• Online and Uncivil ? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments https://www.academia.edu/6778761/Online_and_uncivil_Patterns_and_determinants_of_incivility_in_newspaper_we

    Une étude américaine publiée dans le Journal of Communication s’intéresse aux #commentaires sur les #sites_d'information afin de dresser une #sociologie des #trolls. Un bouquin d’Antonio Casilli est prévu sur le sujet pour bientôt.

    Cf. aussi The Room for Debate « The War Against Online Trolls » http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls

    The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/technology/web-trolls-winning-as-incivility-increases.html

    Robin William’s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

    Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

  • Israeli Self-Defense Does Not Permit Killing Civilians - NYTimes.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/22/self-defense-or-atrocties-in-gaza/israeli-self-defense-does-not-permit-killing-civilians

    #Daniel_Levy apporte d’excellents arguments au débat soulevé par @reka ici : http://seenthis.net/messages/278368

    Il me semble même qu’on ne saurait mieux dire,

    To be clear, Hamas does carry responsibility for this situation – its targeting of Israeli civilians violates international law. The Hamas charter, its political platform and its military activities all deserve to be condemned. But Israel’s share of the responsibility is far greater. That is a hard conclusion to draw but a necessary one if our understanding of events, our responses and policies are to improve.

    There is no military solution but Israel refuses political solutions. Humans do not respond well to humiliation, and will always find ways to resist.

    Israeli self-defense does not include the right to (again) kill hundreds of Gazan civilians, to bomb hospitals or even to warn people to evacuate buildings when there is nowhere for them to go. The Israeli government’s attempt to a priori blame Hamas for all losses and thereby absolve itself of responsibility for casualties cannot be accepted.

    Take a step back from this latest escalation. Most Gazans are refugees, their roots lie in the war and expulsion of 1948. From 1967 they lived under direct Israeli occupation and under blockade ever since, almost for the past decade.

    Israel is not offering Gazans “quiet for quiet.” When Hamas ceases to fire, when it is “quiet,” Israel returns to normality, but Gazans remain cut off from the world, denied the most basic daily freedoms we take for granted.

    Step further back to the West Bank, where the Palestinian strategic alternative to Hamas is pursued. The Fatah movement of President Abbas recognizes Israel, pursues peaceful negotiations and security cooperation. That is met with entrenched Israeli control, ever-expanding settlements, and Israeli military incursions into Palestinian cities at will.

    So what would you do under such circumstances? Perhaps start by not denying another people’s rights in perpetuity, including the right to self-determination. Reverse the current incentive structure that reciprocates both Fatah demilitarization and Hamas cease-fires with variations on an Israeli brand of deepening occupation.

    There is no military solution, but Israel’s government refuses any political solution – neither it nor the governing Likud Party have ever voted to accept a Palestinian state. Hamas’s nonrecognition of Israel is troubling, and so should this be.

    Humans do not respond well to humiliation, repression and attempts to deny their most basic dignity. Palestinians are human. Palestinians will find ways to resist — that is human — and sometimes that resistance will be armed. When the Palestinian struggle abandons, rather than uses, international law, as Hamas does, it is right to call that out and to respond proportionately (Israel has gone well beyond proportional), even as channels should be kept open with Hamas.

    Of course, Israelis do not respond well to being under fire either, but unlike the Palestinians they have a state, an army, American support and weaponry, and, thankfully, their freedom.

    What would you do under such circumstances? Start by treating the Palestinians as humans, as you yourself would wish to be treated.

    • Et un excellent #Henry_Siegman,

      Israel Provoked This War - Henry Siegman - POLITICO Magazine
      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/israel-provoked-this-war-109229_full.html

      But where, exactly, are Israel’s borders?

      It is precisely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to identify those borders that placed Israel’s population at risk. And the reason he has refused to do that is because he did not want the world to know that he had no intention of honoring the pledge he made in 2009 to reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. The Road Map for Middle East peace that was signed by Israel, the PLO and the United States explicitly ruled out any unilateral alterations in the pre-1967 armistice lines that served as a border between the parties. This provision was consistently and blatantly violated by successive Israeli governments with their illegal settlement project. And Netanyahu refused to recognize that border as the starting point for territorial negotiations in the terms of reference proposed by Secretary of State John Kerry.

      But on July 12, as noted in The Times of Israel by its editor, David Horovitz, Netanyahu made clear that he has no interest in a genuine two-state solution http://seenthis.net/messages/276193. As Horovitz puts it, “the uncertainties were swept aside … And nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that [Netanyahu] didn’t tell us what he really thinks. He made it explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.” The IDF, Netanyahu said, would remain permanently in the West Bank. During the Kerry-sponsored negotiations, he rejected out of hand the American proposal that U.S. and international forces be stationed on the Israeli-Palestinian border, which he insisted would remain permanently under the IDF’s control. Various enclaves will comprise a new Palestinian entity, which Palestinians will be free to call a state. But sovereignty, the one element that defines self-determination and statehood, will never be allowed by Israel, he said.

      Why will he not allow it? Why did he undermine Kerry’s round of peace talks? Why is he inciting against the Palestinian unity government? Why does he continue to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, and why did he use the tragic kidnapping and killing of three Israelis as a pretext to destroy what institutional political (as opposed to military) presence of Hamas remained in the West Bank?

      He’s doing all of these things because, as suggested by Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz, he and his government are engaged in a frenzied effort to eliminate Palestinians as a political entity. Israel’s government is “intent on inheriting it all” by turning the Palestinian people into “a fragmented, marginalized people,” Laor writes. It is what the Israeli scholar Baruch Kimmerling described as “politicide” in a book by that name he wrote in 2006.

