The ICJ, also known as the World Court, did not deal with South Africa’s main allegation on whether Israel is committing genocide, though it said Friday it would not throw out the case, as Israel requested.

It started out as a simple rebuttal of your false claim. I was expecting a plain ‘oops’, maybe with an edit correction of your claim. Now it’s about how you accuse others of maintaining a selective reality when in fact it’s you who decided to selectively craft your own reality of what the court said.

So you’re acknowledging that reality doesn’t matter to you, campism does? Well fucking done, you are the literal embodiment of the meme you posted.

If grapes and chocolate are evil I think I’d rather be evil.

Lol, the audacity to post objectively and verifiably false information, then when you’re informed that it’s false not acknowledge that fact and deflect to some completely meaningless point about the holocaust, then when you’re informed that that point makes no sense you deflect to a random meme and attach the opinion of some other guy.

You don’t actually care about ‘reality’ like your meme implies. If you did you’d care to actually look at the judgement (like I did before commenting, took me five seconds to find and two minutes to speed parse) before deciding what you wanted the judgement to say to selectively suit your own emotional reality.

(A) You do know the ICJ didn’t exist during the Holocaust, right? They can’t rule on the actions of states that aren’t party to the ICJ, which by the fundamental nature of how time works includes Nazi Germany.

(B) The fact that the ICJ didn’t declare it a genocide was simply a rebuttal to your unfounded fictitious assertion that they did. How you interpreted that as a statement that genocide doesn’t exist without the ICJ is beyond me.

Point out to me a single line in the judgement where they condemned Israel for genocidal actions, or even directly stated that Israel was pursuing genocidal actions. It’s not there.

A subway train derailed in Brooklyn on Wednesday afternoon, police and fire officials said. It was the second derailment in New York City’s mass-transit system in less than a week.

The train, a Manhattan-bound F, went off the elevated tracks between the West Eighth Street and Neptune Avenue stations in Coney Island shortly before 12:30 p.m., officials said. No injuries were reported in the immediate aftermath of the derailment and the cause was being investigated, according to the police.

As of about 1:30 p.m., Fire Department units had evacuated 17 people from the train and were removing about 20 more who were still on the train, officials said.

Service on the F line was partly suspended in Brooklyn as a result of the derailment, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said on its website. The authority did not immediately respond to a request for information on the derailment.

The episode on Wednesday came six days after a No. 1 train carrying 300 people collided with an out-of-service train on the Upper West Side of Manhattan because of confusion over which train had the right of way. Both trains derailed as a result, and more than two dozen people were injured.

Also- so you say copying a definition (even when not word for word and completely indistinguishable from your own writing) isn’t plagiarism and copying an explanation of a graph isn’t plagiarism. That’s a bit of weird opinion but you do you. I just have a few more questions to prove your definition of plagiarism.

Would you also say that copying an analysis of a text isn’t plagiarism?

Gilliam:

This paper explores two models-symbolic politics and governing coalitions-that focus on how minority office-holding affects people’s political orientations. In other words, after an extended period of minority empowerment, what is the distribution of political attitudes between and within racial and ethnic groups? Which groups and subgroups positively evaluate the results of governmental action and which groups will hold more negative views? What are the important demographic and political correlates of how citizens respond to minority empowerment?

Gay:

The central question of this chapter is “How does black representation impact attitudes?” More explicitly, what is the distribution of political attitudes between and within racial groups in black-represented districts? How do groups evaluate the presence of black incumbents? What are the important demographic and political correlates of how citizens respond to minority political leadership?

Would you also say that copying an explanation of a law isn’t plagiarism?

Canon:

The central parts of the VRA are Section 2 and Section 5. The former prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing a voting practice that will “deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The latter was imposed only on “covered” jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination, which must submit changes in any electoral process or mechanism to the federal government for approval.^3

Gay:

The central parts of the measure are Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 reiterates the guarantees of the 15th amendment, prohibiting any state or political subdivision from adopting voting practices that “deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Section 5, imposed only on “covered” jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination, requires Justice Department preclearance of changes in any electoral process or mechanism.

How far are you willing to stretch the definition of plagiarism?

Yes, I’m going to ignore what some of the people she didn’t cite think, for two reasons. First because it doesn’t matter as to her intent at the time- they didn’t know her, she didn’t know them, they didn’t give her prior permission. Second because she’s the direct boss and controller of funding for many of them so there’s an inbuilt power dynamic there.

