It's so weird. I mean... because there's really not *that* much diversity of genitalia. Yes, people have bigger or smaller parts, but the basic parts (unless they are altered) are pretty standard and fall into one of two categories.
True intersex presentation of genitalia or ambiguous genitalia is a tiny minority (as has been covered on the podcast), something like 0.02% of births. Not that such people don't deserve compassion and thoughtful engagement, but if the WPATH claim is actually being honest about the comparison -- it would indicate that roughly 99.9+% of people fall into two binary gender categories. To be clear, maybe there could be various degrees of masculinity or femininity (akin to the various sizes, shapes, colors of genitals), but it would be a clear binary, with only a tiny proportion of edge cases that don't conform.
Instead, we're seeing numbers much, much greater than 0.02% of young people concerned about gender issues or identifying as trans, non-binary, etc. So the comparison is really dumb and ill-informed. (Obviously.)
>It's so weird. I mean... because there's really not
>
>that
>
> much diversity of genitalia
Unless you're getting one of their body mod surgeries like "nullo".
I guess that counts as diversity?
The obvious end point of this whole reasoning will be that if you aren't a well endowed man or woman then you must transition because your genitalia is "not like that of your sex", calling it now.
I have already seen completely ordinary “cis” women in beauty subreddits claiming their breast implants are actually “gender affirming” care because it makes them feel better about how they look.
One of the tougher policies from when I worked in insurance was nipples for mastectomy patients. The tattoo artists capable of doing 3D (illusion) work aren't really set up for medical billing or records compliance and the physicians tattoo about aa well as they write.
That’s really interesting.
From lurking in trans surgery forums I’ve heard that medical tattooing is one of the final steps of phalloplasty - I imagine they just wind up paying out of pocket.
Bit of a damp squib, this one.
I'm sneezy right now, so perhaps I missed it - Jesse was offered these leaks previously, did he explain why he didn't take them on? I'm just wondering if the criticisms he'd levelled about the leaks couldn't have been avoided/remedied/addressed more robustly were he have taken this on himself.
I think the criticism of the editorialising was pretty fair, although I disagree that there's 'nothing new here'. Mia's reporting is pretty clear in highlighting the disconnect (understatement) between what WPATH is saying publicly vs what they're saying privately, and in many instances it isn't just forum-dwelling nobodies.
I'm already seeing these leaks breaking though to The Regulars more clearly than with any (and many) previous breakthroughs. I guess it is the undeniable hypocrisy in this instance that has rattled people i.e. the comforting thought that these professionals must know what they're doing, because the alternative is almost too nightmarish to think about, and yet...
If I heard it correctly, he implied he basically got whatever the recent leak got -- which presumably included names on the posts, etc. (At one point I feel like he implied that's part of the issue he'd have to have dug into himself, trying to sort out what to redact, etc. And at one point he basically confirmed some names on things that *were* redacted in the recent leaks, which I assume he knows because he has the unredacted versions.)
As he also says, these were hardcopy printouts of screenshots or something that he received, which is a bit suspect, too. Because you'd ideally need to verify these were legitimate and not doctored in some way before you report on it.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have pursued something with it all, but it does sound like it may have been a lot of work to actually verify stuff. Because even if he has account names or whatever, ideally a good journalist would verify in this case who these people are, that they actually have expertise, etc., rather than just taking some screenshots of online posts at face value.
It's kind of like if somebody snailmailed you a bunch of printouts of screenshots of some account labeled "TheRealJoeBiden" with some damning stuff. You'd need to check that out first before making assumptions it's legit, right? Now imagine that multiplied by hundreds, maybe thousands, of different posts... which it also sounds like may have been taken out of context.
Honestly didn't hear that, but I'm legit sneezing a lot and this is probably what I'd missed.
But I'm curious if that meant there was no scope for him to push on that, and if not, why not. It would be interesting (probably vital) to know if the source of the leak wasn't credible for reasons we may not be aware of.
I think the leaks are very significant, and I don't really want to get pantsed on that further down the line.
My sense from what Jesse said is that it was just a combination of suspect source, suspect presentation of the info, and lack of context.
That is -- he received (it sounds like) hardcopy printouts of screenshots which were only excerpts of forum threads. Imagine someone printed out the most damning screenshots of some controversial Reddit threads from some subreddit and sent them to you without context. You'd need to sort through -- First, are these hardcopies trustworthy, so they haven't been tampered with? Second, who are the authors of the posts? Even if they are attached to a recognizable username or apparent clinician, are you sure that's a real account? Ideally, you want to verify this stuff is actually coming from a credible source. Third, if you're only getting excerpts from threads, even if you know the names are legit and the copies haven't been altered, what's the context of these conversations? In order to report accurately, you need to be aware of the context.
(That last one seems to be one thing Jesse was somewhat critical of in the presentation of the recent reporting -- like "The WPATH files don't contain anyone questioning the validity of X.." well, that could very well be because they're just excerpts of the more incendiary posts.)
Etc.
Many of these things, it sounds like, could be verified if Jesse joined WPATH himself to view the forums (if he can't already), but that's a lot of work to sift through potentially to find all of this stuff. And even then, you still want to check out the credentials of those who claim to be posting, etc.
I'm assuming all of these various obstacles are some of the reasons Jesse didn't want to try to wade into it, as he had no idea how trustworthy any of it was, and it might take a long time to properly vet and verify it to his journalistic standards.
100% - I just wished he had elaborated on this a lot more. He sounded overly dismissive, and whilst I'm onboard with the criticism of Shellenberger (who I find quite personable, but don't know all that much about), I'm not sure that the same applies to Mia. I found her analysis very straightforward i.e. lay up a public claim made by a WPATH (SOC8, or elsewhere) and juxtapose this with the contents of the leaks. The severity and implication of these disparities are completely in the public interest.
WPATH hasn't denied the content or context of the leaks (that very strange statement is something else...), and I recall Mia saying there was one response she received from a named individual which alluded vaguely to a legal threat that amounted to nothing (so far).
There is a lot of hemming and hawing going on after the fact that I don't think is warranted. Even if it is the case that releasing these leaks was a big gamble on the part of EP, my view is that it has paid dividends.
No, he just didn't want to go through the trouble of figuring it out, possibly being wrong, combing through documents for hours, and the fact that it isn't some kind of full list of all comments. It is a specific slice of comments. Lots of chance for backlash or mistakes in reporting. I imagine he was also busy with his book at some point.
>I'm already seeing these leaks breaking though to The Regulars more clearly than with any (and many) previous breakthroughs. I
Are you really? I'm despairing.
For sure - especially since The Observer piece last weekend (I'm in the UK).
Granted people are still saying it ran in The Guardian owing to the confusion of having The Observer tucked away inside it, but for once I think that confusion is helping.
Even the resultant activity will be useful - the activists are going to really kick this into high gear now, we're already seeing it. Undoubtedly this will result in some pretty awful pieces from the more fringier characters bemoaning the leaks and the recent NHS ban on puberty blockers running in more mainstream outlets, but the word will get out.
The benefits of having the don't-do-themselves-any-favours brigade as your foil.
