site host lists and ad filters start shipping anti-censorship lists and features. We know some DNS provider is already doing it. (I forgot which one)
> Also it has a high opinion of Bryan Ferry. Deeply untrustworthy.
Whoa, whoa, are we talking Bryan Ferry as an artist, or Bryan Ferry as a guy? Because I love me some Roxy Music but have heard that Bryan is kind of a dick.
I thought it was interesting/telling (but maybe not surprising) that the AI-generated stories scored the highest according to reader rankings, yet pinged to me as immediately flat and generic. But I really liked the idiosyncrasies of a few of the human-authored entries!
When do we get to call Trump a dictator? When he ignores court rulings? When he floods the zone with illegal executive orders? Do we have to wait until he calls himself a Dictator and insists everyone else do the same?
If you are criticizing Trump, did you have any credibility with that part of the public to begin with?
Not saying there aren't reasons to avoid name calling. But I feel like battle lines are fixed by now. I don't feel like "Good point" is a likely reaction to anything said by anyone.
The only poll that matters is the election. And despite some of his voters disapproving, there is very little chance of them voting for the opposite party.
Chotiner alone has done at least a few dozen interviews in the past few years where he's made his opposition to the war in Gaza very clear, and (famously) made its supporters look very stupid and callous by letting them trip over their own words. But... Chotiner himself is a white guy (or at least I assume?), so there is that. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Could very well be some ugly office politics that this author is right to be upset about, even if I'm skeptical about his commentary on the effects of those politics on the NYer's reporting.