Pleasant Politics

Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and his camera operator Ramy al-Rify were wearing press vests when Israel targeted their car and killed them.

If any white correspondent delivered these words into a camera, the whole world would stop

Al Jazeera says reporter, cameraman killed in Israel strike on Gaza

The Cass Review - Final Report - Key points & download

Some info on the Cass Report can be found here:

• The Cass Report: Anti-science and Anti-trans || video 14 min || text + link

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) introduced legislation this year that would require the Veterans Administration to provide quarterly reports on the number of abortions performed at VA hospitals and by affiliated providers. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS Act), a bill that would create a federal database for pregnant people nationwide. In Texas, one of the most restrictive abortion states in the country, lawsuits may be filed against “aiders and abettors,” which could include people who drive someone to obtain an abortion. In short, anti-abortion advocates are weaponizing technology to push an agenda eroding reproductive rights.

To protect oneself, those in the data privacy world recommend deleting period-tracking apps. Still, greater concern lies with apps like Facebook Messenger, or Google, which has been called a “uniquely dangerous tool.”

To combat this growing surveillance landscape, Tom Subak, former chief strategy officer at Planned Parenthood, teamed up with Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, to create Charley, a private, secure chatbot that provides up-to-date, accurate information about abortion options in every zip code in the U.S. Salon connected with Subak about the current state of abortion surveillance and how pregnant people in the United States can keep themselves safe amid so much technology. (...)

Canonical YouTube link

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/24322992

It's a pity I can't crosspost in lemmy in a way that would merge the comments in the original thread.

Abstract:

Although hundreds of dialogue programs geared towards conflict resolution are offered every year, there have been few scientific studies of their effectiveness.

Across 2 studies we examined the effect of controlled, dyadic interactions on attitudes towards the ‘other’ in members of groups involved in ideological conflict. Study 1 involved Mexican immigrants and White Americans in Arizona, and Study 2 involved Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Cross-group dyads interacted via video and text in a brief, structured, face-to-face exchange: one person was assigned to write about the difficulties of life in their society (‘perspective-giving’), and the second person was assigned to accurately summarize the statement of the first person (‘perspective-taking’).

Positive changes in attitudes towards the outgroup were greater for Mexican immigrants and Palestinians after perspective-giving and for White Americans and Israelis after perspective-taking. For Palestinians, perspective-giving to an Israeli effectively changed attitudes towards Israelis, while a control condition in which they wrote an essay on the same topic without interacting had no effect on attitudes, illustrating the critical role of being heard.

Thus, the effects of dialogue for conflict resolution depend on an interaction between dialogue condition and participants' group membership, which may reflect power asymmetries.