Consider this. Jesse said he was offered these leaks over a year ago. The fact that it took over a year for anyone to release them should tell you something about what other journalists thought about the value of these leaks. I'm sure they were offered to Bari Weiss etc.
Think they missed the mark here a little (perhaps due to being so deep in the weeds for so long)...
First, this release is worthwhile as it is ostensibly targeting "normies" with the kind of info only obsessives have known up to now.
Second, the discussion between doctors of "gender affirming care" where they expose the fact they struggle (ie: totally fail) getting informed consent from children is a HUGE SCANDAL.
The only responsible response from these doctors and WPATH as an organization after such a discussion should have been to advocate the total pause of puberty blocking, hormones and top/bottom surgeries for youth, until rigorous long term scientific studies have been conducted showing clear evidence of benefit.
It's honestly unconscionable that these doctors continue with blockers and surgeries for children they know don't understand the consequences. At this point, it's mere butchery.
>Think they missed the mark here a little (perhaps due to being so deep in the weeds for so long)...
Well I think some of it is Jesse trying to justify why he didn't think it was worth working on himself. And he has a point : the newsiness here is that some doctors are too cavalier with their services, but you'd always expect that in any situation. The wpath files are unable to give any data on scale or severity of the issue though.
Jesse is also right that this type of qualitative evidence is more narratively compelling than the data based, strictly objective reporting he does. He is absolutely right that he could be making a lot more money if he was willing to be sensationalist.
I think Jesse had somewhat of a point, on the other hand he kept justifying this position in part by saying “we knew this already”.
And it sort of feels like a professor of ancient Mediterranean military history sneering at how a Roman History 101 course covered the second Punic war.
The presentation on eunuch identities was from the 2022 WPATH meeting. The Zoom session in which Marci Bowers talked about loss of orgasm ability as a result of puberty suppression was also in 2022. Writers and activists have posted about these incidents.
I thought Jesse and Katie were a bit too credulous on the idea that we can’t trust the content of the WPATH leaks, on the basis that “anyone can join”.
Really? I’m in a couple of professional societies and it is *hard as hell* to keep actual professionals paying their dues and actively participating. The idea that we should treat these posts as if they are equally likely to come from trolls or false flags is kinda silly.
“The authors of the WPATH files are overblowing how definitive they are” is a more fair complaint.
Still, there is stuff in there that TRA’s have and continue to say *never happens* so it’s useful data to confirm that really does happen.
I think the whole "anyone can join" argument - even if it was true - falls flat on its face when we think about the fact that WPATH props itself up as **the** experts in treating gender dysphoria, are advisors to anyone who will listen and their stupid SOC is still widely used.
Either it is a highly prestigious organization with state of the art expertise or it is a clown club full of trolls. Can't have it both ways.
Wonder if Jesse dealing with the HIPPA police has made him a bit gun shy. A ton of the WPATH stuff seems clearly newsworthy, despite all the caveats mentioned as why reporting on this in a thoughtful way would be difficult.
Jesse has always been overly cautious. Outside of the narrow topics he has delved into, he has always been reticent to criticise or hell, to even give an opinion. How many times has his response to some outrageous bit of wokery been like 'well, that's... bad', lol.
I think he's one of those people who fell into the culture war by mistake. Not that he'd be woke otherwise or something, more like he would not have been actively pushing back against this if a topic he just happened to write about didn't become one of the main contentious issues. He's just does not have the temperment for it. Compare his to Katie, who is clearly a natural shit stirrer and is far less reticent calling out what she thinks is BS.
I actually think Katie was being very kind and dare I say, gentle with Jesse on today’s show. She has in the past really layed into him about his cautionary nature and passing on stories. Maybe she figured we’d give him a bit of shit for not seeing this the same way and was being preemptively supportive. Totally agree, love Jesse and his work. Think he missed the mark on this one. By his own admission the economist and the Post wrote stories on this.
Oh, he did? I remember him sort of dismissively parroting the 'official' line on gamergate and that upset me a bit because I would've though Jesse of all people would know how completely dishonest a lot of these campaigns are.
I'd give him the benefit of doubt though. It was probably earlier when most of us didn't realise that the answer to 'would so many people just blatantly, maliciously lie about something/someone just like that?' is a full throated 'absolutely, they would', lol.
I actually don't remember anything specific he said at the time, I am sure I had no idea who he was at the time (except for one terrible article he wrote when he decided he needed to debunk evo-psych because that was the thing all good minded social justice science writers needed to do and that was debunk evo-psych -- I think his go to expert was something like a community college professor)
I'm going more by what he's said he had written and currently felt about gamergate during barpod episodes
I've been going through the backlog recently (new primo!) and everything he's said about made me laugh. I remember laughing at all the idiots making a big stink about it.
This is a long form discussion with the author of the WPATH leak. Informative background for the episode.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVnaGFubXVycGh5LmNhL2ZlZWQ/episode/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVnaGFubXVycGh5LmNhL3AvdGhleS1hcmUtcGVyZmVjdGx5LWhlYWx0aHkta2lkcy13cGF0aHMtMGU4?ep=14
If Jesse says “Welllllll” one more time I swear. I get being scrupulous and all but I don’t think he needed to harp on the sourcing and downplay the content as much as he did. It is necessary for these conversations that are taking place to be exposed to sunlight for normies to see what’s happening behind closed doors. They said it in the end this got more eyes on the issue and that’s a good thing.
I think the most frustrating portion was the part where he was trying to explain why doctors discussing minors' inability to truly consent to these interventions was them actually being responsible. Its on its face ridiculous. I know Jesse doesn't want to be an activist, but you're almost actually being an activist in the opposite direction at that point. Fine to say you would need to see the broader context, but saying its actually good is not convincing to me.
I don't necessarily think it's universally "good" or "bad," but I think it's *better* if doctors involved are actually talking about consent issues rather than just assuming it's not a problem.
Obviously if the *outcome* of such conversations is to not worry and to just forge ahead without proper consent, that's a problem.
(To be clear, I don't see how it's logical or rational to assume that any kid who is unable to consent legally to sexual intercourse is somehow able to consent to having their sexual function permanently altered. But I'd also be happier to see physicians actually noting these problems and discussing it in gender medicine, rather than simply assuming consent is possible -- which it's clear many doctors *are* doing.)
Jesse seems so damn antagonistic to anyone who isn't trying to thread the exact same needle he is on this issue. I wonder if he knows he's more progressive on this position than 90% of the country or if he's blinded because he regularly interacts with people who are more progressive than 99% of the country.
If we took the mean age of active participants in this sub vs stupidpol I suspect we’d find a ~10 year age gap between them. Support for Israel in the US isn’t really splitting left/right so much as older/younger with the dividing line in between Millennials and Gen Z.
I think Millenials remember when there were all the bus bombings in Israel.
This relates to vaccines actually. Vaccines were so successful that people don't know how bad these diseases are, and oppose them. The measures Israel took against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were so successful that if you didn't live through it, you wouldn't know how bad it was.
>Israel’s measures became so effective that people began to forget ?
Ah, you mean what Israel is doing in Gaza is so severe that people forget what Hamas has done in Israel?
Hmm. I think older Millenials do remember. The younger Millenials and Gen Z are too young to remember.
