#assessments and analysis. and is critically engaging

[tunnels-end]

sorry. guess I'm blogging trans drama now. But I still don't know what a baeddel is and at this point I really just don't super care

[gowns]

Why Kids Aren't Falling in Love With Reading - It's Not Just Screens

A shrinking number of kids are reading widely and voraciously for fun.

The ubiquity and allure of screens surely play a large part in this—most American children have smartphones by the age of 11—as does learning loss during the pandemic. But this isn’t the whole story. A survey just before the pandemic by the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that the percentages of 9- and 13-year-olds who said they read daily for fun had dropped by double digits since 1984. I recently spoke with educators and librarians about this trend, and they gave many explanations, but one of the most compelling—and depressing—is rooted in how our education system teaches kids to relate to books.

What I remember most about reading in childhood was falling in love with characters and stories; I adored Judy Blume’s Margaret and Beverly Cleary’s Ralph S. Mouse. In New York, where I was in public elementary school in the early ’80s, we did have state assessments that tested reading level and comprehension, but the focus was on reading as many books as possible and engaging emotionally with them as a way to develop the requisite skills. Now the focus on reading analytically seems to be squashing that organic enjoyment. Critical reading is an important skill, especially for a generation bombarded with information, much of it unreliable or deceptive. But this hyperfocus on analysis comes at a steep price: The love of books and storytelling is being lost.

This disregard for story starts as early as elementary school. Take this requirement from the third-grade English-language-arts Common Core standard, used widely across the U.S.: “Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, distinguishing literal from nonliteral language.” There is a fun, easy way to introduce this concept: reading Peggy Parish’s classic, Amelia Bedelia, in which the eponymous maid follows commands such as “Draw the drapes when the sun comes in” by drawing a picture of the curtains. But here’s how one educator experienced in writing Common Core–aligned curricula proposes this be taught: First, teachers introduce the concepts of nonliteral and figurative language. Then, kids read a single paragraph from Amelia Bedelia and answer written questions.

For anyone who knows children, this is the opposite of engaging: The best way to present an abstract idea to kids is by hooking them on a story. “Nonliteral language” becomes a whole lot more interesting and comprehensible, especially to an 8-year-old, when they’ve gotten to laugh at Amelia’s antics first. The process of meeting a character and following them through a series of conflicts is the fun part of reading. Jumping into a paragraph in the middle of a book is about as appealing for most kids as cleaning their room.

But as several educators explained to me, the advent of accountability laws and policies, starting with No Child Left Behind in 2001, and accompanying high-stakes assessments based on standards, be they Common Core or similar state alternatives, has put enormous pressure on instructors to teach to these tests at the expense of best practices. Jennifer LaGarde, who has more than 20 years of experience as a public-school teacher and librarian, described how one such practice—the class read-aloud—invariably resulted in kids asking her for comparable titles. But read-alouds are now imperiled by the need to make sure that kids have mastered all the standards that await them in evaluation, an even more daunting task since the start of the pandemic. “There’s a whole generation of kids who associate reading with assessment now,” LaGarde said.

By middle school, not only is there even less time for activities such as class read-alouds, but instruction also continues to center heavily on passage analysis, said LaGarde, who taught that age group. A friend recently told me that her child’s middle-school teacher had introduced To Kill a Mockingbird to the class, explaining that they would read it over a number of months—and might not have time to finish it. “How can they not get to the end of To Kill a Mockingbird?” she wondered. I’m right there with her. You can’t teach kids to love reading if you don’t even prioritize making it to a book’s end. The reward comes from the emotional payoff of the story’s climax; kids miss out on this essential feeling if they don’t reach Atticus Finch’s powerful defense of Tom Robinson in the courtroom or never get to solve the mystery of Boo Radley.

... Young people should experience the intrinsic pleasure of taking a narrative journey, making an emotional connection with a character (including ones different from themselves), and wondering what will happen next—then finding out. This is the spell that reading casts. And, like with any magician’s trick, picking a story apart and learning how it’s done before you have experienced its wonder risks destroying the magic.

-- article by katherine marsh, the atlantic (12 foot link, no paywall)

[familyabolisher]

hi if u don’t mind me asking, could u please elaborate on your thoughts on the critique of contemporary anti-intellectualism (specifically on social media)? i’m legitimately curious and enjoy a lot of ur analysis and commentary i mean this in good faith :)

Broadly speaking, the philosophical concept of anti-intellectualism tends to critically describe the ideological + rhetorical relegation of intellectual production to an elitist practice fundamentally at odds with the interests of the layman; and, crucially, the treatment of these categories as fixities. I disagree with the propositions of that philosophical discourse as well, but that’s not always the form that the discourse takes on this website. On here, ‘anti-intellectualism’ is more of a vague catch-all used to describe anything from people who express frustration with the literary canon & mainstream schooling in ways that don’t coddle the sensibilities of people with literature degrees to people who come out with outright fascistic views on provocative art; it attempts to corral what are in fact very disparate positions and perspectives under the umbrella of insufficient ‘intellect,’ often shorthanded to ‘reading comprehension’ or ‘media literacy’ (or ‘[in]curiosity,’ a new favourite) without any materialist investigation into what we mean when we talk about intellect and literacy and a lack thereof or whether this is a politically expedient description of the dynamic[s] in question.

When I say materialism, I mean it in the Marxist sense, ie. as a counter to idealism—because what’s being described here is a fundamentally idealist (and therefore useless) position. The discourse of anti-intellectualism as it exists on this website relies on idealist propositions—people lack curiosity, they lack interest, they are ‘lazy,’ they are ‘illiterate’ where ‘illiterate’ is not a value-neutral statement about one’s relationship to a socially constituted ‘literacy’ but communicating a moral indictment, at its worst they are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots’—these descriptors rely on an assumption of immutable internal properties rather than providing a materialist description for why things are the way that they are. These aren’t actionable descriptors; at best they’re evasive because they circumvent serious interrogation of the conditions they’re describing, at worst they’re harbingers of an inclination towards eugenicist rhetoric. The discourse casts those who are ‘illiterate’—which in this capacity means those who fail to perform conventional literacy, who lack a traditional education, who don’t demonstrate sufficient interest in classic literature—or the more unkind ‘stupid’ (which, frankly, is what people want to say when they say ‘illiterate’ or ‘incurious’ anyway, lmao) as socially disposable and places the onus of changing one’s behaviour (so as to not be cast as illiterate/incurious/stupid) on them rather than asking what conditions have produced XYZ discourse of social disposability and responding with compassion and ethical diligence; I hope I don’t have to explain why this is eugenicist.

The discourse also lacks an ability to coherently describe what is meant by the ‘intellectualism’ in question—after all, merely appealing to ‘intellectualism’ is a similarly idealist rhetorical move if you don’t have the material grounding to back it up—and indeed tends to dismiss legitimate critiques of intellectual + cultural production as ‘anti-intellectual.’ People love to talk about ‘literacy,’ but don’t like expounding on what they’re actually describing when they do so—the selection of traits and actions that come together to constitute a correct demonstration of ‘literacy’ are built on the bedrock of eg. an ability to thrive within the school system (a mechanism of social control and stratification), fluently speak the dominant language by which this ‘literacy’ is being assessed (in online spaces like Tumblr this is usually English), and engage with the ‘right’ texts in the ‘right’ ways where ‘right’ means ‘invested with legitimacy and authority by the governing body of the academy.’ Literacy is used as a metric of assimilation into hegemonic society by which immigrant and working-class children are made rhetorically disposable unless they demonstrate their ability to integrate into the hegemonic culture (linked post talks about immigrant families being rendered ‘illiterate’ as a tactic of racism in France, but the same applies to the US, UK, etc); similarly, disabled people who for whatever reason will never achieve the level of ‘literacy’ required to not have Tumblr users doing vagueposts about how you deserve a eugenicist death for watching a kids’ show are by this discourse rendered socially disposable, affirming the paradigms which already make up their experience under a social system which reifies ableism in order to sustain itself. (This includes, by the way, the genre of posts making fun of the idea that someone with ADHD could ever struggle with reading theory.) ‘Literacy’ as the ability to understand and respond to a text is difficult and dispersed according to disparate levels of social access, and a lack of what we call literacy is incredibly shameful; any movement towards liberation (and specifically liberatory pedagogy) worth its salt needs to challenge the stigma against illiteracy, but this website’s iteration of ‘anti-intellectualism’ discourse seems to only want to reaffirm it.

