Letakart lajstromszámú csónakból zavarták meg Karácsony Gergely programbemutatóját

A Fidelitas módszereire emlékeztető hangzavarók eltakart arccal érkeztek az állóhajó mellé.

Load more
Read full article on:
unread news
unread news (Demo user)
Adam Driver Trends After He Hosts SNL, Plays Jeffrey Epstein During Cold Open Set in Hell
"Look who it is, Jeffrey Epstein," Jon Lovitz's Dershowitz proclaims before asking why the recently-deceased billionaire was in hell. "Ah, just hangin'," Driver's Epstein replies.
9 m
Herbert wins 1st European Tour title on Australia Day
Lucas Herbert marked Australia Day in his native country by capturing his first professional title, beating Christiaan Bezuidenhout of South Africa at the second hole of a playoff to win the Dubai Desert Classic after a wild final round on Sunday.
Politicians and Pundits Weigh in on Major Iowa Newspaper's Endorsement of Elizabeth Warren
"At this moment, when the very fabric of American life is at stake, Elizabeth Warren is the president this nation needs," the editorial board of The Des Moines Register concluded.
Coronavirus spreads to Orange County: How concerned should we be about spread?
California has its first case of coronavirus -- in Orange County.
Car of missing Marine in Arizona found more than five months after he was last seen, police say
Authorities in Arizona have found a car belonging to a missing U.S. combat veteran who was last seen more than five months ago.
Federer overcomes slow start, reaches Australian Open QFs
Roger Federer needed some time to get going in the Australian Open's fourth round, a match after a draining and difficult escape in which he was two points from defeat.
How do I stop my customers from stiffing me on a tip?
I’m a valet driver who picks up and returns cars to customers from a local car dealership. I drive carefully, about 10 to 20 miles on average each trip, yet only about 10 percent tip me. I’ve seen restaurant valets tipped more frequently for driving cars about 30 feet. How do I nicely convey that...
Tennis Fed Cup event moved from China amid viral illness
The International Tennis Federation has moved a regional Fed Cup qualifying event out of China because of concerns over the outbreak of a viral illness that has already caused 56 deaths.
A 'transformation' for some. Meh for others: What it's like to share a name with 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg
The surname Buttigieg has become an asset for some people who share the unusual name with presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg.
What happens when your uncommon surname becomes famous? The other Buttigiegs weigh in.
According to the 2010 census, there are over 200 Buttigiegs in America. How are they handling the fame of the name?
12 dead, hundreds wounded as protesters clash with Iraq security forces
Twelve people were killed and 230 others injured in protests in Iraq over the past three days, the Independent High Commission for Human Rights of Iraq said Sunday.
Shiffrin wins super-G, 2 days after downhill triumph
Following three weeks without a win in her favorite technical events, Mikaela Shiffrin bounced back with two triumphs in speed races in three days.
Cyborg claims Bellator title in historic debut win over Budd
Cris Justino walked through the Forum tunnels a few hours before her Bellator debut, deliberately soaking in her memories of the biggest defeat of her fighting life just 13 months ago in this arena.
Dershowitz changes his mind on impeachment requirements, argues crime must be committed
As President Trump’s impeachment trial moves into the defense phases, Alan Dershowitz on Sunday said that he has changed his mind on whether a crime is needed to remove a president from office in a reversal of his stance during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999.
'European Trump' Matteo Salvini Hopes Italy's Emilia-Romagna Election Will Aid His Ascension to Prime Minister
The region of Emilia-Romagna in northern Italy has voted liberal since World War Two. Elections on Sunday could signal a symbolic shift to the right.
Garcia earns 12-round decision, overcomes bite by Redkach
Danny Garcia needed to learn about himself. Nine months between fights can create some questions.
Hockey's young stars shine in NHL All-Star 3-on-3 tournament
Young Laila Anderson delivered one of the most poignant moments of the weekend when she introduced the Blues' four All-Stars. The players who stood out on the ice later weren't all that much older.