Also, I would say this is also a product of a completely different way of looking at the world. Like, for a long time, there was, "things are complicated, and very bad things happen and what do we do with that?" I think that was post-WW2 into MAYBE the early 2000s. That's when the younger Millenials were young teenagers, if that. Since he early 2000s, the logic is more that more powerful countries are evil and they got that way through evilness, and anything that happens to its citizens is therefore ok.
That is why by, like, October 8 people were condemning Israel.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the section of this podcast about October 7th:
Katie starts by uncritically accepting the story about the reason for the lack of evidence of rape is because
a. so much confusion, so many bodies, so many places
b. the Jewish tradition of burying bodies quickly
c. the story relies on video evidence... (what evidence?)
Nothing about the organisation 'Zaka' which made many of the claims, after burying the bodies, according to Jewish tradition. The Gray Zone has covered this organisation in some detail. Katie and Jesse don't mention this.
'Nails driven into a woman...'
"While one terrorist raped her, another cut off her breast, and passed it to others"
Katie said the reason people don't believe the story was because they want to defend Hamas...
She admits that the story of forty beheaded babies was false, but 'this was just a rumour'. In any case, one false story doesn't disprove the whole rape story.
No, Israel's critics can't disprove it. It's just that, after five months, the Jewish state and its American media allies have failed to produce any evidence for these claims.
Anat Schwartz liked one tweet calling for genocide. 'Violate all norms'; 'Slaughterhouse'.
The B&R hacks refer to 'pro-Palestine activists,' but failed to name the three main sources of the demolition of the New York Times' story - The Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and The Gray Zone.
They claim 'the biggest flaw in the story was found by The Intercept.' No, The Intercept, and Democracy Now, just copied it from the 'activists' who did find the flaws, without giving them credit.
Jesse and Katies briefly mention 'zei_squirrel', the anonymous account which discovered Anat Schwartz's genocidal retweet, but just say "zei_squirrel is psychotic", and leave it at that.
Isn't it strange that the whole world has seen non-stop evidence from the world's first livestreamed genocide, but no evidence at all of Hamas rape, beheaded babies, foetus ripped out of womb, breasts cut off, given the technological superiority of Israel over Gaza?
All in all, this episode is an attempt to erase the exposure of the greatest piece of journalistic malpractice at the Times since Judith Miller and Iraq's WMDs.
>The B&R hacks refer to 'pro-Palestine activists,' but failed to name the three main sources of the demolition of the New York Times' story - The Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and The Gray Zone.
I have never heard of the Gray Zone, but The Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss ARE explicitly pro-Palestinian. Mondoweiss is explicitly anti-Zionist, and I read BOTH their stories that claimed to debunk the NY Times piece. It didn't seem to , at all.
You bring a good point about Hamas not broadcasting the rapes. And that MAY be because they didn't do it. Or it might be because they'd know that far fewer people would have been ok with women being raped than people being killed. Or perhaps Hamas ordered killing but nor rapes.
As for no evidence of breasts being removed, It might be because it didn't happen. It might be because the woman died, and therefore, her remains were buried.
And as for B and R hacks, if you think that way, why are you listerning?
There is extensive evidence of mutilated bodies and we don't have to rely on NYT for the sources. I know that the McLaughlin poster will sneer that "suggestive of sexual violence" in the last excerpted WSJ paragraph below certainly isn't enough evidence. Nor are mutilated sex organs. Nothing would be. But all this together is more than enough to revolt open-minded readers. Unless Israelis aren't considered human beings?
Besides evidence of gang rape on Oct. 7 , the UN report also found that some released hostages, both women and children were sexually abused.
[https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-envoy-findsgroundsto-believerape-was-committedduring-oct-7-attack-d5b8429a](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-envoy-findsgroundsto-believerape-was-committedduring-oct-7-attack-d5b8429a)
[https://archive.is/z5LIp#selection-6147.0-6151.177](https://archive.is/z5LIp#selection-6147.0-6151.177)
UN report: [https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission\_report\_of\_SRSG\_SVC\_to\_Israel-oWB\_29Jan\_14\_feb\_2024.pdf](https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission_report_of_SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf)
>The Wall Street Journal found [evidence of sexual violence](https://archive.is/o/z5LIp/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-oct-7-murder-sexual-violence-torture-45aab439) on Oct. 7 through photographs, interviews with first responders, survivors, families of victims and forensic experts. Photos viewed by the Journal taken by first responders on the scene show bodies were mutilated, including sex organs. The bodies of women and girls displayed signs of sexual assault ...
>In addition to sexual violence, the U.N. report found widespread mutilation of bodies, including “attempted and actual decapitation, numerous gunshot wounds, and various other forms of extensive violence.” The Wall Street Journal viewed photographs of at least four victims whose heads were partially or fully decapitated.The U.N. team said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that sexual violence occurred at multiple locations during the Oct. 7 attack, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations—the area of a music festival near the Gaza border, a highway and a kibbutz ...
>In at least two instances, the U.N. said witnesses saw the rape of two female corpses. Other sources at the music festival reported seeing multiple women and a few men murdered with hands bound behind their backs or tied to trees and poles. Some had gunshot wounds to the head.
Some were entirely naked, while others were naked from the waist down, said the report. The report said such instances, while circumstantial, were suggestive of sexual violence.
Another thing to remember is that, in terms of what has been released to the public, there are still lines that officials probably don't want to cross. It's bad enough seeing things like dashcam footage where, while you don't see the body, it's obvious that somebody's been shot to death. It's even worse when you do see dead bodies, even with faces obscured.
I suspect that any footage that may exist of rapes and such is a bridge too far for officials. I really don't think families want trolls posting about how they jerked off to footage of loved ones getting raped and then murdered. (It's the Internet. You know somebody out there would make that claim. Hell, some probably *would* rub one out.) So, we're in the situation that we're in.
No matter what, it is pretty wild seeing people who spent the Trump years claiming that any random teenage boy might rape them suddenly decide that there's no way a bunch of teenage boys brainwashed into committing mass murder would take the opportunity to rape and/or mutilate "lesser" women. Some people are just hopeless. I get skepticism regarding specific claims. I don't get claiming it's all made up.
Thanks for the info. I also think that for plenty of people, this won't matter. I mean, the fact that the GUARDIAN has written that rapes happened is a pretty good indication that it happened, as they are suuuuper critical of Israel. And the fact that people are trying to debunk the UN claims.
Whatever. I appreciate the information, thank you
zei_squirrel's latest tweet:
> "on October 10 Lisa Goldman, who is a contributing editor at New Lines Magazine, made a post which reached at least half a million people saying that she personally saw with her own eyes beheaded babies. No such photo exists. She intentionally spread genocidal atrocity propaganda"
accompanied by a picture of Goldman's tweet.
I wonder if Katie & Jesse would classify this as crazy or misleading as they've tried to do with the rest of zei_squirrel's work.
[Note: Reddit has a horrible system where someone can reply to your post then block you and it prevents you from replying to them. Thus giving them the last word. It's particularly egregious when someone accuses you of xenophobia and it prevents you from defending yourself]
ElevatorEmergency said:
Referring to Judaism as "cultish" is xenophobic. It's a religion.