Have you read the papers at hand? They absolutely seem indistinguishable from her own writing. You’d never notice that it wasn’t- in fact it wasn’t noticed for years. She incorporates them directly into arguments and explanations as well.

I don’t recall any former president of Harvard needing to have an academic dishonesty tribunal review their work because they all cited their sources properly (it’s not that hard to do!). I’m quite confident that if they had they done that they would’ve been evaluated in the exact same way- other professors at Harvard in similar situations have gone through similar processes and been punished in the past.

So if your definition of a quotation is something written word for word, whether it is cited or even at all distinguishable from her own work (read them yourself, they very clearly aren’t distinguishable at all), what do you call something where she very clearly doesn’t copy the original text word for word but instead rewrites it to better fit in with her own prose without ever citing it? Maybe something like changing:

“…the statistical correspondence of the demographic characteristics and more “substantive representation,” the correspondence between representatives’ goals and those of their constituents.”

to

"…the statistical correspondence of demographic characteristics) and substantive representation (the correspondence of legislative goals and priorities…”

It’s not a conspiracy theory to suggest that the review board might’ve treated her differently from any random undergraduate because of her status within academia. That’s just human nature, it doesn’t even require intent to do so.

It very clearly wasn’t negligence- she cited plenty of other sources in her work that she didn’t copy word for word. She only left out the ones that she quite directly copied language from and did so on multiple occasions.

The review board let her off easy, giving her the benefit of doubt towards her intentions because she was the esteemed president of the university.

But that’s very clearly not what happened here and it’s detrimental to the discussion at hand to falsely label it as such. She in fact was able to let it slide for multiple months longer than her white counterpart and Penn.

The same third party board that said she didn’t commit plagiarism while also forcing her to add dozens of missing citations to her work where she directly copied sentences from other articles… Which makes absolutely no sense.

It’s absolutely not flimsy- she’s only written a dozen articles and there’s been concrete examples of plagiarism in at least of a quarter of them. Here is one of 40+ examples of the plagiarism found:

Swain in her article:

“the statistical correspondence of the demographic characteristics and more “substantive representation,” the correspondence between representatives’ goals and those of their constituents.”

Gay in her article:

"the statistical correspondence of demographic characteristics) and substantive representation (the correspondence of legislative goals and priorities.”

Swain in her article:

“Since the 1950s the reelection rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90 percent”

Gay in her article:

"Since the 1950s, the reelection rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%”

She never cited Swain in any way until she was forced to do so this year by the review board. If I pulled this in college in more then 25% of my essays I’d most certainly be in front of my department head in a very serious conversation, looking at suspension at least.

Edit: Lol, late breaking news! As of today plagiarism allegations now cover 50%! Half! of her papers as even more examples have come out literally a few hours ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism.html

Now I see that she’s black in an important locus of elite power and it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Not everything has to be a conspiracy about race. The white Penn administrator that screwed up their testimony in the exact same way in the exact same hearing was forced out in the exact same way.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Creating a paid or ad-supported client app for a website isn’t profiting off of content, it’s profiting off of the user’s desire for a better mobile experience. There’s no ‘stealing’, the developer never has access to nor purports to own any of the content themselves- it’s simply a voluntary intermediary for a user to access their own account with their own content feed.

That said, any client apps that run ads are dumb and will fail miserably. It’s awful for UX. Just so long as client apps can be monetized in other ways I think it’s fine to adopt a license that prohibits specifically ads.

This same story was posted yesterday, so I’ll rewrite what I did back then:

Most of this report is patently ridiculous. HRW asked people who follow the HRW social media accounts to please send in perceived instances of censorship they’ve seen for the Palestinian conflict social media, they got about a thousand examples from a self-selecting population, then published a big exposé about it.

There’s no comparative analysis (either quantitative nor qualitative) to whether similar censorship happened for other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past.They allege, for example, that pro-Palestinian posters didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown. The obvious next step is to contextualize such a claim- is that standard policy? Does it happen when discussing other topics? Is it a bug? How often does it happen? But they don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.

The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive or neutral portrayal of terrorist organizations, especially concerning those with political wings like the Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but blindly presenting a thousand taken down posts like it’s concrete evidence of a global conspiracy isn’t at all productive to that discussion.

the fact that he could reschedule and effectively legalize marijuana

No he can’t. He can direct the DEA to look into rescheduling the drug, a process he has already started. But he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally force them to reschedule it. He could theoretically Saturday Night Massacre the DEA into doing it, but they really wouldn’t be a good look.