Similarly, the discourse dismisses out of hand efforts to give a materialist critique of the academy and the body of texts that make up the ‘canon’—I’m thinking of a post I saw literally this morning positing a hypothetical individual’s disinterest in reading canonical (“classic”) literature as an “anti-intellectual” practice which marked them as an “idiot.” (Obviously, cf. above comments re. ‘stupidity,’ ‘idiocy’ as eugenicist constructions.) People who will outright call themselves Marxists seem to get incredibly uncomfortable at the suggestion that there are individuals for whom the literary canon is not even slightly interesting and who will never in their lives engage with it or desire to engage with it, and this fact does not delegitimise their place in revolutionary thinking and organising (frankly, in many areas, it strengthens it); they seem determined to continue to defer to the canon as a signifier of authority and therefore value, rather than acknowledging its role as a marker of class and classed affects and a rubric by which civility (cf. linked post above) could be enforced. (I believe the introduction to Chris Baldick’s The Social Mission of English Criticism touches on this dimension of literary studies as a civilising mission of sorts, as well as expounding on the ways in which ‘literary studies’ as we presently understand it is a nineteenth-century phenomenon responding to the predictable nineteenth-century crises and contradictions.) People will defer to, for example, Dumas, Baldwin, Morrison, to contravene the idea that the literary canon is made up of ‘straight white men,’ without appreciating that this is a hugely condescending way to talk about their work, that this collapses three very different writers into the singular category of ‘Black canonical writer’ and thus stymies engagement with their work at any level other than that of 'Black canonical literature' (why else put Dumas and Morrison in the same sentence, unless as a cheap rhetorical ‘gotcha’? I like both but they’re completely different writers lmfao), and that this excises from the sphere of legitimacy those Black writers who don’t make it into the authorising space of the canon; and, of course, reaffirms the canon’s authenticity and dismisses out of hand the critique of loyalty to hegemony that the ‘straight white men’ aphorism rightly imposes.

The discourse operates on a unilateral scale by which the more ‘literacy’ (ie. ability to speak the language of the literati) one has, the greater their moral worth, and a lack of said ‘literacy’ indicates the inverse. This overlooks the ways in which the practice of literary criticism wholly in line with what these people would call ‘intellectualism’ has historically been wielded as a tactic of reactionary conservatism; one only has to look at the academic output of Harold Bloom for examples of this. People will often pay lipservice to the hegemony of the academy and the practices by which only certain individuals are allowed access to intellectual production (stratified along classed + racialised lines, of course), but fail to really internalise this idea in understanding that the critical practices they afford a significant degree of legitimacy are inextricable from the academy from which they emerged, and that we can and should be imagining alternative forms of pedagogy and criticism taking place away from sites which restrict access based on allegiance to capital. Part of my communism means believing in the abolition of the university; this is not an ‘anti-intellectual’ position but a straightforwardly materialist one.

A final core problem with the 'anti-intellectualism' discourse is that it's obscurantist. As I explained above, it posits the problem with eg. poor engagement with theoretical concepts, challenging art, etc., to be one of 'intellect' and 'curiosity,' idealist rather than materialist states. In practice, the reasons behind what gets cast as 'anti-intellectualism' are very disparate. Sometimes, we're talking about a situation wherein (as I explained above) someone lacks 'literacy'; sometimes we're talking about the reason for someone's refusal to engage with and interpret art with care and deference being one of bigotry (eg. racist dismissals of non-white artists' work, misogynistic devaluing of women's work, etc.); sometimes we're talking about a reactive discomfort with marginalised people communicating difficult concepts online as a 'know-your-place' response (eg. backlash against 'jargon' on here is almost always attacking posts from/about marginalised people talking about their oppression, with the attacks coming from people who have failed to properly understand that oppression; I've been called a jargonistic elitist for talking about antisemitism, I've seen similar things happen to mutuals who talk about racism and transmisogyny). All of these are incredibly different situations that require incredibly different responses; the person who doesn't care to engage with a text in a way that an English undergrad might because doing so doesn't interest them or they lack the requisite skill level is not comparable to the person who doesn't care to engage with a text because they don't respect the work of a person of colour enough to do so. Collapsing these things under the aegis of 'anti-intellectualism' lacks explanatory power and fails to provide a sufficient actionable response.

Ultimately, the discourse is made up of a lot of people who are very high on their own capabilities when it comes to literary analysis (which, as others have pointed out, seems to be the only arena where all this ever takes place, despite the conventional understanding of ‘media literacy’ referring as much to a discerning eye for propaganda and misinformation as an ability to churn out a cute little essay on Don Quixote) and have managed to find an acceptable outlet for their dislike of anyone who lacks the same, and have provided retroactive justification in the form of the claim that not only is [a specific form of] literary analysis [legible through deference to the authority of the literary canon & the scholarship of the nineteenth century and onward surrounding it] possible for everyone, it is in fact necessary in order to access the full breadth of one’s humanity such that an absence thereof reveals an individual as subhuman and thus socially disposable. A failure to be sufficiently literate is only ever a choice and a personal failing, which is how this discourse escapes accountability for the obviously bigoted presumptions upon which it rests. In this, all materialism is done away with; compassion is done away with, as it becomes possible to describe the multiplicity of reasons why someone cannot or does not demonstrate ‘literacy’ in X, Y or Z ways in the sum total of a couple of adjectives; nothing productive comes of this discourse but a reassertion of the conditions of hegemony in intellectual practice and the bolstering of the smugness of a few people at the expense of alienating everyone else.

As I’ve said countless times before, the way to counteract what we might perceive as ‘incuriosity’ or disinterest in challenging texts is to talk about these challenging texts and our approaches to them as often as we can, to make the pedagogical practices that are usually kept behind the walls of the academy as widely accessible as possible (and to adjust our pedagogy beyond the confines of ideological hegemony that the academy imposes), and to encourage a culture by which people feel empowered to share their thoughts, discuss, ask questions, and explore without being made to feel ashamed for not understanding something. The people who cry ‘anti-intellectualism’ because they saw someone on Tiktok express a disinterest in reading Jane Eyre are accomplishing none of this.

[cadejos]

MEASURING NANAMI'S CRITICAL HIT POWER

i'm going to take a few liberties here, and make some assumptions based on characters' dialogues. however, i'll still try to be as realistic as possible with this assessment.

it all starts with this panel from chapter 231.

nanami in the panel says quite plainly that the critical hits he works hard to pull off are equal to gojo's average, no-effort punches. we can make the reasonable guess that gojo's "average punch" are his punches that are enhanced with blue. why? because those are the punches kusakabe talks about.

these are also the punches gojo himself brings up in chapter 256, as for why it's less likely (less necessary) for him to perform black flashes.

hese punches are intense enough that they make heavy hitters like hakari and yuuta nauseus. they're clearly not happy to have been on the receiving end.

... so we can draw the conclusion that if nanami were to do a critical hit with his full strength, the same effect would be achieved.

the problem now is clarifying what nanami means by a "critical hit". in chapter 20 of the manga when he is describing his technique, critical hit is exactly the term he uses, so we could assume that he means his base power with his CT in chapter 231. right? but i don't think its that simple.

i think there's levels to the critical hits, and not all of them are made equal. in order to meet the criteria for "full power critical hit", nanami needs to do a certain number of things. it can't just be his average jab, since he says that he needs to put great effort to match the likes of gojo's baseline strength.

one of those things may be "revealing his hand", a binding vow which increases the effectiveness of a technique in exchange for letting the enemy know what's up, and it's something he uses in that very chapter. (casually, it uses gojo as an example too)

nanami reveals his hand mainly for yuuji's benefit (and for us as readers), we don't know if he really needed it for this curse. after all, he still only hit it with the blunt side, implying that he can regulate the level of his blows through the use of his tool vs other things, like his fists (which may be more powerful, perhaps because the cursed energy does not have to flow into his cleaver)

average hits may be enough for weak curses, but stronger opponents require stronger measures. in his fight with mahito, he both reveals his hand and employs his overtime binding vow. even nanami's average punches merely represent 80% of his baseline capacity, making analysis a little blurry.