      So exactly who is putting Israel’s population at risk?

    • Israel’s U.S.-Made Military Might Overwhelms Palestinians | Inter Press Service
      http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/israels-u-s-made-military-might-overwhelms-palestinians

      Jennings told IPS two facts are largely missing in the standard media portrayal of the Israel-Gaza “war:” the right of self-defence, so stoutly defended by Israelis and their allies in Washington, is never mentioned about the period in 1948 when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and pushed off their land to be enclosed in the world’s largest prison camp that is Gaza.

      Secondly, the world has stood by silently while Israel, with complicity by the U.S. and Egypt, has literally choked the life out of the 1.7 million people in Gaza by a viciously effective cordon sanitaire, an almost total embargo on goods and services, greatly impacting the availability of food and medicine.

      “These are war crimes, stark and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law perpetuated over the last seven years while the world has continued to turn away,” Jennings said.

      “The indelible stain of that shameful neglect will not be erased for centuries, yet many people in the West continue to wonder at all the outrage in the Middle East,” he added.

  • Media Stoke Our Terrorism Mindset - NYTimes.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/16/living-in-the-grip-of-vigilance/media-stokes-our-terrorism-mindset

    For more than 30 years, media and pop culture have used scare tactics and racial profiling to overwhelm Americans with fear of the dark-skinned terrorist.

    (...)

    ... a cultural-political mindset (...) has been cultivated over several decades. When a section of policy makers began to develop a vocabulary around Arab and Muslim terrorism in the 1970s, Hollywood stepped in to visualize this new enemy. Dozens of films about brown terrorists bent on attacking the U.S. and Americans, like “Black Sunday” (1977) and “True Lies” (1994), shaped our collective imaginations so effectively that when the Oklahoma bombing occurred in 1995, it was automatically assumed that Arabs were responsible.

    The real trauma of 9/11 elevated this mindset, creating fear and paranoia that terrorists are everywhere. Though we are twice as likely to die from a lightening strike than a terror plot, government campaigns such as “See Something, Say Something,” and popular television shows like “24” and “Homeland,” have inculcated a pervasive threat consciousness.

    This ritualistic and repetitive depiction of a vulnerable homeland is what has allowed for the emergence of a surveillance state that now sees fit to monitor all its citizens. Few politicians have challenged such invasive surveillance for fear of being cast as “soft on terrorism.”

    Thus, a “terrorism mindset” espoused by politicians and bolstered by the culture industry has justified the creation of a massive national security state that systematically violates our civil liberties.

    #terrorisme #surveillance #conditionnement #médias #Hollywood #cinéma #séries_TV #Etats-Unis

  • Le président [Obama] avait affirmé qu’il aurait pu être Trayvon Martin il y a trente-cinq ans. A la fin février de cette année, il a lancé une initiative, « My Brother’s Keeper », pour venir en aide aux jeunes adolescents noirs. Un « devoir moral de l’Amérique ».

    http://www.letemps.ch/Facet/print/Uuid/80777d02-aada-11e3-8e2c-7fe94a3779e4/Le_combat_dune_mère_endeuillée

    The Risk of Playing Down Racism
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/12/the-assumptions-behind-obamas-initiative/the-risk-of-playing-down-racism

    The My Brother’s Keeper initiative is a response to a terrible social reality. Black boys and men are suffering mightily in this nation. The cause is important. However, this endeavor raises serious concerns.

    The first is how the president and others have framed the need for the initiative. Their narrative is filled with equivocation about the reason for the tragic outcomes in black boys’ lives. The president states: “No matter how much the community chips in, it’s ultimately going to be up to these young men and all the young men who are out there to step up and seize responsibility for their own lives.” He speaks of “bad choices” and believes “nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life.” In this way, black boys and their families are being held primarily responsible for the bigotry they encounter. Their vulnerability is overshadowed.

    The problem isn’t black men’s shortcomings, but rather persistent racial bias. The solution certainly isn’t public-private partnerships.

    There is far less emphasis in the initiative on the responsibility of Americans to disavow racial bigotry. However, a comprehensive look at research about racial disparities reveals that the problem isn’t black men’s shortcomings, but rather persistent and pervasive racial bias in areas like policing, incarceration, education, employment, housing and health care. Black males are punished more for less wrongdoing and are stereotyped as lazy, irresponsible and dangerous. Holding to these damaging ideas is not an ideal way to intervene on their behalf.

    My second concern is the emphasis on public-private partnerships and philanthropy. Philanthropy is not policy. And private institutions do not have the well-being of citizens or residents as their primary concern. Knowing the history of public-private partnerships in arenas like imprisonment, education, redlining and subprime mortgage lending, we should tread carefully here.

    If our nation held true to its creed, promising equal protection, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Congress and the president would recognize the need for a robust policy response to this situation. We would all be attentive to the ecosystems of inequality that capture all genders and ages. Entire communities are saddled with the burden of poverty, limited opportunities and narratives that this is “all their fault.” If we are each other’s keepers, we ought to commit ourselves to equalizing opportunity, eradicating poverty and recognizing the full humanity in those deemed the least of these.

    #racisme #Obama #fail #fake

  • Why We Like to Watch Rich People - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/01/16/why-we-like-to-watch-rich-people

    Several Academy Award contenders like “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “American Hustle” glorify white-collar criminals and scammers, and many reality TV shows embrace the wealthy, too. A new series, “#RichKids of Beverly Hills,” is the latest example of our enthusiasm for “ogling the filthy rich.”

    Why are we so obsessed with watching the antics of the 1 percent?

    READ THE DISCUSSION »

    #riches