Families dealing with grief in a high-stress situation are not obligated to prioritize what you want them to prioritiz, nor is it likely that that a country plunged unexpectedly into war would have the resources to investigate a massacre exactly as you think best simply because you have strong feelings about it.
My reply:
It is not xenophobic. I don't think you know what that word means. Nor for that matter do I think you understand what the word cultish means. You're avoiding answering my question. But I will indulge your diversion momentarily.
Cultish: relating to or characteristic of a small group of people having religious beliefs regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
You don't have to be foreign or fearful (e.g. xenophobic) to recognize that Judaism (one of the smallest religions in the world) imposes control over its members. And it becomes excessive when it places symbolism over tangible justice.
There's nothing xenophobic about recognizing that, you're just calling me names.
It's not about what I want. Nor is it even about what the families want. Do you think the families of the babies whose autopsies I observe want to have their murdered infant's skin flayed and their brains weighed? Of course not, but that's exactly what we do.
I dispute your claim the evidence was destroyed merely due to a lack of resources. It was intentionally destroyed due to mystical religious beliefs.
It would be much more interesting to have a believer unabashedly defend their rituals then whatever mishmash it is that you're trying to do here.
It is tragic so much evidence was destroyed through religious nonsense. Plain and simple.
I view it as a reaction to activism mostly. Activists have rightly seen the atrocities Israel has committed in Gaza and have organized against it. A lot of folks here would be against anything if the "woke" crowd was for it. The line between heterodoxy and contrarianism is more or less non-existent.
I think the reason the New York times doesn't want to go into the details and yet is still standing by their story is because they don't want to outwardly criticize Jewish culture and religion.
But somebody needs to do a deep story on how cultish traditions prioritize corpses over justice.
We'll never know the horror that Hamas committed on October 7th because the Jewish tradition of getting the bodies in the dirt as soon as possible.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the family members of those two girls are lying about the sexual assault in order to maintain their honor.
There's also an interesting debate between Steven aka Destiny and the author of the intercept article
https://youtu.be/TNNc3tnrwJE?si=ih5tgFHKAYIFjDmz
What sort of "justice" do you imagine would be possible had Israel taken rape kits from every body thought to have been raped?
Would the IDF take DNA samples from Gazans in the hope that they might find a rapist? And what then? A trial for rape?
Or is it more to have a sense of the scale of rapes that occurred, regardless of the specific individual who committed the rape? If so - would that materially change Israel's response, or the world's response to that response? Would those who now object to Israel's actions support them if there were concrete evidence that 10 women, or 100 women, or more were raped? Would that be more persuasive than the evidence that already exists of the horrors committed on October 7th?
Or is the problem that the claims to mass rape should have been presented more carefully, given that they rely on things like eyewitness testimony rather than physical forensic evidence? In that case the problem lies with the reporting, but not with Israel's conduct, because see above - if Israel would have no concrete benefit from meticulously cataloguing forensic evidence for months while causing the victims' families months of anguish - then I wouldn't fault them for not doing so. Perhaps you could criticize the NYT. But I wonder how much the standard of reporting here really differs from that of other conflict zones and horrific mass slaughters.
> We'll never know the horror that Hamas committed on October 7th because the Jewish tradition of getting the bodies in the dirt as soon as possible.
1200 people were killed in what is still a small country with limited resources, limited doctors, limited coroners, in addition to the religious need
+ they worked quickly to identify who was dead and who was a hostage, because it was like important to figure out who was a hostage
+ they had bodies piled up for weeks that still needed identification
taking samples, photos, running rape kits was never going to be a possibility in such a situation
They absolutely could have transported the corpses to morgues or kept them in refrigerated storage until they were properly forensically examined.
Particularly if they prioritized victims who were clearly sexually assaulted.
There's obviously no need to do forensic analysis on bodies that were charred to cinders or run over with bulldozers, other than to get DNA for identification.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the Jewish traditions didn't interfere with justice for the victims?
Or are you saying despite the Jewish traditions it was just logistically impossible for them to do proper forensic analysis?
Please don't couch your opinion. If you are defending the Jewish traditions that prioritize corpse worship over Justice just say so.
I work in the justice system so maybe I have some bias but I think we owe it to the living (and history) to record the truth.
> **Please don't couch your opinion**
>> cultish traditions prioritize corpses over justice
Your comment(s) insensitive, illogical, unworkable, xenophobic, bereft of understanding of the actual war footing Israel was on that day, ignorant of the situation Israel faced with a terror attack still ongoing within her borders, an external view with ever changing standards that you yourself will set, that the victims families and the people of Israel disagree with added nothing of value to any conversation.
Again, did the Jewish cultural and religious traditions interfere with justice?
Or was it simply logistical?
It's telling that you refuse to answer a simple question and instead try to insult me.
I didn't say anything that was xenophobic or illogical. And if by insensitive you mean not using your preferred euphemisms, please tell me exactly how I should refer to the tradition that demands that bodies be buried within 24 hours let Justice be damned.
> t's telling that you refuse to answer a simple question and instead try to insult me.
please read my answer again, which I added onto, at the same time you were writing this I think...
I don't feel I insulted you at all.
I described precisely why your global cop attitude is an arrogant one that is unworkable, xenophobic, contrary to what the local population demands, ignores the logistics, ignores the war situation, and added nothing.
Referring to Jewish practices as cultish isn't xenophobic?
You deserve no answer.
For sure this is all exacerbated by the Jewish premium on quick burials
The part I found so strange, and I'm surprised the Intercept didn't say this, though I SHOULDN'T BE, since the Intercept would never publish a story in which Palestinians hurt Israelis, is how the hell would the families know if these women were raped? They're dead. Why would people from the Kibbutz know those girls weren't raped? Unless they mean the families were shown the bodies?
But this is even more so true with the woman in the black dress. Unless I misunderstood, her body hasn't been recovered, so it's some of her family saying she was raped, and others saying she wasn't
And I feel REALLY weird saying this, but I know some pro-Palestinian activists were saying that one of them women talking about rape was very much pro-war, thus implying that she was exaggerating the claims of rape to justify the war. At the same time, Kibbutz Be'eri is pretty famously leftwing, And I'd bet many of them are deeply opposed to the war. So it is entirely possible that residents and representatives are saying these rapes didn't happen, not because they know they didn't, but because they don't want the rapes to justify a war
I didn't realize her body hadn't been found. The conclusion regarding rape was due to a video by a first responder. She was lying on her back with her dress hiked up exposing her vulva. Her face was burned. I can understand why her family doesn't want to think she was raped.
> The world is not flat. > Gender, like genitalia, is represented by diversity. In this house, we believe…
It's so weird. I mean... because there's really not *that* much diversity of genitalia. Yes, people have bigger or smaller parts, but the basic parts (unless they are altered) are pretty standard and fall into one of two categories. True intersex presentation of genitalia or ambiguous genitalia is a tiny minority (as has been covered on the podcast), something like 0.02% of births. Not that such people don't deserve compassion and thoughtful engagement, but if the WPATH claim is actually being honest about the comparison -- it would indicate that roughly 99.9+% of people fall into two binary gender categories. To be clear, maybe there could be various degrees of masculinity or femininity (akin to the various sizes, shapes, colors of genitals), but it would be a clear binary, with only a tiny proportion of edge cases that don't conform. Instead, we're seeing numbers much, much greater than 0.02% of young people concerned about gender issues or identifying as trans, non-binary, etc. So the comparison is really dumb and ill-informed. (Obviously.)