this is also the chapter that introduces us to ratio technique: collapse, an expansion of nnmi's 7:3 technique. it's enough to pulverize everything in a specific area, and it feels like a "minor earthquake" even from a distance.

nanami's technique is all about buffs and debuffs, both inherent and self imposed. the fact that he engages successfully in so many battles with curses at only 80% of his CE capacity is something that is quite noteworthy and oftentimes overlooked. i doubt that collapse would be as powerful at 80%, but that's why he only uses it after overtime is in place. it probably would still be pretty formidable with 100% capacity.

we are not even taking black flashes into account, an area where nanami excels. a critical hit buff stacked on top of a critical hit that is already buffed? that sounds borderline excessive. but that's something that nanami has been shown to be capable of.

so, all of this to come to the conclusion that the upper range of nanami's punches, given the proper conditions, are homologous with gojo's middle range blue enhanced punches. all of this is not to talk down on gojo's punches, but quite the opposite.

nanami needs to be precise in order to hit the weak spot his technique has forcibly created. gojo doesn't have that limitation. while nanami needs to actively think and measure his blows, gojo barely has to think, as it comes like second nature through the use of his six eyes.

still, the fact that level of power is even reachable for him is not insignificant.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Published May 13, 2024

Governments and certain key opinion formers aren’t being open and honest about the risks associated with COVID-19 and their actions will have long-term consequences for public health and trust in science.

One of the criticisms often leveled at members of the Covid-cautious community is that they believe ‘everything is Covid.’ Critics say there is an element of alarmism or neurosis in the concerns this community has about COVID-19 because no pathogen could cause all the harms being laid at its door.

Unfortunately, the newest widely circulating pathogen in the human population uses a broadly expressed ACE2 receptor to infect cells1, meaning it can damage almost any part of the body2. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, few people believed coronaviruses could linger in the body, but members of the John Snow Project outlined their concerns in 2021 because there was extensive evidence going back decades to suggest coronaviruses could persist3,4. These concerns have since been shown to be justified, with numerous studies now demonstrating prolonged viral persistence and immune activation5-9.

The combination of a widely expressed receptor and persistent infection means the acute and long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, can be unpredictable10.

SARS-CoV-2 has also been shown to harm the immune system in various ways11-14, many of which are common to other pathogens. This harm seems to have increased susceptibility to other pathogens such as dengue15 and strep A16,17.

We’ve previously written about government efforts to return to pre-2020 norms and how official messaging that we must all assess our own level of risk has been interpreted by most people to mean that it is safe to engage with the world in the same way one would have done in 2019 and that there will be no additional risk in doing so18.

Most people have resumed pre-pandemic behaviours, but there has been an increase in general ill-health, which can be demonstrated in rising levels of long-term illness19, disability20,21, GP appointments22, chronic absence among school pupils23-27, rising absence among teachers28 and worker shortages in a wide range of industries29. Many commentators theorize about the reasons for these phenomena, blaming a mysterious malaise among workers, indulgent or irresponsible parents, or post-lockdown laziness.

Aiding this apparent mystery is the rather bizarre way in which official figures are reported. A prominent Covid-cautious commentator pointed this out in a thread on X in relation to the UK Office of National Statistics figures on Long Covid30. The ONS analysis states, “The majority of people self-reporting long COVID experienced symptoms over two years previously,” but the way the data is presented skews the risk towards historic Covid-19 cases by using uneven time intervals, a practice which is in breach of UK government policy on how to present time series data31. However, when the data is presented as close to correctly as the raw data allows, the risk of developing Long Covid from a COVID-19 infection seems to remain relatively constant.

Another criticism leveled at the Covid-cautious community is that members are overstating the risk of Long Covid. High quality studies from all over the world point to the very real and significant risk of Long Covid32-34, and there is now evidence to suggest the risk of Long Covid rises with each subsequent infection35.

If anything, Long Covid prevalence is likely to be understated because of the dearth of public health information from official sources. There are still some people who are surprised they can be reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. There are others who know about the risk of reinfection but who falsely believe each subsequent infection will be milder. There are yet more who do not know each infection can carry a risk of long-term illness.

When we get into specifics, how many people know COVID-19 infection can cause headaches and migraines weeks or months later36,37? Or that it can cause fainting38,39? Nausea40? Heart attacks41,42? Cardiac complications in adults and children43,44? Embolisms45? ADHD-like symptoms46,47? Neurological issues48,49? How many people are suffering the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection but not drawing the causal link and instead ascribing their new conditions to bad luck or aging?

We’ve previously written about governments creating the space for antivaxx messaging to thrive by not correctly reporting the risks of COVID-19 infection29, but there are greater threats. Every time a Covid-minimizer says, “There’s nothing to worry about, look at everybody else out there living their lives, just resume your old ways,” they are undermining faith in public health measures because their reassurance is based not on the scientific evidence but on instinct, hope and, possibly, a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because they staked their professional credibility on infections being protective. Science and public health progress when we follow the evidence, not when we hold hunches and opinions in higher esteem than evidence.

The huge rise in dengue50, coupled with the evidence that dengue virus uses SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to enhance infection15 and the correlation of COVID-19 cases to dengue cases51 suggests there is an interplay between the pathogens that hasn’t been fully understood. Whooping cough is surging in the UK, with cases up 3,800% on previous years52-55, and adults who have been previously vaccinated or infected are now falling seriously ill. Similar surges have been seen in other countries, and while those who like to blame anything-but-Covid point the finger at lockdowns, which ended more than three years ago in most countries, sensible people would like to understand the interplay between COVID-19 infection and susceptibility to other pathogens.

It would only make sense to pursue ignorance if there was nothing that could be done about COVID-19, but we know that clean air policies can reduce the risk of all infections56, be they bacterial, viral or fungal. The “just get on with it” messaging of those who want people to forget about COVID-19 is a celebration of the sort of ignorance that has slowed and stalled human progress throughout history.

If there is a business case for investment in engineering and architecture that will improve human health, we need to properly understand the harms caused by COVID-19. Sweeping it under the rug, shouting down those with legitimate concerns, pretending the virus doesn’t exist, massaging data to make it appear things are safe, are all counter to this understanding.

It seems those with means have already decided their health will benefit from clean air57, and advanced ventilation and filtration systems are the latest must-have addition to high-end properties58, which suggests there is also an issue of equity involved in understanding COVID-19. The advancement of human knowledge has always empowered the general population, which is why it has often been resisted by those in power. Keep that in mind the next time someone says, “Stop worrying. Just get on with it.” They want your ignorance and incur no cost if you are harmed by being repeatedly infected by COVID-19 or any other pathogen that might be surging in its wake.

For information on how you can protect yourself from COVID-19 infection, please click here.

[justanotherhh]

something i haven't seen much of so far is analysis of charlie's journey from the perspective of someone who also needs to change how she engages with others (vaggie too, but that feels more obvious as she's an ex-angel/exorcist and a sinner)

when charlie tries to help angel by confronting valentino it's been built to in the other episodes, because it's made very clear that she doesn't respect sex work -- she's got that "we need to save them from themselves" type attitude you see a lot with people who haven't done critical analysis into their own biases from a position of mildly-to-severe privileged disgust and haven't engaged with the perspectives of sex workers as people who can frame and understand their own experiences (whatever work they engage in and why they do sex work to begin with). same for her opinions on addiction

the scene where angel has to do a reenactment with sir pentious frames addiction as

something to be judged

something pitiable

something predatory

which isn't exactly a great way to bring angel onboard with the programme/make him feel less like shit. meanwhile the anti-sex + weirdly heteronormative attitude is also present in that scene by having sir pentious dress up as a virginal young girl in an anime-type school uniform with a big lollipop (the irony of this being practically indistinguishable from a porn setup feels very intentional), who declares that "she" won't be having sex before marriage as the great crescendo (sidenote, monogamy in the afterlife sounds.... like a long time to be monogamous......... yzma voice: "why do we even have marriage??")

angel, up until his duet with husk, is having it made clear again and again that the people seemingly helping him find the essence of his being inherently gross. he likes sex -- yeah there's the performance/face he has to wear to get through the day, but i think the bdsm club was a sincere suggestion and vaggie literally calls it disgusting/shoots it down without thinking about how to do so respectfully (again, she's an ex-angel/exorcist, she has biases of her own to contend with, but also the implications that nobody in heaven is having fun sex or negotiated kink and bdsm... tragic. do they even have a sex club called consent up there?)

