Historia Civilis—excellent history videos. Primarily their story of the fall of the Roman Republic, which does a shockingly good job of making you feel emotions for a little coloured square with the channel's iconic simple animation style. Good if you're interested in the intricacies of the politics and culture of the time.
Extra History—shorter historical overviews of a much wider range of topics than the above. Quite transparent about their process with their "Lies" episodes at the end of each series, where they explain any errors that slipped through, as well as aspects they left out for the sake of keeping the story focused within the time they had.
ReligionForBreakfast—a scholarly, secular take on religion and religious practice. I think the first thing I saw was their series on American Civil Religion, which is the idea that Americans' attitude towards their country and its processes is similar to religion belief and practice.
UsefulCharts—history and religion, told through charts. The ones that interest me the most are the ones that touch on the creator's PhD in religious studies, such as about the historicity of various aspects of the bible, and on his actual thesis topic on the Psychology of Atheism.
And since you said "informative", I'll add some that I probably wouldn't have included solely under the "educational" category. Not Just Bikes, CityNerd, Radical Planning, Oh the Urbanity!, among others. Urbanist channels across a range of the political spectrum (from Oh the Urbanity which are relatively libertarian, to Radical Planning which is quite marxist). But all of them deal with the problems inherent to the way cities are designed especially in the anglosphere (and among that, especially in America) and how car-centric design creates miserable places while also being economically ruinous.
White ant is another name for termites. Just as termites literally destroy the structure of a house from the inside, a person "white-anting" is acting from within to take an institution down. In the case of Rudd, the goal wasn't to destroy the Labor party per se, but to take down the Gillard government by, for example, leaking details of what were supposed to be closed internal discussions to the press. And it had the effect of helping Labor lose the following election, giving Australia 9 more years of conservative rule.
Rudd is probably correct about this, but You Should Know that he's also an arrogant fuckwit who tried to pass climate legislation that his own treasury modelling said wouldn't reduce emissions for 25 years (since this was in 2010, that means we'd still be a decade away from emissions falling). Since the conservative Coalition was never going to support any climate policy, and the left wing Greens refused to suppose such a lazy token effort, that meant his centrist Labor party's policy failed to pass.
And because he's such an arrogant prick, he absolutely refused to negotiate to bring about a better policy. Instead, he eventually got ousted by his own party, and the replacement leader did negotiate and did pass real, meaningful climate policy. Until those fossil fuel interests helped the Coalition win the next election, Australia had world-leading reductions in CO2 emissions.
Oh, and that election loss was not helped by Rudd's own white-anting from inside the Labor party…
I love fuck! I can never be bothered creating upstream Git branches when I've branched locally, I just type git push and it complains there's no upstream, and then I type fuck and it does it for me.
Murdoch is an American citizen. He literally chose to give up his Australian citizenship. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him less Australian than the average random American who's never been to Australia. They at least have zero Australianness. Murdoch has negative.
I'm not really interested in anything you, a random Lemming, have to say about whether or not it's a genocide. And you shouldn't be interested in anything I say either.
What you should be interested in is the growing scholarly consensus. Organisations like the United Nations Special Committee into the matter, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Court of Justice have all stated either that it definitely is or plausibly could be genocide. Academic researchers into genocide are "surprisingly unanimous", with only a small number of zionists denying it at this point.
As for "name calling and bullying". If you deny genocide, then stating that you are a genocider is neither of those things. It is a simple fact.
Oh damn. I thought you were a reasonable person with different views until this comment. It took you an impressively long time to come out with the explicit genocide denial.
I'm surprised Beehaw of all places allows genocide denial, tbh.
Stop the whataboutism. Stop defending genocide. Nothing Hamas does or could do can defend genocide.
But if you really want to play that game: everything Hamas does is also Israel's fault. Israel created Hamas. They funded Hamas deliberately as a way to destabilise the Palestinians. They create oppressive conditions in which a militant organisation like Hamas is bound to thrive. Everything that Hamas does is a predictable outcome of Israel's actions, and the ultimate blame lies squarely on them.
But again, that's irrelevant. Because even if Hamas's own actions weren't Israel's fault, Israel's actions obviously are. Murdering children, doctors, and journalists by the hundreds are classic fascist moves. Displacing people en mass from their homes is genocide. Collective punishment is a war crime. Deliberately starving people is a war crime. Stop defending genocide.
I think it's very important to start from the place of acknowledging that nothing Hamas does or has done is relevant. Whether someone condemns Hamas or wholeheartedly supports them, or (as most people probably do) sit somewhere in between, really doesn't matter. Because genocide is absolutely, totally, inexcusable. Even if Hamas were committing genocide themselves, that does not excuse Israel's genocide. And the fact is that Hamas isn't committing genocide. They literally could not if they wanted to. They haven't the power necessary for it.
Any organisation that is censoring people who accuse Israel of genocide, or who play whataboutism games by trying to ensure that condemnations of Israel are always followed by condemnations of Hamas, are abetting genocide.
Maybe. I couldn't find the report if it did, but that's not a huge surprise given how hard this is to google for.
I'd be extra interested if it happened under the current Media Watch host, who has ties to zionist organisations (he studied at Moriah College, a member of the zionist "Jewish Communal Appeal"), and started on Media Watch in February or March this year.
From what I can tell, the average ABC worker is on the right side of this. But ABC management seems to have a direct line to the genocide supporters. And when the Israel lobbyists tell Kim Williams (or formerly Ita Buttrose) to jump, he (she) asks "how high?" We only need look at the Lattouf case or, less sensationally, Sandy Gutman, to see that.
That's why what repeatedly happens is the right thing happens at first. Then management gets wind of it, usually because of DMs from lobbyists, and orders a reversal.
In this case, I think what probably happened is it got uploaded as normal. Because that's what they do. Any vaguely interesting segment of television gets uploaded to their website and iView. Then the Israel lobby saw it, saw that he was calling out their genocide, and got on the like to Williams or Hugh Marks or someone else on the board or management, and they sent down the instruction to nix it.
Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone Posts 162Comments 3,601Joined 2 yr. ago
!fuckcars@lemmy.world