The genesis of this rant, in fact, was a very mild example I encountered at work -- something about "distance learning" being used by adults, not just eighth-graders. Of course, the writer didn't really mean to exclude sixth- and ninth- and other-graders; she was just trying to be a little cute. At one time I would have thought she had succeeded. Now I'm just a little tired of reading such things.posted by Jaltcoh at 4:48 AM on July 28, 2010
Israeli authorities haveThere is some interesting news and history I didn't know about behind this all, but it would better benefit from a calm perspective instead of one that casts Israel as the destroyer of everything. Israel as the Tyrant is well known in these parts, and this discussion doesn't benefit from it's return."reportedly"razed a Bedouin village in Negev.
Although the Bedouin had lived in the area for half a milleniabefore the establishment of Israel in 1948(unnecessary, as most people know that Israel as it is known today is a relatively recent political construction), Israel considers them unrecognized villages.
The reasoning behind this action may be the Blueprint Negev, a plan by the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli government to increase development in the Negev, which represents 60% of Israel's landmass but with only 8% of the population.
Removing the Bedouin would also solve environmental concernsas advocated by academic environmentalist, Tal Alon(Tal Alon link includes no discussion of the Bedouin or Negev), though Negev Arabs have been used as a source of inexpensive labor to construct toxic regional infrastructure on Bedouin lands (the "environmental concerns" link is a pretty slanted piece, and this section needs more information, but it's a start).
Or it may just be that Israel likes razing everything.(distracting editorializing)
The phrase "Or maybe Israel just likes razing everything" displays a definite bias, and obvious bias doesn't work well on the blue.
Think of the blue like a newspaper -- remember when we were kids and teachers told us that journalists had to be impartial? You know, "just the facts"? At least, that's what teachers told me. Granted, not all journalism works this way, and one can make an argument that the facts you CHOOSE to report can be a display of bias, but that's more subtle.
It's the difference between
"Person A did foo, baz, and fnarg"
And
"Person A sucks because they did foo, and then they hurt someone when they did baz -- maybe they're just poopy, though, because they also did fnarg".
The former is more the "just the facts" reportage that the blue is about. Phrasing like "or maybe they just like razing everything" is more like "maybe they're just poopy because they did fnarg".
This is doubly important with posts about Israel/Palestine, because it is such a hot-button issue that you're going to get foment no matter what you say; so it is very, very important to try to frame it carefully.
But yeah -- try thinking of the blue like a newspaper, but the way they told you newspapers worked when you were in third grade. The way you phrased that would be more like an Op-Ed, and that's what didn't work about it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:15 AM on July 28, 2010 [2 favorites]