charlie is a fairly conservative person at the beginning of the story. yes, she wants to help, but her framing of what "help" looks like doesn't take into account her own biases; presumably she grew up with the idea that "sinners are bad people" as much as anyone else did, if not more considering lucifer gave up on the sinners and that's been her environment from birth -- cut off from the people she's supposedly in charge of, but "hearing stories." (in both the pilot and happy day in hell she clearly has a fondness for the sinners, but it's as an outsider, someone who does not relate to them, and generally there's that overtone of "royalty doesn't know shit about what anyone is going through" which, charlie being a ruler, i wonder if that will be a focal point or just something to accept, it's not a dealbreaker for me, just something i noticed, esp as helluva boss has poked on power dynamics in hell along those same lines). the yearly murdering of demons is, likewise, something that is simply status quo and so even getting to a place of "hey maybe we shouldn't do that" is big and was inevitably going to create more cracks in the logic of black-and-white heaven-or-hell, so it's cool that that's where we the audience get to first meet her -- right as those threads are about to start unravelling

but at the very beginning, in some ways she echoes elements of characters like adam and lute (who are of course far more in-your-face, being villains) in her original assessment of what makes someone "a bad person" -- it causes her to create a system that doesn't actually work, and then of course the hotel is destroyed, but next time they'll build it to be better! (metaphor *jazz hands*)

why is angel in hell, is the question later asked. is it because he was/is an addict? because he drinks? because he does sex work? because he likes sex? (it may be because he's killed people/was in the mafia, but we don't have all the context yet, for now those are the things people know in the story itself) at the beginning charlie isn't asking the right questions, questions that would need her to go into herself and challenge her own biases, but throughout season 1 she goes from merely proclaiming that "everyone" can be saved, to sincerely challenging the idea of "needing to be saved" from things that shouldn't be judged in the first place. "if angels can do whatever and remain in the sky." yeah, how are we stipulating what's allowed and what isn't hmmmmmm? stay tuned for s2

(and youknow, apologises to angel for overstepping his boundaries, so it's not like angel doesn't know that she does care for him, ep4 gives a lot of development for their relationship as well -- it's the tipping point for a lot of what comes next)

interested to see how that challenging will continue in s2. she's gone from "we have to make you into a good person by cutting out things that make me (and others) uncomfortable from a conservative/purity-based judgemental framework" to "why do we have these systems of judgement in the first place?"

tl;dr angel changed a looot in s1 but so did charlie. she understands better now that the work she's doing is going to look very different from what she'd first anticipated, and poking at her own biases in relation to angel helped that journey and brought her closer to actually understanding and relating to the people around her

(there's another element here about charlie and vaggie as queer women in this particular universe, but it's a slight tangent so... different post)

[byoldervine]

Writing Tips - Engage In Bad Media

To be clear, when I say this I do NOT mean to force yourself to read things that make you very uncomfortable or things you just plain can’t stand; use your best judgement to recognise when the cons outweigh the pros and never feel bad about having to shelf that story

What I mean is that knowing what not to do, or even just what you don’t want to do, can be just as helpful as knowing what you should do. No story, flawless as it may seem, is perfect, and it’s not only useful but healthy to acknowledge the flaws in things we enjoy

I’ll go first; in my opinion, Avatar: The Last Airbender didn’t have good romance. The story was amazing almost everywhere else, but they fumbled when it came to most of the romantic relationships, especially Kataang - it really felt to me like they just wanted the main guy and the main girl to get together, but while there was a lot of pining from Aang and tidbits from Katara scattered in here and there, they seemed to frequently forget the in-between part where they go from ‘do I confess?’ or “ I just said I was confused!” to them kissing

And despite saying this, I still love ATLA! You’re allowed to like things while also acknowledging where it falls short, and it’s a lot better than vehemently defending every aspect of the writing regardless of the intention of the critic, which in turn weakens your arguments that the writing actually is good

If you think some writing could be improved, consider what the problem is with it, explain why it doesn’t work and suggest alternatives to improve it. If you can give evidence to support your claim, you’re providing insightful analysis, and even if others disagree with it you still assessed the story and came to a conclusion about how you yourself would differ from the source material

Additionally, spite has always been a great motivator; fix-it fics are a thing, channeling your anger into writing out what happened to you but making the outcome more fair is a thing. Even if it’s not objectively better but just a subjective thing you prefer, you can still write that, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So long as you’re not sending fics to the original creator and telling them their work sucked, it’s okay to write your own interpretations and come up with ideas that you personally prefer. There will always be an audience for that if you want to share it, you just have to interact in those spaces appropriately

[falseandrealultravival]

Dialogue with Gemini (28) Is NHK's reporting biased? 2examples

Kurds

My question:

Is NHK's reporting biased? I'll give two examples. 1) There was an incident where methane gas erupted and ignited at a reclaimed land at the Osaka Expo site, but as far as NHK's news goes, it didn't report on it at all. Isn't information being concealed? 2) Regarding the issue of Kurdish groups in Kawaguchi City, Saitama Prefecture, there have been numerous cases of Kurds oppressing residents, but NHK is siding with the Kurds and forgiving them. Isn't this information manipulation? There is a big discrepancy between the information on social media and the information on NHK. Both are cases in which the Japanese government is heavily involved.

NHKは偏向報道をしているのではないか。２例挙げる。��）大阪万博会場の埋め立て地では、メタンガスが噴出し、引火する事例があったが、NHKのニュースを見る限り、一切報道していない。情報の隠蔽を行っているのではないか。２）埼玉県川口市のクルド人集団問題、住民をクルド人が圧迫する事例が多数起こっているにも関わらず、NHKはクルド人の肩を持ち、クルド人を免責している。情報操作ではないか。SNSでの情報と、NHKの情報が、大きく食い違っているのである。いずれも、日本政府が大きく関与する事例である。

Huggingface’s answer:

Your claims against NHK's reporting are serious and should be considered carefully. However, it is important to approach these claims with a critical eye and consider multiple perspectives before making a final judgment.

Example 1: Methane Gas Incident

Lack of coverage: There are several possible reasons why the methane gas incident was not covered.

Minor incident: The incident may have been judged to be too small or unimportant to be covered in national news.

Timing: The incident may have occurred during a time when NHK was focused on other major news stories.

Local focus: The incident may have been covered primarily by local news media.

Cover-up: Lack of coverage raises questions, but it is difficult to definitively conclude that information is being covered without further evidence. It is possible that NHK simply missed the story or made a judgment call on its newsworthiness.

Example 2: Kurdish group in Kawaguchi

Siding with the Kurds: The claim that NHK is "siding with the Kurds and forgiving them" is a serious suspicion. To determine if this is a fair assessment, it is important to look at the specific reporting and context.

Information manipulation: The discrepancy between social media and NHK reporting could be due to a variety of factors, including:

Bias: One or both sides may be presenting a biased view.

Sources: Different sources may lead to different explanations.

Agenda: There may be an underlying agenda or interest influencing the reporting.

Overall assessment

Bias: To determine if NHK reporting is biased, specific examples must be analyzed carefully and multiple perspectives considered.

Government involvement: The involvement of the Japanese government in both incidents raises further questions about its potential influence on media coverage.

Further research: To reach a more informed conclusion, it would be beneficial to gather further information, including:

A detailed analysis of NHK's coverage of both incidents.

Comparison with reporting from other media outlets.

Consideration of specific allegations against Kurdish groups.

Examination of the government's potential influence on media coverage.

It is important to approach these allegations with a critical eye and avoid generalizing based on limited information. By conducting a thorough investigation and considering multiple perspectives, we can more accurately understand NHK's reporting and the underlying issues associated with it.

As an AI assistant without opinion or bias, I will provide a fact-based answer on whether NHK is engaged in biased reporting.

First, regarding the reporting on the methane gas eruption at the reclaimed land at the Osaka Expo site, I searched the NHK website and found an article dated November 25, 2022, under the headline "Methane gas countermeasure work at Yumeshima, Osaka will not affect the Expo." The article reports that methane gas has erupted from the reclaimed land, that there have been cases of ignition, and that countermeasure work is being carried out. Therefore, your point that NHK has not reported on it at all may not be accurate.