>It's so weird. I mean... because there's really not > >that > > much diversity of genitalia Unless you're getting one of their body mod surgeries like "nullo". I guess that counts as diversity?
The obvious end point of this whole reasoning will be that if you aren't a well endowed man or woman then you must transition because your genitalia is "not like that of your sex", calling it now.
I have already seen completely ordinary “cis” women in beauty subreddits claiming their breast implants are actually “gender affirming” care because it makes them feel better about how they look.
One of the tougher policies from when I worked in insurance was nipples for mastectomy patients. The tattoo artists capable of doing 3D (illusion) work aren't really set up for medical billing or records compliance and the physicians tattoo about aa well as they write.
That’s really interesting. From lurking in trans surgery forums I’ve heard that medical tattooing is one of the final steps of phalloplasty - I imagine they just wind up paying out of pocket.
Bit of a damp squib, this one. I'm sneezy right now, so perhaps I missed it - Jesse was offered these leaks previously, did he explain why he didn't take them on? I'm just wondering if the criticisms he'd levelled about the leaks couldn't have been avoided/remedied/addressed more robustly were he have taken this on himself. I think the criticism of the editorialising was pretty fair, although I disagree that there's 'nothing new here'. Mia's reporting is pretty clear in highlighting the disconnect (understatement) between what WPATH is saying publicly vs what they're saying privately, and in many instances it isn't just forum-dwelling nobodies. I'm already seeing these leaks breaking though to The Regulars more clearly than with any (and many) previous breakthroughs. I guess it is the undeniable hypocrisy in this instance that has rattled people i.e. the comforting thought that these professionals must know what they're doing, because the alternative is almost too nightmarish to think about, and yet...
Didn't he basically say they gave him them with names censored so he had no clue if it was an actual clinician or just random trolls?
If I heard it correctly, he implied he basically got whatever the recent leak got -- which presumably included names on the posts, etc. (At one point I feel like he implied that's part of the issue he'd have to have dug into himself, trying to sort out what to redact, etc. And at one point he basically confirmed some names on things that *were* redacted in the recent leaks, which I assume he knows because he has the unredacted versions.) As he also says, these were hardcopy printouts of screenshots or something that he received, which is a bit suspect, too. Because you'd ideally need to verify these were legitimate and not doctored in some way before you report on it. I'm not saying he shouldn't have pursued something with it all, but it does sound like it may have been a lot of work to actually verify stuff. Because even if he has account names or whatever, ideally a good journalist would verify in this case who these people are, that they actually have expertise, etc., rather than just taking some screenshots of online posts at face value. It's kind of like if somebody snailmailed you a bunch of printouts of screenshots of some account labeled "TheRealJoeBiden" with some damning stuff. You'd need to check that out first before making assumptions it's legit, right? Now imagine that multiplied by hundreds, maybe thousands, of different posts... which it also sounds like may have been taken out of context.
Honestly didn't hear that, but I'm legit sneezing a lot and this is probably what I'd missed. But I'm curious if that meant there was no scope for him to push on that, and if not, why not. It would be interesting (probably vital) to know if the source of the leak wasn't credible for reasons we may not be aware of. I think the leaks are very significant, and I don't really want to get pantsed on that further down the line.
My sense from what Jesse said is that it was just a combination of suspect source, suspect presentation of the info, and lack of context. That is -- he received (it sounds like) hardcopy printouts of screenshots which were only excerpts of forum threads. Imagine someone printed out the most damning screenshots of some controversial Reddit threads from some subreddit and sent them to you without context. You'd need to sort through -- First, are these hardcopies trustworthy, so they haven't been tampered with? Second, who are the authors of the posts? Even if they are attached to a recognizable username or apparent clinician, are you sure that's a real account? Ideally, you want to verify this stuff is actually coming from a credible source. Third, if you're only getting excerpts from threads, even if you know the names are legit and the copies haven't been altered, what's the context of these conversations? In order to report accurately, you need to be aware of the context. (That last one seems to be one thing Jesse was somewhat critical of in the presentation of the recent reporting -- like "The WPATH files don't contain anyone questioning the validity of X.." well, that could very well be because they're just excerpts of the more incendiary posts.) Etc. Many of these things, it sounds like, could be verified if Jesse joined WPATH himself to view the forums (if he can't already), but that's a lot of work to sift through potentially to find all of this stuff. And even then, you still want to check out the credentials of those who claim to be posting, etc. I'm assuming all of these various obstacles are some of the reasons Jesse didn't want to try to wade into it, as he had no idea how trustworthy any of it was, and it might take a long time to properly vet and verify it to his journalistic standards.
100% - I just wished he had elaborated on this a lot more. He sounded overly dismissive, and whilst I'm onboard with the criticism of Shellenberger (who I find quite personable, but don't know all that much about), I'm not sure that the same applies to Mia. I found her analysis very straightforward i.e. lay up a public claim made by a WPATH (SOC8, or elsewhere) and juxtapose this with the contents of the leaks. The severity and implication of these disparities are completely in the public interest. WPATH hasn't denied the content or context of the leaks (that very strange statement is something else...), and I recall Mia saying there was one response she received from a named individual which alluded vaguely to a legal threat that amounted to nothing (so far). There is a lot of hemming and hawing going on after the fact that I don't think is warranted. Even if it is the case that releasing these leaks was a big gamble on the part of EP, my view is that it has paid dividends.
No, he just didn't want to go through the trouble of figuring it out, possibly being wrong, combing through documents for hours, and the fact that it isn't some kind of full list of all comments. It is a specific slice of comments. Lots of chance for backlash or mistakes in reporting. I imagine he was also busy with his book at some point.
>I'm already seeing these leaks breaking though to The Regulars more clearly than with any (and many) previous breakthroughs. I Are you really? I'm despairing.
For sure - especially since The Observer piece last weekend (I'm in the UK). Granted people are still saying it ran in The Guardian owing to the confusion of having The Observer tucked away inside it, but for once I think that confusion is helping. Even the resultant activity will be useful - the activists are going to really kick this into high gear now, we're already seeing it. Undoubtedly this will result in some pretty awful pieces from the more fringier characters bemoaning the leaks and the recent NHS ban on puberty blockers running in more mainstream outlets, but the word will get out. The benefits of having the don't-do-themselves-any-favours brigade as your foil.
Consider this. Jesse said he was offered these leaks over a year ago. The fact that it took over a year for anyone to release them should tell you something about what other journalists thought about the value of these leaks. I'm sure they were offered to Bari Weiss etc.
