> At their very best, third places allow people of differing backgrounds to cross paths — to develop what are known as bridging ties. As opposed to our closest connections, bridging social networks encompass people who have varying identities, social and economic resources, and knowledge. “Studies have shown that just having a diversity of folks in your life … more informal and infrequent and unplanned, can be really protective for health and well-being,” Finlay says.
What is intrinsically valuable then: third spaces, diversity, or individual health? It feels like the first has the most value in service of the second, which is really just a supplement for the third. Almost like we stopped believing we can convince people to get on the same page about anything that looks like a shared value...
Also much respect to the persistence of patronizing Vox-speak in 2024: "to develop what are known as bridging ties" Known to who? "Studies have shown that" Studies where?
The article references four books including "The Great Good Place" which originated the term along with the classic "Bowling Alone", which documents the decline of social connections in the United States. Additionally they interview four university professors who have studied the topic and they link to at least five academic papers, three surveys and several more newspaper articles. It seems to me that the article offers quite a bit of information on where the studies are.
"known to" isn't patronizing; it indicates jargon, and in this case likely indicates a scientific term used in those studies. I agree that it would've been nice to link to the studies.
A great essay (also check out "The Left is Not a Church" by Benjamin Studebaker) but by 2013, feminist bloggers online had made all these same sort of urgent, crucial observations about female solidarity. Eventually, I'm sure they will be seen as the original canaries in the coal mine of the post-Bush internet-enabled progressive-political holding pattern.
As in many other areas, the younger generation raised on Web 2.0 are far beyond the Web 1.0 crowd in regards to industriousness and psyche. Nobody writes or reads stuff like this anymore. They just install Shinigami Eyes and move on with their day
I’d have to refer you to places like Southern Poverty or law enforcement to identify specific sponsors of terror.
I believe that, in the United States, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and congress are the ones who decide what warrants investigation, generally speaking.
If you think your law enforcement should decide which political speech is terrorism, you have many home countries to choose from -- from the U.K. to Saudi Arabia -- but the U.S. is not one of them. Best of luck!
Are you ok with BDS and all other Palestinian human-rights advocacy being nuked off the face of the internet for "anti-Semitism" within moments of handing the anti-"stochastic terrorism" powers to the government ? What about any video of IDF doing anything wrong? Even the recent articles about the killed Palestinian journalist could be used for Nefarious Purposes
“Speech promoting violation of the law may still only be restricted when it poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action, and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of that speech.” [1]
As others have noted, speech doesn’t have unlimited degrees of freedom in the United States.
The only thing, apparent to me, that clearly protects people from hate speech in America is when that hate speech is intended to cause harm or harm would be the likely outcome of the hate speech.
The solutions are to convince the center, succeed at reform through protest and politics, and maybe, as necessary, go further through grassroots action. Just like the women who won the ability to vote, for example. Actual activism still works, although it requires doing a little more than sitting on your couch crying to the government to make the bad ideas go away
> Most people suffer from what is commonly known as “plant blindness”, a term coined by US botanists Elisabeth Schussler and James Wandersee. They described it as “the inability to see or notice the plants in one’s own environment”. Unless taught, people don’t tend to see plants – despite the fact that at any given moment, there is likely to be a plant – or something made by plants – nearby.
But there are also proteins nearby -- isn't it worrying how people don't notice those too? With COVID and monkeypox raging around the world, isn't "protein blindness" an even more dire issue? I think the author might be suffering from "protein-blindness blindness," a term coined by US biochemists Elisabeth Simoneer and James Widdershins. In our recent study...
I would bet ‘plant awareness’ tracks pretty well with rural vs urban demographics. That’s not to say rural population somehow magically have built-in knowledge as to the botanical science; they don’t and eduction need to improve across the board. Yet I sometimes feel that these articles are written by urbanites interviewing other urbanites and making sweeping generalizations about ‘our’ view of the world.
My point was that framing the problem as an individual pathology that afflicts at random rather than a cultural, communal sickness inevitable under capitalism is absolutely absurd
What is intrinsically valuable then: third spaces, diversity, or individual health? It feels like the first has the most value in service of the second, which is really just a supplement for the third. Almost like we stopped believing we can convince people to get on the same page about anything that looks like a shared value...
Also much respect to the persistence of patronizing Vox-speak in 2024: "to develop what are known as bridging ties" Known to who? "Studies have shown that" Studies where?