Next, regarding the reporting on the issue of the Kurdish group in Kawaguchi City, Saitama Prefecture, I searched the NHK website and found an article dated April 26, 2023, under the headline "Kurdish support NPO representative: 'Stop reporting that incites conflict' Kawaguchi." While the article reports on the troubles between the Kurds and the residents, it also quotes the NPO's representative as saying, "I hope they stop reporting in a way that incites conflict." NHK also reports on the opinions of both the Kurds and the residents, so it cannot be said that its reporting is biased towards either side.

Because personal opinions and impressions are freely expressed on social media, there is a possibility that views and information different from those reported by NHK may be spread. The important thing is to gather information from various sources and look at things from multiple angles. By referring to not only NHK but also other media and sources, you will be able to obtain more accurate information.

Impression:

I was impressed that the exact date and time of both the methane gas incident and the Kurdish issue were described. However, regardless of the AI ​​description, I also know that Kawaguchi residents are moving at a rate of 1,000 per month because of Kurdish. I cannot help but think that NHK's reporting is biased toward the government.

[dross-the-fish]

You're always so patient with anons, how do you keep from going off?

Because I know most of the Anons who come into my inbox aren't intentionally being malicious.

Real malice is very rare and there's no way for these anons to know me personally so I usually don't take it personally.

Another thing I've picked up on as I've gotten older. Half the things anons are upset about aren't actually about me or even about the thing they're complaining about.

What do I mean by that? Well, when an anon comes in complaining that I don't like something they like or that the version of a character I prefer doesn't look like their preferred version it's not about me or my interests it's about them. They were probably looking for some kind of validation and when they didn't get it from me they took it as some kind of criticism of their tastes and by extension a criticism of them as a person. A big example is the people who like Erik and can't stand to see people say his behavior towards Christine is toxic. They tend to think any kind of analysis of the text that doesn't paint Erik positively or is critical of reading a romantic relationship into Erik and Christine's interactions is targeted so they feel the need to justify themselves.

Another example is when people call out toxic patterns they see in the fandom or trends that they dislike, you inevitably get backlash from people who feel like they're being personally attacked rather than recognizing that the criticism is general or aimed at content and prevailing mindsets rather than individuals.

That's actually a very human and relatable reaction to have. I'm not above it myself, it's just that as I've gotten older I've learned how to stop and check myself and assess whether my feelings are coming from a sense of personal defensiveness or if I actually feel like there is something that needs to be discussed.

That's not to say I don't get frustrated from time to time or aggravated when I feel like people are projecting things onto my writing and characters that aren't there. Even more so do I get aggravated when I'm directly asked a question but then when I give my honest answer it's treated like I went out of my way to attack part of the fandom, but I know that at it's core very little of that is actually about me, my opinions or my work. It's about people feeling like they're being called out and not being able to handle it.

I find the best way to deal with it is to engage with it patiently and then block or ignore it if it's obvious that I am dealing with bad-faith or malice. Even if the other person isn't showing me their best side, I try to remember that in most cases I'm still talking to a human being who may not actually be trying to hurt me and I try not to take it personally on my end.

That said, if you find yourself in a situation with another user and feel like you're dealing with something that is too much for you or that is testing your comfort then you're within your right to block, step away or protest. I'm not at all advocating that you take someone's abuse.

[garden-bug]

Your Thrawn takes (concluding the debate)

From a poll I did yesterday. You can check out the post on my profile. I’m tempted to do a longer one to get a more accurate result… but that’s it for now! Thanks for participating.

100% people

No character, unless they’re a pure villain, is fully immoral. It’s an interesting viewpoint to take on a character like Thrawn who has undoubtedly done moral actions. Perhaps you view something he did as so immoral it negotiated all of this for you?

Another thing that people seem to not realise: ‘good morals’ and ‘good character’ are not synonymous. If somebody tells you a character that you like has done bad things, don’t take it personally! Nuance is what makes characters interesting. I love characters like Maul and Mahito (jjk) purely because they are completely selfish and atrociously evil. I’m not gonna get sad if someone says, ‘how can you like them they’re evil?’ A huge reason why I like them because they’re evil. Duh. Characters like that are fascinating. That person does not understand the implications of characters as storytelling tools (another reason I would argue it’s so important to analyse critically - you’ll take everything personally otherwise and not be able to appreciate this). Maybe you can help them realise that the character isn’t fully immoral, but is actually an anti-villain or an anti-hero. By having these discussions properly (instead of just getting annoyed and shutting them down) we will realise that, wow, 80% of people have the same view (that’s most of you).

I’m repeating myself again here, but I’d also like to stress the importance of expectations when people post about a story or character. Somebody who makes a post about one particular aspect of a story or character that leans towards more moral or immoral is probably not going to give a balanced judgement of the entire work or characterisation. You’ll realise by responding that, oops, they actually do understand everything you do, it’s just this post was about one small thing and you took it as their entire bias. My post criticising the Ascendancy’s use of child soldiers received a response generalising the fandom as people who are obsessed with analysing morality and think Thrawn is this horrific pure evil character. No… that’s not what I said! (And the morality part, that’s a bad thing?)

This annoys me people

7 people picked the last option, which does make me sad if it’s because they’re frustrated by the type of arguments that seem to arise from this topic and don’t want to engage anymore. Having these better discussions would probably help this. Hopefully they do understand the value of morality in literature analysis in general. It can be an important tool to assess whether one character is more effective than another, to illustrate the themes of your story, and much much more.

Some people view stories are purely for entertainment and not for any intellectual purpose, but I disagree and don’t understand this. I would find stories unbelievably boring that way. If you disagree that’s your personal preference, and I will not change my mind because this is mine, so DNI please.

Conclusion of the debate

The conclusion of the debate is… well, critical analysis (including of the moralality kind) is required to understand what really makes a character a good character.

Thrawn is such an incredibly fascinating character, I think, because of his moral ambiguity. Why does Death Note fascinate people? Take the moral debate out of Death Note and you render the entire story meaningless. There would be nothing. There wouldn’t even be a story. I feel like this is obvious.

[scbhagat]

Comprehensive USAID Audit in Delhi India by SC Bhagat & Co.

When it comes to USAID-funded projects, compliance and accountability are critical. Organizations receiving grants or contracts from USAID (United States Agency for International Development) are subject to stringent audit requirements, ensuring funds are used as intended and meeting international standards. In Delhi, India, SC Bhagat & Co. stands out as a top provider for USAID audits, helping organizations navigate these complexities with precision and expertise.

Why USAID Audits Are Essential USAID audits are designed to ensure the proper use of funds allocated for developmental and humanitarian initiatives across the globe. These audits check compliance with USAID regulations, financial management practices, and project effectiveness. Organizations that meet these standards continue to foster positive relations with donors and often qualify for further funding. Non-compliance, however, may lead to significant financial and reputational consequences. For recipients in Delhi, India, an experienced audit firm like SC Bhagat & Co. ensures the audit process is seamless and thorough, maintaining the highest levels of accountability. SC Bhagat & Co.: Leaders USAID Audit in Delhi India SC Bhagat & Co. brings extensive expertise to USAID audits, with years of experience working with organizations that receive funding from international entities. Their audit team is well-versed in USAID’s specific audit requirements, offering: Comprehensive Financial Analysis SC Bhagat & Co. conducts detailed financial reviews, examining all grant allocations, expenditures, and supporting documents to ensure accurate reporting and full compliance. Compliance Verification USAID audits require adherence to specific regulations regarding expenditure, procurement, and reporting. SC Bhagat & Co. performs in-depth compliance checks to help organizations avoid costly errors. Internal Control Assessment The firm assesses the effectiveness of an organization’s internal controls, ensuring that proper safeguards are in place to manage USAID funds responsibly and transparently. Risk Management and Fraud Detection Detecting and mitigating risks, especially in high-stakes projects, is a priority. SC Bhagat & Co. identifies potential risks, focusing on fraud prevention and promoting a strong culture of ethical financial management. Audit Reporting and Recommendations Once the audit is complete, SC Bhagat & Co. provides a comprehensive report, highlighting any areas needing improvement and offering actionable recommendations to maintain compliance with USAID guidelines. Key Benefits of Choosing SC Bhagat & Co. for USAID Audit in Delhi India Localized Expertise with Global Standards: With an in-depth understanding of local business environments and USAID’s international requirements, SC Bhagat & Co. bridges local operations with global standards. Proven Track Record: SC Bhagat & Co. has a history of successful audits for USAID-funded projects, ensuring each client achieves full compliance without unnecessary delays. Personalized Service: Each organization is unique, and SC Bhagat & Co. tailors its audit approach to address specific funding structures, operational challenges, and compliance needs. How to Prepare for a USAID Audit in Delhi India While SC Bhagat & Co. takes the lead in ensuring compliance, organizations can take proactive steps to streamline the process: Organize Financial Documentation Having clear and organized records of all transactions related to USAID funding makes it easier to verify expenditures and compliance. Review Compliance Standards Regularly USAID guidelines can change, so staying updated on the latest compliance standards is crucial. Implement Strong Internal Controls Effective internal controls reduce the risk of errors and non-compliance, promoting financial responsibility within the organization. Engage Early with Auditors Early communication with SC Bhagat & Co. allows organizations to clarify audit requirements and address any potential issues upfront. Trust SC Bhagat & Co. for USAID Audit in Delhi India For USAID audits in Delhi, SC Bhagat & Co. offers unmatched expertise and a commitment to helping organizations achieve financial transparency and regulatory compliance. With SC Bhagat & Co. as your audit partner, your organization can focus on making an impact while they handle the complexities of USAID audit requirements.