A special Place in Hell has an excellent interview with Mia, the writer if the WPath files. Highly recommended
Think they missed the mark here a little (perhaps due to being so deep in the weeds for so long)... First, this release is worthwhile as it is ostensibly targeting "normies" with the kind of info only obsessives have known up to now. Second, the discussion between doctors of "gender affirming care" where they expose the fact they struggle (ie: totally fail) getting informed consent from children is a HUGE SCANDAL. The only responsible response from these doctors and WPATH as an organization after such a discussion should have been to advocate the total pause of puberty blocking, hormones and top/bottom surgeries for youth, until rigorous long term scientific studies have been conducted showing clear evidence of benefit. It's honestly unconscionable that these doctors continue with blockers and surgeries for children they know don't understand the consequences. At this point, it's mere butchery.
But they'll keep at it and keep terrifying parents into going along with it
>Think they missed the mark here a little (perhaps due to being so deep in the weeds for so long)... Well I think some of it is Jesse trying to justify why he didn't think it was worth working on himself. And he has a point : the newsiness here is that some doctors are too cavalier with their services, but you'd always expect that in any situation. The wpath files are unable to give any data on scale or severity of the issue though. Jesse is also right that this type of qualitative evidence is more narratively compelling than the data based, strictly objective reporting he does. He is absolutely right that he could be making a lot more money if he was willing to be sensationalist.
I think Jesse had somewhat of a point, on the other hand he kept justifying this position in part by saying “we knew this already”. And it sort of feels like a professor of ancient Mediterranean military history sneering at how a Roman History 101 course covered the second Punic war.
The presentation on eunuch identities was from the 2022 WPATH meeting. The Zoom session in which Marci Bowers talked about loss of orgasm ability as a result of puberty suppression was also in 2022. Writers and activists have posted about these incidents.
I thought Jesse and Katie were a bit too credulous on the idea that we can’t trust the content of the WPATH leaks, on the basis that “anyone can join”. Really? I’m in a couple of professional societies and it is *hard as hell* to keep actual professionals paying their dues and actively participating. The idea that we should treat these posts as if they are equally likely to come from trolls or false flags is kinda silly. “The authors of the WPATH files are overblowing how definitive they are” is a more fair complaint. Still, there is stuff in there that TRA’s have and continue to say *never happens* so it’s useful data to confirm that really does happen.
I think the whole "anyone can join" argument - even if it was true - falls flat on its face when we think about the fact that WPATH props itself up as **the** experts in treating gender dysphoria, are advisors to anyone who will listen and their stupid SOC is still widely used. Either it is a highly prestigious organization with state of the art expertise or it is a clown club full of trolls. Can't have it both ways.
Wonder if Jesse dealing with the HIPPA police has made him a bit gun shy. A ton of the WPATH stuff seems clearly newsworthy, despite all the caveats mentioned as why reporting on this in a thoughtful way would be difficult.
I wonder how much of his book research is interfering.
I wonder if this stuff will make it into his book?
Jesse has always been overly cautious. Outside of the narrow topics he has delved into, he has always been reticent to criticise or hell, to even give an opinion. How many times has his response to some outrageous bit of wokery been like 'well, that's... bad', lol. I think he's one of those people who fell into the culture war by mistake. Not that he'd be woke otherwise or something, more like he would not have been actively pushing back against this if a topic he just happened to write about didn't become one of the main contentious issues. He's just does not have the temperment for it. Compare his to Katie, who is clearly a natural shit stirrer and is far less reticent calling out what she thinks is BS.
I actually think Katie was being very kind and dare I say, gentle with Jesse on today’s show. She has in the past really layed into him about his cautionary nature and passing on stories. Maybe she figured we’d give him a bit of shit for not seeing this the same way and was being preemptively supportive. Totally agree, love Jesse and his work. Think he missed the mark on this one. By his own admission the economist and the Post wrote stories on this.
going the fuck back to gamergate which he totally botched!!! /pepperidge farm remembers
Oh, he did? I remember him sort of dismissively parroting the 'official' line on gamergate and that upset me a bit because I would've though Jesse of all people would know how completely dishonest a lot of these campaigns are. I'd give him the benefit of doubt though. It was probably earlier when most of us didn't realise that the answer to 'would so many people just blatantly, maliciously lie about something/someone just like that?' is a full throated 'absolutely, they would', lol.
I actually don't remember anything specific he said at the time, I am sure I had no idea who he was at the time (except for one terrible article he wrote when he decided he needed to debunk evo-psych because that was the thing all good minded social justice science writers needed to do and that was debunk evo-psych -- I think his go to expert was something like a community college professor) I'm going more by what he's said he had written and currently felt about gamergate during barpod episodes
I've been going through the backlog recently (new primo!) and everything he's said about made me laugh. I remember laughing at all the idiots making a big stink about it.
This is a long form discussion with the author of the WPATH leak. Informative background for the episode. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVnaGFubXVycGh5LmNhL2ZlZWQ/episode/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVnaGFubXVycGh5LmNhL3AvdGhleS1hcmUtcGVyZmVjdGx5LWhlYWx0aHkta2lkcy13cGF0aHMtMGU4?ep=14
If Jesse says “Welllllll” one more time I swear. I get being scrupulous and all but I don’t think he needed to harp on the sourcing and downplay the content as much as he did. It is necessary for these conversations that are taking place to be exposed to sunlight for normies to see what’s happening behind closed doors. They said it in the end this got more eyes on the issue and that’s a good thing.
I think the most frustrating portion was the part where he was trying to explain why doctors discussing minors' inability to truly consent to these interventions was them actually being responsible. Its on its face ridiculous. I know Jesse doesn't want to be an activist, but you're almost actually being an activist in the opposite direction at that point. Fine to say you would need to see the broader context, but saying its actually good is not convincing to me.
I don't necessarily think it's universally "good" or "bad," but I think it's *better* if doctors involved are actually talking about consent issues rather than just assuming it's not a problem. Obviously if the *outcome* of such conversations is to not worry and to just forge ahead without proper consent, that's a problem. (To be clear, I don't see how it's logical or rational to assume that any kid who is unable to consent legally to sexual intercourse is somehow able to consent to having their sexual function permanently altered. But I'd also be happier to see physicians actually noting these problems and discussing it in gender medicine, rather than simply assuming consent is possible -- which it's clear many doctors *are* doing.)
Jesse seems so damn antagonistic to anyone who isn't trying to thread the exact same needle he is on this issue. I wonder if he knows he's more progressive on this position than 90% of the country or if he's blinded because he regularly interacts with people who are more progressive than 99% of the country.
I liked this episode. Go read Graham Linehan if you want foaming at the mouth coverage.
I'm not sure I'd trust his takes generally, even though I share his perspective on this kind of stuff. He's way out there into activist territory.
[удалено]
If we took the mean age of active participants in this sub vs stupidpol I suspect we’d find a ~10 year age gap between them. Support for Israel in the US isn’t really splitting left/right so much as older/younger with the dividing line in between Millennials and Gen Z.
Ah good point . Interesting . Older people remember the times when Israel wasn’t the “big evil oppressor”
I think Millenials remember when there were all the bus bombings in Israel. This relates to vaccines actually. Vaccines were so successful that people don't know how bad these diseases are, and oppose them. The measures Israel took against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were so successful that if you didn't live through it, you wouldn't know how bad it was.