Hong Kong to ban entry of people from virus outbreak province
Hong Kong's government said on Sunday it will ban residents of China's Hubei province, where the new coronavirus outbreak was first reported, or people who have visited Hubei in the past 14 days from entering the city from Monday.
'The House did not do its homework this time': Sen. James Lankford
Rep. Val Demings and Sen. James Lankford talk about the Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump on ABC's "This Week."
Chen wins short program, Knierims take 3rd pairs title
Coming off illness and spending much of his days as a full-time college student, Nathan Chen shouldn't have been capable of setting a personal best Saturday at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships.
Pope Francis gives special prayer for coronavirus victims
Pope Francis on Sunday gave special prayers for those sickened and killed by the coronavirus, praising the “great commitment” to contain the outbreak that is sparking global panic. “I would like also to be close to and pray for the people who are sick because of the virus that has spread through China,” Francis told...
Washington State's Anthony Gordon leads North in Senior Bowl
Washington State quarterback Anthony Gordon is used to waiting his turn.
CBS News Battleground Tracker: In Iowa, it's Sanders, Biden and a wild finish ahead
Second choices and enthusiasm are key in Iowa, while polling in Super Tuesday states is tight.
Buttigieg warns Sanders could alienate GOP and independent voters
Buttigieg also discussed Trump's comments on injured military service members in Iraq and countering the rise of Mike Bloomberg.
Trump says lead impeachment Democrat Schiff has not paid 'price, yet'
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the Democratic lawmaker leading the impeachment case against him, Representative Adam Schiff, has "not paid the price, yet" for his actions, a statement Schiff said he viewed as a threat.
Diddy: ‘Black music has never been respected by the Grammys’
Sean "Diddy" Combs hijacked Clive Davis’s annual pre-Grammy bash with a 50-minute speech that showed members of the Recording Academy some tough love.
23-year-old tourist’s legs amputated after falling on subway tracks
A 23-year-old tourist tumbled onto the subway tracks in Manhattan and was run over by a train — but miraculously was rescued thanks to her bright pink top, her family said. Visaya Hoffie, of Brisbane, Australia, required amputation of both of her legs after she tripped and fell onto the tracks earlier this month at...
‘You Just Want an Even Playing Field.’ Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Calls Out Grammys for Lack of R&B, Rap Representation
Rap, particularly, has had a longstanding losing streak at the Grammys
Spanish league president condemns racism, fan street clashes
Spanish football was marred by a player being racially abused during a league game on Saturday, along with street clashes between rival fans outside stadiums before two matches.
DJ Khaled, the "Quincy Jones of hip hop"
DJ Khaled has worked with some of the biggest artists in music (Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Drake), and he went on tour as Beyoncé's opening act twice. His songs are all-star collaborations, and he's been making hits for more than a decade. Kelefa Sanneh sits down with the son of Palestinian immigrants who's a radio DJ, producer and New York Times bestselling author, who is nominated for a Grammy for the song "Higher," a partnership with John Legend and rapper Nipsey Hussle.
Green Day drops several f-bombs during NHL All-Star Game
Punk rock band Green Day yelled a few f-bombs during their performance at the NHL All-Star Game on Saturday night in St. Louis.
Mucho Gusto runs away, wins the $3 million Pegasus World Cup
Irad Ortiz Jr.’s move paid off, and Mucho Gusto’s earnings more than doubled in a couple of minutes.
Adam Driver reprises 'Undercover Boss' role on 'SNL'
On "Saturday Night Live", Adam Driver played Kylo Ren in another Star Wars inspired "Undercover Boss" sketch. Watch him become an intern.
Nature: Songbirds in Texas
"Sunday Morning" attends a concert by migratory songbirds in High Island, Texas, on the Gulf Coast. Videographer: Judith Lehmberg.
Tottenham held by Southampton in FA Cup, Chelsea wins
Southampton held Tottenham to a 1-1 draw in the FA Cup fourth round on Saturday to force a replay, while Chelsea and Leicester both won.