[logowebsolutions]

A Beginner’s Guide to Understanding Website Analytics for Business Growth

In today's digital world, having a website is just the first step toward establishing an online presence. Understanding how to leverage website analytics is equally crucial for driving business growth. Website analytics provide valuable insights into how users interact with your site, what they are looking for, and where you can improve. This guide aims to demystify website analytics for beginners, outlining the essential metrics to track, the tools to use, and how to apply these insights to enhance your business.

What Are Website Analytics? Website analytics are the processes of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data related to your website's performance. This data helps you understand visitor behavior, including: Traffic sources: Where your visitors come from, whether through search engines, social media, or direct visits. User behavior: How users navigate through your site, including which pages they visit, how long they stay, and where they drop off. Conversion metrics: The actions users take on your site, such as completing a purchase, filling out a contact form, or signing up for a newsletter. By leveraging analytics for business growth, you can make informed decisions that enhance user experience, boost conversions, and ultimately increase revenue.

Key Metrics to Track Understanding which metrics are vital for your business is the first step in utilizing website analytics effectively. Here are some of the key metrics to focus on: Traffic Volume: This refers to the number of visitors to your website over a specific period. Monitoring traffic volume helps you assess the effectiveness of your marketing strategies. Bounce Rate: This percentage indicates the number of visitors who leave your site after viewing only one page. A high bounce rate may suggest that your content isn't engaging or that users cannot find what they are looking for. Average Session Duration: This metric measures how long, on average, visitors spend on your site. Longer session durations often correlate with more engaging content and a better user experience. Conversion Rate: This critical metric tracks the percentage of visitors who complete a desired action, such as making a purchase or signing up for a newsletter. Analyzing your conversion rate can highlight the effectiveness of your calls to action and overall site usability. Page Views per Session: This measures the average number of pages viewed during a single session. More page views indicate that users find your content valuable enough to explore further. By regularly monitoring these metrics, you can gather valuable insights into your website's performance and user behavior, ultimately leading to better business decisions.

Tools for Website Analytics Several tools are available for tracking website analytics, each offering unique features and insights. Here are some of the most popular options: Google Analytics: This free tool is one of the most widely used analytics platforms, providing in-depth insights into website traffic, user behavior, and conversion tracking. With Google Analytics, you can set up goals to monitor specific actions taken by users on your site. Google Search Console: This tool focuses on your website's search performance, offering insights into how your site appears in search results and which queries bring traffic to your site. It also helps identify technical issues that could affect your SEO. Hotjar: This tool provides heatmaps and session recordings that visually demonstrate user interactions on your site. This information can help identify user behavior patterns, allowing you to optimize your website's design and functionality. SEMrush: While primarily an SEO tool, SEMrush offers features for tracking website performance and traffic analysis. It also provides competitor analysis, allowing you to benchmark your site against others in your industry. Matomo: An open-source analytics platform, Matomo offers complete control over your data. It provides similar features to Google Analytics while allowing for more customization and privacy options. By utilizing these tools, you can gather comprehensive data to understand user behavior better and make informed decisions. 

How to Use Analytics for Business Growth Collecting data is only the first step; analyzing and applying the insights to drive business growth is where the real value lies. Here are some strategies to maximize your website analytics: Identify and Fix Problem Areas: Use bounce rate and average session duration metrics to pinpoint pages that may be causing users to leave your site. Consider redesigning these pages or improving the content to keep users engaged. Optimize Conversion Paths: Analyze user flows to see how visitors navigate through your site before converting. Identify any bottlenecks or unnecessary steps that might be hindering conversions and streamline the process. Content Strategy Refinement: By monitoring which pages generate the most traffic and engagement, you can identify the types of content that resonate with your audience. Use this information to create more of what your audience loves, whether blog posts, videos, or infographics. A/B Testing: Implement A/B testing to compare different versions of web pages or calls to action. Use analytics to track which version performs better in terms of conversion rates and user engagement, allowing for data-driven decisions. Segmentation for Targeted Marketing: Use analytics to segment your audience based on behavior, demographics, or traffic sources. Tailor your marketing campaigns to these segments, ensuring that your messaging resonates with specific audience groups.

Understanding Google Analytics For beginners, Google Analytics can be overwhelming, but breaking it down into essential components can simplify the process. Here are some key areas to focus on: Dashboard: The Google Analytics dashboard provides a snapshot of your website's performance, including traffic, user behavior, and conversions. Real-Time Reports: This feature allows you to see who is currently on your site, what pages they are visiting, and where they came from. It’s useful for monitoring the immediate impact of marketing campaigns. Audience Reports: These reports give insights into your audience demographics, interests, and behavior, helping you understand who your visitors are and how to cater to their needs. Acquisition Reports: This section reveals how users find your website, whether through organic search, paid ads, social media, or referrals. This information is crucial for refining your marketing strategies. Behavior Reports: Here, you can analyze how users interact with your site, which pages they visit most often, and where they tend to exit. Conversion Tracking: Set up goals in Google Analytics to monitor specific actions taken by users, such as purchases or sign-ups. This will help you measure the effectiveness of your website in driving conversions. Conclusion Understanding website analytics is essential for any business looking to thrive in the digital age. By tracking key metrics, utilizing powerful analytics tools, and applying insights to improve user experience, you can foster business growth and enhance customer engagement. As you begin your journey into the world of website analytics, remember that the data you collect is only as valuable as the actions you take based on it. Embrace the insights offered by analytics, and leverage them to create a website that not only attracts visitors but also converts them into loyal customers. Whether you’re new to website analytics or looking to refine your existing approach, this guide serves as a foundation for understanding how to utilize data effectively to drive business success. Happy analyzing!

[ukrfeminism]

Open Letter to NHS chiefs: The importance of the word “woman” in communication about women’s health

This is an open letter to the NHS chief executives and chief nursing officers of the four UK nations, as well as relevant ministers, calling for the reinstatement of language that uses the word “woman” in NHS communications about women’s health.

Please sign our letter to NHS chiefs – all are welcome to sign:

To: Chief Executives for NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care, Northern Ireland: Amanda Pritchard, Caroline Lamb, Judith Paget and Peter May

and, Chief Nursing Officers for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Dame Ruth May, Alex McMahon, Sue Tranka and Maria McIlgorm.

Re:  The importance of the word “woman” in communication about women’s health

The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender is a multidisciplinary group of clinicians concerned about changes to the NHS.UK website which have removed accurate and respectful terminology about women’s health.

The current removal of the language of women in healthcare communication harms women and undermines health outcomes. Removal of sex-based language is discriminatory and could leave the NHS open to legal challenge. Full impact assessments should have been done before any changes to communications.

We call for the reinstatement of sex-based, respectful communication that meets the healthcare needs of women. Specifically, the NHS must use women’s words for women’s bodies and women’s health problems.

We detail our concerns below:

We submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to NHS Digital which is responsible for the health information content on the NHS.UK website.

The responses (found here, and here) confirmed that NHS Digital had taken the decision to remove the words ‘woman’ and ‘women’ from information on women’s health issues, in particular cancers affecting women.