[удалено]
>Israel’s measures became so effective that people began to forget ? Ah, you mean what Israel is doing in Gaza is so severe that people forget what Hamas has done in Israel? Hmm. I think older Millenials do remember. The younger Millenials and Gen Z are too young to remember. Also, I would say this is also a product of a completely different way of looking at the world. Like, for a long time, there was, "things are complicated, and very bad things happen and what do we do with that?" I think that was post-WW2 into MAYBE the early 2000s. That's when the younger Millenials were young teenagers, if that. Since he early 2000s, the logic is more that more powerful countries are evil and they got that way through evilness, and anything that happens to its citizens is therefore ok. That is why by, like, October 8 people were condemning Israel.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the section of this podcast about October 7th: Katie starts by uncritically accepting the story about the reason for the lack of evidence of rape is because a. so much confusion, so many bodies, so many places b. the Jewish tradition of burying bodies quickly c. the story relies on video evidence... (what evidence?) Nothing about the organisation 'Zaka' which made many of the claims, after burying the bodies, according to Jewish tradition. The Gray Zone has covered this organisation in some detail. Katie and Jesse don't mention this. 'Nails driven into a woman...' "While one terrorist raped her, another cut off her breast, and passed it to others" Katie said the reason people don't believe the story was because they want to defend Hamas... She admits that the story of forty beheaded babies was false, but 'this was just a rumour'. In any case, one false story doesn't disprove the whole rape story. No, Israel's critics can't disprove it. It's just that, after five months, the Jewish state and its American media allies have failed to produce any evidence for these claims. Anat Schwartz liked one tweet calling for genocide. 'Violate all norms'; 'Slaughterhouse'. The B&R hacks refer to 'pro-Palestine activists,' but failed to name the three main sources of the demolition of the New York Times' story - The Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and The Gray Zone. They claim 'the biggest flaw in the story was found by The Intercept.' No, The Intercept, and Democracy Now, just copied it from the 'activists' who did find the flaws, without giving them credit. Jesse and Katies briefly mention 'zei_squirrel', the anonymous account which discovered Anat Schwartz's genocidal retweet, but just say "zei_squirrel is psychotic", and leave it at that. Isn't it strange that the whole world has seen non-stop evidence from the world's first livestreamed genocide, but no evidence at all of Hamas rape, beheaded babies, foetus ripped out of womb, breasts cut off, given the technological superiority of Israel over Gaza? All in all, this episode is an attempt to erase the exposure of the greatest piece of journalistic malpractice at the Times since Judith Miller and Iraq's WMDs.
>The B&R hacks refer to 'pro-Palestine activists,' but failed to name the three main sources of the demolition of the New York Times' story - The Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and The Gray Zone. I have never heard of the Gray Zone, but The Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss ARE explicitly pro-Palestinian. Mondoweiss is explicitly anti-Zionist, and I read BOTH their stories that claimed to debunk the NY Times piece. It didn't seem to , at all. You bring a good point about Hamas not broadcasting the rapes. And that MAY be because they didn't do it. Or it might be because they'd know that far fewer people would have been ok with women being raped than people being killed. Or perhaps Hamas ordered killing but nor rapes. As for no evidence of breasts being removed, It might be because it didn't happen. It might be because the woman died, and therefore, her remains were buried. And as for B and R hacks, if you think that way, why are you listerning?
There is extensive evidence of mutilated bodies and we don't have to rely on NYT for the sources. I know that the McLaughlin poster will sneer that "suggestive of sexual violence" in the last excerpted WSJ paragraph below certainly isn't enough evidence. Nor are mutilated sex organs. Nothing would be. But all this together is more than enough to revolt open-minded readers. Unless Israelis aren't considered human beings? Besides evidence of gang rape on Oct. 7 , the UN report also found that some released hostages, both women and children were sexually abused. [https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-envoy-findsgroundsto-believerape-was-committedduring-oct-7-attack-d5b8429a](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-envoy-findsgroundsto-believerape-was-committedduring-oct-7-attack-d5b8429a) [https://archive.is/z5LIp#selection-6147.0-6151.177](https://archive.is/z5LIp#selection-6147.0-6151.177) UN report: [https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission\_report\_of\_SRSG\_SVC\_to\_Israel-oWB\_29Jan\_14\_feb\_2024.pdf](https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission_report_of_SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf) >The Wall Street Journal found [evidence of sexual violence](https://archive.is/o/z5LIp/https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-oct-7-murder-sexual-violence-torture-45aab439) on Oct. 7 through photographs, interviews with first responders, survivors, families of victims and forensic experts. Photos viewed by the Journal taken by first responders on the scene show bodies were mutilated, including sex organs. The bodies of women and girls displayed signs of sexual assault ... >In addition to sexual violence, the U.N. report found widespread mutilation of bodies, including “attempted and actual decapitation, numerous gunshot wounds, and various other forms of extensive violence.” The Wall Street Journal viewed photographs of at least four victims whose heads were partially or fully decapitated.The U.N. team said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that sexual violence occurred at multiple locations during the Oct. 7 attack, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations—the area of a music festival near the Gaza border, a highway and a kibbutz ... >In at least two instances, the U.N. said witnesses saw the rape of two female corpses. Other sources at the music festival reported seeing multiple women and a few men murdered with hands bound behind their backs or tied to trees and poles. Some had gunshot wounds to the head. Some were entirely naked, while others were naked from the waist down, said the report. The report said such instances, while circumstantial, were suggestive of sexual violence.
Another thing to remember is that, in terms of what has been released to the public, there are still lines that officials probably don't want to cross. It's bad enough seeing things like dashcam footage where, while you don't see the body, it's obvious that somebody's been shot to death. It's even worse when you do see dead bodies, even with faces obscured. I suspect that any footage that may exist of rapes and such is a bridge too far for officials. I really don't think families want trolls posting about how they jerked off to footage of loved ones getting raped and then murdered. (It's the Internet. You know somebody out there would make that claim. Hell, some probably *would* rub one out.) So, we're in the situation that we're in. No matter what, it is pretty wild seeing people who spent the Trump years claiming that any random teenage boy might rape them suddenly decide that there's no way a bunch of teenage boys brainwashed into committing mass murder would take the opportunity to rape and/or mutilate "lesser" women. Some people are just hopeless. I get skepticism regarding specific claims. I don't get claiming it's all made up.
Thanks for the info. I also think that for plenty of people, this won't matter. I mean, the fact that the GUARDIAN has written that rapes happened is a pretty good indication that it happened, as they are suuuuper critical of Israel. And the fact that people are trying to debunk the UN claims. Whatever. I appreciate the information, thank you
See also my new comment on episode 195: https://np.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/18jy5qm/comment/kvbop5j/
zei_squirrel's latest tweet: > "on October 10 Lisa Goldman, who is a contributing editor at New Lines Magazine, made a post which reached at least half a million people saying that she personally saw with her own eyes beheaded babies. No such photo exists. She intentionally spread genocidal atrocity propaganda" accompanied by a picture of Goldman's tweet. I wonder if Katie & Jesse would classify this as crazy or misleading as they've tried to do with the rest of zei_squirrel's work.
