> Biden banned words like "illegal immigration", "assimilation", and even "women" in different departments/contexts
Source?
I see “illegal alien” being replaced by “undocumented noncitizen”, “assimilation” in with “integration” [1]. That’s bullshit. But it isn’t a ban on a concept. (“Illegal immigration” does not appear to have been restricted.)
The 19th century German coinage "antisemitism" was never a neutral label for "opposition to Judaism", it was a racial science slogan that recast Christian anti-Judaism as a biological war against "Semitic" Orientals
At the time it had no connection with Zionism
Because the word now circulates without that historical packaging, many people take "Jew" to be a racial category and imagine Jews, not Arabs, Assyrians, or other Semitic language communities, to be the only Semitic group, an assumption that reproduces the very Nazi racial taxonomy the term originally served
Its very design, framing Jews alone as the quintessentially "Semitic" target, censors every attempt to talk about the Middle East, because it buries the shared Semitic matrix (Arab, Assyrian, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.) under a racialized badge that only sticks to one side
Once the vocabulary itself encodes a single victim story, any mention of parallel or overlapping suffering sounds like denial instead of description, and the conversation stalls before facts can even be named
The Nazis had no problem allying with the Arabs including the Palestinians in WW2, so there is evidence these weren't placed in the same racial category as Jews.
As these racial categories are all pseudo-science anyway, their only meaning is the meaning attributed to them by the racists. So you can only complain to 19th century Europeans for not being as racist towards Arabs
To expand on this, the central issue is disreputable people obtaining a high degree of control over an industry; that their interests overlap is of little relevance - if anything, it’s a viable smokescreen for PR campaigns.
In "a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada...officers equipped with body-worn cameras generated fewer complaints and use of force reports relative to officers without cameras. BWC officers also made more arrests and issued more citations than their non-BWC counterparts" [1].
More broadly, "there remains substantial uncertainty about whether BWCs can reduce officer use of force, but the variation in effects suggests there may be conditions in which BWC could be effective" [2]. ("Restricting officer discretion in turning on and off BWCs may reduce police use of force," and while "BWCs may reduce the number of citizen complaints against police officers...it is unclear why complaints decline.")
"Our meta‐analysis of 30 studies and 116 effects of police use of BWCs finds that this technology produces few clear or consistent impacts on police or citizen behaviors."
Overall, the effects are unclear. Drill in and there is statistical significance. It's not fair to say it's irrelevant, because we do have cases where it works. There are just more confounding variables than we've given attention to.
Correct: “the transaction will be funded by a combination of cash from each of PIF, Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners as well as roll-over of PIF’s existing stake in EA, constituting an equity investment of approximately $36 billion, and $20 billion of debt financing.”
EA currently carries about $2.6bn in non-current liabilities of which $1.5bn is long-term debt. So an order of magnitude more debt.
Source?
I see “illegal alien” being replaced by “undocumented noncitizen”, “assimilation” in with “integration” [1]. That’s bullshit. But it isn’t a ban on a concept. (“Illegal immigration” does not appear to have been restricted.)
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988789487/immigration-agencie...
reply