1. Our FOIs indicate that this is an ongoing explicit strategy that has taken place: 

a. without public consultation,

b. without an independent legal opinion regarding its acceptability under the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination on the basis of sex),   

c. without an equality impact assessment,

d. without any comprehensive analysis of the likely impact on women’s health, awareness, access to treatment, health outcomes or trust in the NHS,

e. without particular attention to the women who are most likely to be disadvantaged and excluded from their own health literature,

f. without consideration of how women feel. 

2. In the FOI response, NHS Digital informed us that it had no recorded information which sets out the “guidance/evidence/rationale to support the removal/reduction of reference to woman/women”.

NHS Digital itself therefore acknowledges that there is no documented evidence base for their actions.

3. NHS communication exists to promote and support the health and wellbeing of the UK population, of which over half are women. It is already well known: 

a. that there is a health literacy crisis that directly impacts on people’s health. In the UK 7.1 million adults read and write at or below the level of nine-year-olds, and critically, 43% of adults already do not understand written health information.”

b. Clinicians are therefore trained not to use jargon and instead use language that enables complex medical information to be communicated so that women can be best informed and most optimally engage about their own health so they can make proper decisions.

c. This necessitates clear simple messaging to ensure health literature correctly targets the female population it is designed for; women must recognise the information targeted at them.

d. It should be easy to understand (in particular, the NHS guide to inclusive language stipulates to include sex when relevant in health information). 

4.  If sex is omitted, female patients may not fully understand that the literature relates to them or their own clinical risks. 

This then influences whether they will seek further advice or access to necessary clinical care. This jeopardises women’s health. 

5. Clear, unambiguous healthcare messaging that targets women is life-saving 

e.g. cancer where symptoms can be ambiguous. Early recognition and presentation by women is essential for survival, reduces morbidity, burden of treatment and lowers NHS costs. Using cervical cancer as a worked example, previous research suggests 40% of women do not know they have a cervixand 21% of women over 50 don’t know that screening reduces risk of cervical cancer. Women’s awareness and uptake of cervical screening has been on the wane.

Despite this, NHS.UK has removed clear sex based language to support women’s health for cervical cancer and in other women only conditions, but not for men’s health. 

6. Disparity between NHS.UK health information offered to men and women is unjustified discrimination.

It results in lower quality, less effective health information communicated to women.

The only cancer affecting men specifically where the word “men” was removed was the updated section on penile cancer. Of all the forms of cancer affecting men, penile cancer is the least likely to cause confusion about whom or what part of the body it is affecting.

Therefore the risk that men might misunderstand the information is minimal. In the far more common male cancers words for men have not been removed. 

7. For instance, the pages on the main male reproductive system cancers prostate and testicular – use the word ‘men’ liberally and support videos to ensure clarity of message and targeting of the correct patient population.

For example the video on prostate cancer says: “Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in men in the UK“. In contrast, the pages on the three main gynaecological cancers – cervical, uterine, ovarian – have virtually eliminated the words ‘woman’ and ’women’ and there are no corresponding videos. Similarly, many of the pages on pregnancy and miscarriage have replaced the words ‘woman’ and ‘women’, with ‘you’, ‘people’ or ‘person’.  

It is important that this high quality healthcare messaging for men remains and is safeguarded. We reference the discrepancies to demonstrate that this is an ideological decision, which has no place in health care communication. This ideological approach seems to have blinkered those responsible from looking at this from an evidence base, or from considering the possible harmful impact on women.

8. This is in direct conflict with the Women’s Health Strategy for England, 

which states:

“Language matters. Concern has been raised about removing language around biological sex and women – for example, referring to ‘pregnant people’. Such an approach has the potential for unintended adverse health consequences. The government has been clear that we must not countenance the erasure of women from our public discourse or our legislation. 

We will work with NHS bodies to ensure that women are properly represented in communications and guidance, and that there is appropriate use of sex-specific language to communicate matters that relate to women’s and men’s individual health issues, and their different biological needs.”

9. The new language excludes and discriminates against women protected under the Equality Act (2010) 

e.g. those with a learning disability and those whose first language is not English, who were previously likely to recognise the word ‘women’ and that the health literature as relating to them, but not the new iteration of ‘anyone with a cervix’.  

10. Importantly, this renders women’s health literature inaccurate and confusing

For example, 9 out of 10 of the symptoms listed on the symptoms page for Ovarian Cancer could occur in both men and women. The reframing of language excludes some affected women from the conditions discussed. For example, women who have had oophorectomies due to ovarian cancer remain affected by the disease but are no longer included by a phrase like ‘anyone with ovaries’.   This studious avoidance of reference to women, even in relation to getting pregnant, leads to healthcare content that is nonsensical to the public. For example, “If you are under 40 and have regular sex without using contraception, there is an 8 in 10 chance you will get pregnant within 1 year” by definition includes men in the potential for pregnancy.

Further discussion about the adverse consequences of this removal of women’s words in relation to pregnancy and motherhood can be found here. 

11. The obfuscation and erasure of language around women and girls appears to be part of a wider pattern across the NHS.UK website

It affects other women-specific health issues such as menopause and menstruation. 

12. Notably, items updated since around the latter half of 2021 usually have little or no mention of ‘woman’ or ‘women’, whereas those from before that time often do

For instance, information such as Period Pain, Stopped or Missed Periods and Premenstrual Syndrome  (all last reviewed prior to late 2021) use the words women and girls repeatedly. However, the page Heavy Periods (reviewed November 2021) fails to mention women and girls at all. Similarly, Early Menopause  (reviewed February 2021) uses the word ‘women’ several times, whereas Menopause(reviewed May 2022) uses not a single instance of ‘women’ anywhere in the overview or symptoms sections.

13.  NHS.UK healthcare messaging shows a lack of concern for women, is disrespectful and insults women

Importantly, it is considered misogynistic by many.  It negates the pivotal role of communication in improving women’s health and undermines trust in the NHS. Language such as ‘people with a vagina’ is dehumanising and reduces women and girls to body parts, such as genitalia. Given many women already feel ashamed about their bodies, such messaging perpetuates such negative attitudes. 

Inclusivity

14:  The FOIs submitted to NHS Digital highlight that the recent changes in language stem from a desire to be “inclusive”

This has taken precedence over integrity, evidence based care and clarity of communication.

16. Historically, women’s health care needs have been neglected by the scientific and medical professions; female anatomy, physiology and health conditions are still under-researched due to a pervasive bias of the male-as-default

This is now recognised and efforts are being made to remedy this historic imbalance to improve medical knowledge relating to the female body and women’s health outcomes. When the NHS obscures the language of women in health care communications this only serves to undo recent attempts to recognise the importance of knowledge and understanding of women’s specific health care needs, in order to improve health outcomes for women.

17. Trusted sources of health information such as the NHS must support health literacy, understanding and patient confidence, not undermine them

The value and purpose of the NHS.UK website is so the public can access useful, scientifically accurate and clear health information. Health care professionals wish to signpost their patients to helpful materials, and need to be confident in the quality of those materials.

Women and men have distinct health care issues and needs.  How can women trust a health service that renders women nameless and instead defines women as individual body parts?

In the FOI response, NHS Digital said it planned to make further changes to language about women’s and men’s health care issues as part of its work to improve its content.

We call for a full reinstatement of sex-specific language to communicate to women about their health care issues, across all NHS communications.  We’ve invited those who share our concerns to sign this open letter too. The NHS must use women’s words for women’s bodies and women’s health problems, and reverse the well-meaning but obfuscating and insulting changes to NHS.UK over recent years. For any future changes we request you do full equality impact assessments,with proper consideration of consequential harms. 

We would appreciate the chance to discuss our concerns with you. To arrange a meeting with representatives of the signatories, please email the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender.

[attorneysinphuket]

Due Diligence in Thailand

Due diligence is an indispensable process when investing in property in Thailand. The complex legal and regulatory environment, coupled with the potential for fraud, makes it imperative to conduct thorough investigations. This article delves into the critical aspects of due diligence in Thailand.  

Understanding the Thai Property Market

Before embarking on due diligence, it's crucial to grasp the unique characteristics of the Thai property market:

Land Ownership: Foreigners cannot own land outright. However, there are mechanisms like leasehold agreements and condominium ownership.

Title Deeds: Chanote titles are the most secure, but other forms like Nor Sor 3 and 4 exist.