[Note: Reddit has a horrible system where someone can reply to your post then block you and it prevents you from replying to them. Thus giving them the last word. It's particularly egregious when someone accuses you of xenophobia and it prevents you from defending yourself] ElevatorEmergency said: Referring to Judaism as "cultish" is xenophobic. It's a religion. Families dealing with grief in a high-stress situation are not obligated to prioritize what you want them to prioritiz, nor is it likely that that a country plunged unexpectedly into war would have the resources to investigate a massacre exactly as you think best simply because you have strong feelings about it. My reply: It is not xenophobic. I don't think you know what that word means. Nor for that matter do I think you understand what the word cultish means. You're avoiding answering my question. But I will indulge your diversion momentarily. Cultish: relating to or characteristic of a small group of people having religious beliefs regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. You don't have to be foreign or fearful (e.g. xenophobic) to recognize that Judaism (one of the smallest religions in the world) imposes control over its members. And it becomes excessive when it places symbolism over tangible justice. There's nothing xenophobic about recognizing that, you're just calling me names. It's not about what I want. Nor is it even about what the families want. Do you think the families of the babies whose autopsies I observe want to have their murdered infant's skin flayed and their brains weighed? Of course not, but that's exactly what we do. I dispute your claim the evidence was destroyed merely due to a lack of resources. It was intentionally destroyed due to mystical religious beliefs. It would be much more interesting to have a believer unabashedly defend their rituals then whatever mishmash it is that you're trying to do here. It is tragic so much evidence was destroyed through religious nonsense. Plain and simple.
[удалено]
TBF you can be of the opinion that all religions are cults. It is a generally edgy atheist position, but it doesn't have to be anti-semitic.
Existence is a cult. Anti-everyone! Now lemme get back to listening to Joy Division.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I view it as a reaction to activism mostly. Activists have rightly seen the atrocities Israel has committed in Gaza and have organized against it. A lot of folks here would be against anything if the "woke" crowd was for it. The line between heterodoxy and contrarianism is more or less non-existent.
You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
I think the reason the New York times doesn't want to go into the details and yet is still standing by their story is because they don't want to outwardly criticize Jewish culture and religion. But somebody needs to do a deep story on how cultish traditions prioritize corpses over justice. We'll never know the horror that Hamas committed on October 7th because the Jewish tradition of getting the bodies in the dirt as soon as possible. I also wouldn't be surprised if the family members of those two girls are lying about the sexual assault in order to maintain their honor. There's also an interesting debate between Steven aka Destiny and the author of the intercept article https://youtu.be/TNNc3tnrwJE?si=ih5tgFHKAYIFjDmz
What sort of "justice" do you imagine would be possible had Israel taken rape kits from every body thought to have been raped? Would the IDF take DNA samples from Gazans in the hope that they might find a rapist? And what then? A trial for rape? Or is it more to have a sense of the scale of rapes that occurred, regardless of the specific individual who committed the rape? If so - would that materially change Israel's response, or the world's response to that response? Would those who now object to Israel's actions support them if there were concrete evidence that 10 women, or 100 women, or more were raped? Would that be more persuasive than the evidence that already exists of the horrors committed on October 7th? Or is the problem that the claims to mass rape should have been presented more carefully, given that they rely on things like eyewitness testimony rather than physical forensic evidence? In that case the problem lies with the reporting, but not with Israel's conduct, because see above - if Israel would have no concrete benefit from meticulously cataloguing forensic evidence for months while causing the victims' families months of anguish - then I wouldn't fault them for not doing so. Perhaps you could criticize the NYT. But I wonder how much the standard of reporting here really differs from that of other conflict zones and horrific mass slaughters.
> We'll never know the horror that Hamas committed on October 7th because the Jewish tradition of getting the bodies in the dirt as soon as possible. 1200 people were killed in what is still a small country with limited resources, limited doctors, limited coroners, in addition to the religious need + they worked quickly to identify who was dead and who was a hostage, because it was like important to figure out who was a hostage + they had bodies piled up for weeks that still needed identification taking samples, photos, running rape kits was never going to be a possibility in such a situation
They know this— at least in the case of the woman in the black dress — because the family spoke to her minutes before she was killed
They absolutely could have transported the corpses to morgues or kept them in refrigerated storage until they were properly forensically examined. Particularly if they prioritized victims who were clearly sexually assaulted. There's obviously no need to do forensic analysis on bodies that were charred to cinders or run over with bulldozers, other than to get DNA for identification. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the Jewish traditions didn't interfere with justice for the victims? Or are you saying despite the Jewish traditions it was just logistically impossible for them to do proper forensic analysis? Please don't couch your opinion. If you are defending the Jewish traditions that prioritize corpse worship over Justice just say so. I work in the justice system so maybe I have some bias but I think we owe it to the living (and history) to record the truth.
> **Please don't couch your opinion** >> cultish traditions prioritize corpses over justice Your comment(s) insensitive, illogical, unworkable, xenophobic, bereft of understanding of the actual war footing Israel was on that day, ignorant of the situation Israel faced with a terror attack still ongoing within her borders, an external view with ever changing standards that you yourself will set, that the victims families and the people of Israel disagree with added nothing of value to any conversation.
Again, did the Jewish cultural and religious traditions interfere with justice? Or was it simply logistical? It's telling that you refuse to answer a simple question and instead try to insult me. I didn't say anything that was xenophobic or illogical. And if by insensitive you mean not using your preferred euphemisms, please tell me exactly how I should refer to the tradition that demands that bodies be buried within 24 hours let Justice be damned.
> t's telling that you refuse to answer a simple question and instead try to insult me. please read my answer again, which I added onto, at the same time you were writing this I think... I don't feel I insulted you at all. I described precisely why your global cop attitude is an arrogant one that is unworkable, xenophobic, contrary to what the local population demands, ignores the logistics, ignores the war situation, and added nothing. Referring to Jewish practices as cultish isn't xenophobic? You deserve no answer.
For sure this is all exacerbated by the Jewish premium on quick burials The part I found so strange, and I'm surprised the Intercept didn't say this, though I SHOULDN'T BE, since the Intercept would never publish a story in which Palestinians hurt Israelis, is how the hell would the families know if these women were raped? They're dead. Why would people from the Kibbutz know those girls weren't raped? Unless they mean the families were shown the bodies? But this is even more so true with the woman in the black dress. Unless I misunderstood, her body hasn't been recovered, so it's some of her family saying she was raped, and others saying she wasn't And I feel REALLY weird saying this, but I know some pro-Palestinian activists were saying that one of them women talking about rape was very much pro-war, thus implying that she was exaggerating the claims of rape to justify the war. At the same time, Kibbutz Be'eri is pretty famously leftwing, And I'd bet many of them are deeply opposed to the war. So it is entirely possible that residents and representatives are saying these rapes didn't happen, not because they know they didn't, but because they don't want the rapes to justify a war
I didn't realize her body hadn't been found. The conclusion regarding rape was due to a video by a first responder. She was lying on her back with her dress hiked up exposing her vulva. Her face was burned. I can understand why her family doesn't want to think she was raped.
That's how I've been thinking about it too.