Rockies, Story reach $27.5 million, 2-year deal
All-Star shortstop Trevor Story and the Colorado Rockies have agreed to a $27.5 million, two-year contract that avoids an arbitration hearing, according to a person familiar with the deal.
Remembering songwriter Allee Willis
Raised on the sounds of Motown, the Grammy-winner (who died in December at 72) crafted hits for such artists as Bonnie Raitt, Ray Charles, Earth, Wind & Fire, Sister Sledge, Cyndi Lauper and Patti LaBelle
Huey Lewis talks hearing loss
Huey Lewis and the News are in the mood to celebrate, joking about their age as they prepare for the release of what is almost certainly their last album, titled "Weather." At 69, Lewis, who has performed in bands for most of his life, had no intention of slowing down, but his diagnosis of Meniere's Disease – a hearing disorder which has affected his voice – has made the decision for him. John Blackstone reports.
Still eyeing Slam, Pliskova exits Australia; 1 US man left
Karolina Pliskova can make a good case that she has the strongest resume of any active player not to win a Grand Slam singles title.
Emotional Julia Budd: 'No excuses on my part' for title loss to Cris Cyborg at Bellator 238
Julia Budd says training, preparation, everything was great until she stepped in the cage with Cris Cyborg.        Related StoriesCris Cyborg reflects on historic fourth major championship won at Bellator 238: 'I feel blessed'Twitter reacts to Cris Cyborg's title-winning TKO of Julia Budd at Bellator 238Bellator 238 results: Cris Cyborg finishes Julia Budd, captures fourth promotional title
The Many Holocausts
Almost inconceivably, the two most acclaimed Holocaust writers were imprisoned in the same Auschwitz sub-camp, Monowitz, at the same time. Some survivors even remembered them occupying the same block. There, they suffered the same unspeakable deprivations, the deadly cold, disease, hunger, and dehumanization. In that insanely polyglot place, they both learned the life-saving lingua franca—German—and miraculously passed through selections. And even after liberation, when tens of thousands still died, they somehow endured.Yet, despite all their shared horrors, Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi emerged with profoundly different versions of the Holocaust’s meaning and lessons. Their memoirs made them national icons, not only because of the compelling voices in which they were told but, even more so, because of what their audiences were willing to hear.Americans would not have listened to the enraged Wiesel who staggered out of Germany’s Buchenwald concentration camp, one of the relative few to have survived the agonizing march from Poland. In the first drafts of what would become his classic, Night, Wiesel expressed fury at the Germans, his family’s Christian neighbours, Jewish collaborators inside the camps, indifferent Jews overseas, and, especially, at God. He described desperate sexual encounters among prisoners likely to die and the rape of German women by newly-liberated survivors. Virtually all this rawness was excised from La Nuit, first published in 1958, under the mentorship of the French Catholic humanist, Francois Charles Mauriac. As noted by the critics Ruth Franklin, Ron Rosenbaum and others, Mauriac condensed an 865-page embittered Yiddish manuscript into 254 pages of literary French all but drained of acrimony. The need for revenge was replaced by acceptance of the silent martyrdom traditionally preferred by the Church. Originally a cry of despair, the description of a Jewish boy’s hanging by the SS became, in Wiesel’s new homogenised version, a parable of saintly suffering.Nevertheless, La Nuit could scarcely find a publisher, must less a wide readership. Nor was it an instant success in America, where the 1960 translation sold just 3,000 copies. Over the next 50 years, though, that number would soar exponentially, surpassing six million. Along the way, Night was selected by Oprah’s Book Club and spent 18 months at the top of the The New York Times bestseller list. Wiesel was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Nobel Peace Prize. An entire generation of American high school students learned about the Holocaust almost exclusively from Night.That triumph owed as much to Wiesel as it did to his adopted country. In terms of Holocaust memory, the United States also evolved. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Final Solution was barely discussed, even among American Jews, and then mostly in whispers. The photographs taken at Buchenwald by my Uncle Joe, a U.S. Army officer, were hidden in a cubby under our basement stairs. In five years of Hebrew school, I learned about the miracle of Israel but virtually nothing about the murder of a third of my people 20 years earlier. When, at age 15, I heard a JCC lecture by a frail-looking writer named Elie Wiesel, I was shocked that someone would speak so publicly about Auschwitz. The radical change came in the 1970s, after the Six-Day War gave American Jews the confidence to confront the Holocaust and after the Yom Kippur War dislodged Israel as the centerpiece of American Jewish identity. One result was the Soviet Jewry movement—spurred in part, by Wiesel’s seminal book, The Jews of Silence—but also the burgeoning of Holocaust awareness. Lucy Davidovicz’s The War Against the Jews was published in 1975, followed by the widely-popular TV mini-series Holocaust three years later, and President Carter’s 1979 Commission on the Holocaust, chaired by Elie Wiesel. Holocaust Studies programs proliferated, as did March of the Living-type pilgrimages to Poland. The process climaxed in 1993 with the opening of the $190 million United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. “A museum is a place is that should bring people together,” Wiesel declared, “not set people apart. People … should feel united in memory [and] bring the living and the dead together in a spirit of reconciliation...”Reconciliation rather than retribution became the message that Wiesel and the museum he championed brought to Americans. “Even in darkness it is possible to create light and encourage compassion,” he wrote, “I still believe in man in spite of man.” Without conceding the uniquely Jewish nature of the Holocaust, and its centrality in his conflicted relationship with God, Wiesel told a different story to his countrymen. This was the hopeful theme of Schindler’s List and the many films and novels about Germans who opposed Nazism and gentiles who saved Jews. It was the purified diary of Anne Frank whose “in spite of everything, I still believe that people are good at heart” anticipated Wiesel.[Read: Elie Wiesel and the agony of bearing witness]Could it have been otherwise? Would Oprah have interviewed a survivor who demanded the eye-for-an-eye execution of six million Germans? Would hundreds of thousands of American young people of all backgrounds pass through a memorial which taught “Never Again” as a pledge to armed resistance rather than a plea for universal love?Elie Wiesel understood that Americans could only be educated about the Holocaust in their own language, affecting and ultimately redemptive. That language had to include, as the Memorial makes clear in the opening of its mission statement, “the Gypsies, the handicapped…Poles… homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war and political dissidents,” who were also victims of the Holocaust. And that language could not be overly critical of America. Some scholars have alleged that the museum soft-peddled President Roosevelt’s abandonment of the Jews and President Obama’s refusal to intervene in Syria. At the Holocaust Memorial-sponsored Rotunda ceremony I attended each year as Israel’s ambassador, congressional leaders and administration officials heard praise for the GIs who liberated Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen, but scarcely a word about America’s refusal to admit Jewish refugees or bomb Auschwitz.Wiesel raised no objection to this omission. His love for America—he carried his U.S. passport in his jacket every day—brought him influence among a succession of presidents and especially Barack Obama, to whom Wiesel passed messages from the Israeli government. Universalism enabled him to speak out in favor of aid to the victims of other genocides, in Serbia, Rwanda, and Darfur, and to defend Israel in the face of mounting liberal criticism. Even when pressed into attending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial congressional speech against the Iran nuclear deal, Wiesel, already near death, received repeated bipartisan ovations.That degree of celebrity would never be attained by Primo Levi, though he was arguably the finer writer. Like Wiesel, he became his society’s most revered bearer of Holocaust memory. Secular, humanistic, anti-religious, non-militant, and post-national, Levi spoke in a language intelligible to Europeans.Nearly 10 years older than Wiesel at the time of his deportation, Levi belonged to a thoroughly assimilated family that thought of itself as Italian in a way that the Wiesels could never have been Romanian or Hungarian. Arrested as a partisan, he admitted he was Jewish only after concluding, naively, that it would ease his punishment. Yet he was a brilliant chemist who viewed reality through a scientist’s lense, exacting and cold, so different from the young Wiesel’s spiritual, visceral world.