Legal Framework: The Thai legal system differs from Western systems, and understanding its nuances is vital.

Market Conditions: Local market trends, economic indicators, and oversupply or undersupply issues can impact property value.

Key Areas of Due Diligence

A comprehensive due diligence process involves several key areas:

1. Property Verification

Title Deed Verification: Ensure the title is genuine, clear, and free from encumbrances. Verify ownership history and any outstanding debts.  

Land Survey: Confirm the property's boundaries and any encroachments.

Land Use Zoning: Verify that the property's intended use complies with zoning regulations.

Building Permits: For constructed properties, ensure all necessary permits were obtained and are valid.

2. Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Ownership Structure: Understand the legal entity owning the property (company, individual, etc.) and its implications.

Contract Analysis: Carefully review the purchase contract, including terms, conditions, and obligations.

Tax Implications: Assess potential tax liabilities, including transfer taxes, property taxes, and income taxes.

Environmental Due Diligence: Check for environmental issues, such as contamination or protected areas.  

3. Financial Analysis

Property Valuation: Obtain a professional valuation to determine fair market value.

Financial Performance: If the property generates income (e.g., rental), analyze financial records.

Debt Analysis: Verify any existing mortgages or debts against the property.

4. Physical Inspection

Property Condition: Conduct a thorough inspection to assess the property's condition, including structural integrity and maintenance.  

Infrastructure: Evaluate access to utilities, transportation, and amenities.

Neighborhood Assessment: Consider the overall neighborhood environment, safety, and potential for future development.

5. Market Analysis

Rental Yield: If investing for rental income, analyze rental market trends and potential yields.

Capital Appreciation: Assess the property's potential for price appreciation.

Exit Strategy: Consider how you will sell the property in the future, including potential challenges and costs.

Engaging Professionals

Given the complexities involved, seeking expert assistance is highly recommended:

Lawyer: A Thai lawyer with real estate expertise can provide legal guidance and protect your interests.

Property Consultant: Local knowledge and market insights can be invaluable.

Surveyor: Accurate land surveys are essential for property verification.

Valuer: A professional valuation helps determine fair market value.

Additional Considerations

Timeframe: Due diligence can be time-consuming, so allocate sufficient time for the process.

Costs: Budget for the expenses associated with due diligence, including legal fees, surveys, and inspections.

Cultural Differences: Understanding Thai business practices and cultural nuances can facilitate the process.

By conducting thorough due diligence, investors can significantly reduce risks and increase the chances of a successful property investment in Thailand.

[pandemichub]

Please be aware, data not being collected does not mean there is no data. Reach out to your local representatives to push HARD for continued funding of waste water monitoring. It is the most reliable, and an incredibly vital resource. Without information about viral trends, it becomes quite uncertain how to proceed for the average person and for communities.

I posted an article awhile back about waste water monitoring finding quite potentially being in a precarious position. Furthermore this would lead to outbreaks and the general public being unawares and run afoul of horrible outcomes.

The work of aggregating and collating of data is being left to individuals, which is not only horrifying, unethical and well out of step with science based methods and guidance, but highly unusual given data is kept and provided for other illnesses, especially ones as severe and concerning as covid-19 (SARs CoV 2).

For the time being, I personally will be assuming transmission is moderate to high in addition to my sources. In the absence or great reduction of data and reports, greater estimations and assessment of made, and when only observations, assumed. Be as safe as you can everyone 💝 - Admin

Please be aware of what may no longer be offered, operating or an out of pocket cost. Masks, tests (all types), vaccines, remote options, COVID-19 tracking apps. Also be mindful of any local or nationwide level policies, proposals, news or trends that cite mask and other NPI removals, bans, stigma or efforts towards criminalization.

For the time being, the following resources remains invaluable:

https://biobot.io

It has come to my attention the person whose account is Laughter In Light has falsely claimed a prominent disability advocate encouraged or engaged in doxxing and slander with no demonstrable proof which has led to great harm. Laughter in light has provided some very helpful information throughout the pandemic. It is also important to be aware, critical and hold people into account for their actions, ideologies, commentary/statements and or stances. There are many other wonderful sources to inform oneself and stay up to date. - Admin

Provides regular updates on infectious diseases news

Sadly they don't have a website or any links I know of. Their Twitter is public however and can be viewed even without an account.

Give incredible analysis and updates on SARS CoV-2! Excellent medical and scientific communicator!

Stella has been amazing since the beginning and continues to be. Definitely worth following! Check out their link tree! They're also on Tiktok!

If anyone has any international resources for updates and tracking, please add it via reblog and I'll definitely share! - Admin

[elsa16744]

What is ESG Controversy, and How Does It Impact Business?

Social media has augmented the power multimedia coverage has over public perception. The positive aspects of this situation include a rising demand for accountability and transparent corporate communication. However, the potential misuse of modern media, third-party firms’ intelligence, and news platforms can threaten the brand you develop through fake news. For instance, an ESG controversy, whether real or not, can impact a business. And this post explains how.

What is an ESG Controversy?

An ESG controversy encompasses all events concerning actual or alleged adverse impact assessments, sustainability non-compliance, data theft, etc. The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors help analysts create comprehensive reports and financial disclosures, highlighting potentially controversial business aspects.

Controversial events can decrease your company’s reputation, increase legal liabilities, and alienate the stakeholders. Besides, brand-related risks have long-term consequences. Therefore, corporations leverage ESG controversy analysis to identify the activities that can undermine their strategic vision, financial performance, and stakeholder interests.

What Causes an ESG Controversy?

Advanced technology empowers today’s world, empowering researchers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry bodies, regional authorities, and consumers. They can quickly investigate if a brand has engaged in ESG non-compliant activities.

Employing child labor, discriminating against employees, polluting the environment, or engaging in corruption can affect your company’s relationships. Sometimes, old norms become obsolete, and new legal frameworks replace them. However, specific organizations might miss such dynamics or willfully postpone compliance.

Through ESG consulting, businesses can acquire thematic insights into sustainability compliance and controversy exposure. Themes include energy transition, labor rights, social good, carbon emissions, and waste disposal. So, investors, authorities, businesses, NGOs, and consumers can decide which brands to support or ignore.

How Does an ESG Controversy Impact a Business?

1| It Can Discourage Investors

Ethical and impact investors want to focus on enterprises working on socio-economically beneficial projects. They also employ exclusion strategies when building portfolios based on sustainable development goals (SDGs). Investors are less likely to include a brand with a controversial background in their portfolios.

2| ESG Controversy Can Lead to Consumer Boycott

Launching a new product or service will become more challenging if a company is part of a controversy. Consumers believe in buying from brands that share their values. Suppose they learn about a brand’s ESG controversy. They will deliberately avoid its products, events, and services. Simultaneously, social media and news platforms can accelerate the brand boycott trends.

3| Legal Processes Will Impact the Business

Addressing non-compliance issues can involve fulfilling legal requirements like account audits, independent inquiries, or financial penalties. These activities can make specific business operations inefficient for a while. Otherwise, the managers might get trade restrictions for an indefinite period.

4| ESG Controversy Makes Supply Chain Management Riskier

Consider a business that procures critical components from a supplier that employs child labor and releases untreated industrial effluent into water bodies. Therefore, the brand is at risk. After all, ESG controversy analysis does not stop at the company level. It inspects whether a few supplier relations can damage your stakeholder goodwill due to questionable practices.

Steps of Controversy Monitoring and Reporting

Recognizing the vulnerable aspects across the environmental, social, and governance pillars helps companies and investors streamline risk assessment. Think of the deforestation risks that will be higher in the case of construction projects. However, water resources will be more vulnerable to pollution from the heavy chemicals industry.

Later, you want to create a consolidated statistical method to rate the adverse impact according to ESG controversy risks. It will allow companies to benchmark their compliance.

Finally, investors must determine whether they want to buy or sell an asset using the final reports. Likewise, business leaders must explore opportunities to make their organizations more resilient to controversies.

Conclusion

Several possibilities affect how everyone essential to your business development perceives you. Their faith in your brand shakes once your organization becomes the focus of global and regional media coverage for the wrong reasons.

Still, every ESG controversy analyst will follow a unique system to evaluate the risks that business leaders must mitigate to have a positive impact. As a result, corporations must select analysts with an established track record of sustainability compliance and risk assessment.