But we started rapidly deconstructing that in various ways and paired with algorithms and an increasingly harsh world on some fronts this barrels towards certain things. When I grew up colourblindness was advocated for and the assumption that migrants here in western europe would not assimilate was considered racist, a gay person would not be questioned, the future was progress with hurdles to tackle.

Now i've never known society as race centered, expecting assimilation is considered bigotry, there's sectarianism of various kinds, i expect the social safetynet to be built down under it's new pressures, increasing homophobic violence in the major cities that saw lots of migration on one end and the culturewar surrounds trans people and the like on the other end, some of the hurdles like the climate seem insurmountable and yet we grow, etc.

It feels like in a drive towards enlightnment we tripped and fell backwards and consequentially I too have given up some tho not all of my views about being good.

You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.

My ambition is to become a dad. I have other ambitions too whcih require a lot of time but if need be i'll make my choices.

As for el sisi. I remember an egyptian friend who fled the country after he did some protesting and journalism critical of the new regime. He said he was amazed by what good they had done for the country and was happy to see the change...despite his past opinion and current exile. Not that he would go back permanently. He married a german gal and later moved to the US.

And it's not like that rapidly decline of their share of the population (which let's be real is somewhat incompatible with an at least a temporarily required Millet system or something like lebanon's gov sectarianism) necessarily means they get a managed peacefull decline. Not a single minority in the wider region has actually gotten that. Kurds, copts, fur, zaghawa, masalit, azeris, asyrians. None. It's all a slow managed decline with gov discrimination and occasional brutalisation or outright killings. Druze might be the only expception to it but they don't relate to power or the rest of islam in quite the same way.

I believe they're very much aware of this. (especially the mizrahi who are more adverserial to the palestinians) So given that they're never going to willingly accept or roll with it if forced....they'll either bail the country faster than the christian lebanese have been doing and/or fight to the death prior.

edit: I think it's with that in mind that one has to look towards a reasonable or semi desirable end result. Chances are there isn't a happy or even fully acceptable ending for both sides. Outside long term enforcement might be best but the brits were already having trouble keeping the lid on that pot well before israel came to be as a state and when the population was a fraction of the current one so it'll not necesarily be all nice either.

The jews in this picture would likely see a much bleaker fate due to their current standing of having brutalised the palestinians in a repeating game of mutual retaliation and escalation but also the diaspora and sheer prevalence of arabs around them. Think how Lebanon went from a christian country to a muslim one in no time with hezbollah calling a deceptive amount of the shots but... worse.

>with more returning of ancestrally owned land I reckon.

A huge part of the black population of SA wasn't there before the boers so the sins of the father or 'blood and soil' rethoric makes a lot more sense for the palestinians. I think it's a valid feeling but also one that cuts on both sides. However the biggest growing group in israel and a big part of the later migration and thus settlement are the mizrahi who have defined a lot of the current hard line stance and to them this western/christianity morality idea of atonement makes no sense. They'd be giving up this land the most but also wouldn't be given their ancestrally owned land back and are also the most adversarial to the palestinian population.

I don't believe anyone still gave a shit at that point or expected ghadaffi to redo after he paid for it. I think it might be better to look at the deals of BP and such in the area.

>They serve you content that they think you will find engaging, and there has to be some automatic categorization as a result.

And this can be completely smart or dumb depending on how you look at it. From my perspective it's a smart algorithm still. If you like or comment on far right or far left ragebait or just ragebait in general then it can serve you ouput from accounts who attract engagement from others who also engage witht hat video. Aka similarly minded people get similarly minded content semi organically as a result of optimising for engagement.

It can do so without genuenly knowing that the video is of category xyz and promoting that specific category but automatically it detects that people who engage with video y are also more likely to engage with video z. The ideological and engagement type bubbles create themselves as a result.

>even if they don't select for rage-bait, they still refuse to take action against accounts that repeatedly post it, making your interjection largely pointless.

The definition of ragebait is vague. Your supressing ragebait is another person's ragebait or supressing of desimination of societal issues. It can be a video of violent crime or of political corruption. Of war or religious extremism. It can be sharing statistics, supporting misogynistic or xyzfobic talkingpoints or exposing them, etc

In a society facing economic decline, corruption or cultural upheaval or what have you you will be stepping on toes whichever way you go. I'd say it's better to either outright ban this kind of social media which will be deeply unpopular or to focus wholely on tackling the divisive issues that lead people to be attracted to some of the dominant topics.

They don't because they don't select for it. They disporotionally push engagement but as far as I know don't have some indians or AI working tirelessly analysing countless videos to categorise them and rank them according to how ragebaity or controversial they are. Those things just rise to the top out of their effort to drive engagement and screentime.

Any alternative that does the same will end up with similar result.

but focusing on that is shifting blame in an innefectual way of course. Pointing at cow farts puts the pressure on the individual and seeks to dampen effects in the short term. Pump up less or no fossil fuels with actual long term thinking and those fertilisers will automatically become more expensive. At that point tho our oversized animal herd becomes harder to support and beef becomes automatically a lot more expensive whilst at the same time the manure becomes more important.

A cow that's fed on gras and farts emits nothing that that gras didn't pick up and contributes virtually nothing to climate change in the long term.

The long run is the thing that really matters. A faster payback only serves to cover the impact of those that want to keep pumping up oil and gas in the meantime(also to make synthetic fertiliser) for a few decades. It shifts focus from that on cow farts. As if the rotting plant matter and wild animal life that could replace it didn't emit any methane.