I’ve seen this posted elsewhere, and while it’s a valid thing to talk about it distracts from the bigger issues

Others here have explained the difference between someone who’s taken as a prisoner (they are being held because of something they allegedly did) and someone who’s taken hostage (someone who’s held as security for some other purpose). From what I can tell, even Hamas isn’t saying the hostages are guilty of anything. It seems like those involved in the situation agree that the terminology is appropriate.

The more important discussion imo are:

• Whether the charges against the prisoners are appropriate, or if there’s a history of charges, arrests, and detention without justification or evidence. I think this is the point people are trying to make when they bring up hostages vs. prisoners, but if you aren’t specific about it you end up going in circles and arguing about the wrong thing.
• Whether those are being held (both hostages and prisoners) are being treated with respect and dignity. If their needs are being met and if they are being tortured / otherwise suffering unjustly.

There is also some more important discussion around terminology, such as one group being called “women” (implies humanity) and another “females” (more formal, scientific, and a term that’s also used for animals).

however wrong you may think that is.

I don’t think it’s wrong, what gave that impression? The people living in that region all deserve peace, fairness, and equitable treatment from the governing body

Also there’s a lot more to this article than just the Palestine line

This might just feel like confirmation for those that have been watching the coverage in recent weeks. The CTV journalists and newscasters themselves look uncomfortable too, so it’s good that they’re now able to share what’s going on

The journalists said senior producers and senior editors across the platforms of CTV’s parent company Bell Media have disparaged Palestinian guests, told employees that protests calling for a ceasefire should not be reported on, and blocked or delayed stories that included too much contextual information about Israel’s military occupation and regime of apartheid in Palestine.

The journalists, who are not being identified for fear of retribution, described a widespread bias at the media conglomerate against Palestinians that’s resulted in one-sided, incomplete coverage of the violence in Gaza that does “a huge disservice” to Canadians.

Does that include a way for them to return after the conflict settles?

Agreed

Statement and subsequent apology

The motion comes less than a week after the rookie MPP posted a statement on social media calling for a ceasefire in the region while also demanding an end to “all occupation of Palestinian land.”

In the statement, Jama did not address the Hamas attack on Israel, which spurred the most recent violence in the region.

About 24 hours later, Jama issued a written apology for her comments after a lengthy discussion with NDP Leader Marit Stiles—who asked Jama to retract the post. Related Stories

“I heard many voices yesterday raising concerns about my post. I hear them - and above all, I understand the pain that many Jewish and Israeli Canadians, including my own constituents, must be feeling. I apologize,” she wrote.

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

Didn’t she already retract and apologize?

It also demands that the MPP “desist from further conduct that is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

From what I saw, the issue with the statement in the first place was the timing and that it didn’t call out every group that needed to be called out. That’s what the issue was. They’re also saying the NDP is an “antisemitic party” and that ‘Jama is not fit to be premier’. The statements are all wild, it almost makes me think they’re trying to use this as a distraction.

They’re intentionally making wild controversial claims to direct attention away from the greenbelt controversy

I agree with unpinning entirely, it’s an odd fit

I’m not sure if slack has a new meaning, but it might be one of those misspellings where the person really means “flack”

“To give flack” fits the context here

That’s a good tip

Could we get a new pinned comment for this. Some of this is our of date now and it would be nice to discuss.

Apps, interfaces, browser extensions, scripts

atheists give you slack for being agnostic

I find that to be really odd behavior tbh. One of the issues with organized religion is when a group shuns or hates on someone for their religious/ spiritual views. That’s also something that can happen with atheism, even if it’s not really seen as a “religion”.

Just be accepting of other people

Yea that would have been a dealbreaker for me. I’ve used offline maps while traveling fairly often. That’s one of the main advantages of GPS, not needing to send any signals to determine your position. The device calculates it locally based the timing of info that arrives from GPS satellites

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

… yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

Not too experienced with it but my understanding is:

1. RD caches files. You aren’t torrenting directly, but rather you ask for the file associated with a link, and then download it directly

2. Pretty sure you can travel all you want. It’s only a problem if two locations are using it at the same time?

3. that should be fine, but check their site for a list of approved VPNs

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

Huh, good to know while reading the article. Would be nice to have a better source though

Yea especially when tourists often don’t know about the local risks. Warning signs are mostly for people who aren’t from a particular area

Don’t want a ‘boy who cried wolf’ situation