[Deborah Lipstadt: Jews are going underground]Though he was a prisoner of Auschwitz for three interminable months longer than Wiesel, was spared hard labor toward the end of the war thanks to his laboratory work, and managed to avert the death march, Levi’s memoirs tell a story almost identical to Weisel’s. His observations, though, are radically different, as are his conclusions. Unlike Wiesel, Levi did not need a Mauriac to tenderize his prose. Tormented by the idea of killing even as a partisan, he refused to hate the Nazis. Indeed, his bitterest scorn was reserved for his bunkmate, Kuhn, who, after surviving a selection, prays to God. “Kuhn is out of his senses,” Levi writes. “If I was God, I would spit at Kuhn’s prayers.” Rather than dream of vengeance, he focused on observing, chronicling to the minutest detail, and commenting on ordinary people subjected to the most monstrous conditions. As his biographer Carole Angier concluded, “He did not just learn in order to survive. On the contrary; he survived in order to learn.”Levi’s humanism appealed to post-war Europeans. Like the Americans, their attitudes toward the Holocaust also evolved. Guilt, initially, was placed solely on the Nazis and assumed by West Germany which alone payed reparations. Decades would pass before France (1995), the Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2007), and Austria (2018) officially assumed responsibility for facilitating the annihilation of Jews. Yet the insistence of historians such as Dieter Pohl, Götz Aly, and Dan Stone on calling the Holocaust a “European project” has yet to achieve widespread acceptance throughout the continent. Culpability, rather, is ascribed to the virulent, provincial nationalism that the European Union was created to supplant. The EU institutions I frequently visited as part of Knesset delegations almost invariably featured exhibitions on the Holocaust and the fight against the fanatic patriotism that produced it. Levi, too, tended to exonerate Europe. If This is a Man, the original title of his classic Survival in Auschwitz, accentuated the personal, rather than the ethnic and religious, nature of the Holocaust’s victims and perpetrators. And if Wiesel never lost faith in humankind, Levi continued to believe in Europe, unreservedly returning to Italy after the war. His secularism also resonated with an EU which formally excluded Christianity as a source of European identity. This was the Europe that beatified the dejudaized Anne Frank, and which praised The Pianist and Life is Beautiful, both films about totally assimilated Jews who experienced no anti-Semitism before the Nazis. And Europe continues to resist viewing the Holocaust as an essentially Jewish trauma. Touring a French cathedral last summer, I was surprised to encounter not one but two Holocaust memorials, both to Jewish converts to Catholicism.Levi’s darkness also resonated with those Europeans for whom an American-style redemption was too mawkish. Rather than subscribe to Wiesel’s “in darkness it is possible to create light,” Europeans preferred Paul Celan’s “black milk of morning we drink you at dusktime,” and Irme Kertész’s Fatelessness and Kaddish for an Unborn Child. Like Kertész, Levi battled depression, and like Celan, he committed suicide. There is little light in Survival in Auschwitz, no more than in the most recent and successful European Holocaust films, Son of Saul and The Painted Bird. By contrast, an American film based on Levi’s work, The Grey Zone, proved too devastating for American viewers and failed at the box office. Levi’s willingness to criticize Israel and his commitment to rationalism, likening human types to elements on the periodic table, further endeared him to Europeans. That same exactitude dominates the Holocaust memorial in Berlin—geometrical, stony, and silent.Still, Levi was not instantly celebrated in Europe. Begun in 1946 and published 10 years later, If This is a Man sold only 1,600 copies. Though it gained in popularity in the 1960s, it was not until the 1970s, that transformative decade in Holocaust awareness, that Levi was able to quit his chemistry job and devote himself to writing. By the time of his death, in 1987, he was recognized as Europe’s Holocaust author par excellence, traveling to schools to talk about his Auschwitz experiences and speaking out against Holocaust deniers. His list of awards was long and, had he lived, would likely have included a Nobel Prize for Literature. Instead, that honor went to Kertész, another dark, rationalistic, fiercely secular Jew who returned to his home country, Hungary, after the war, and later moved to Germany.America and Europe incorporated Wiesel and Levi into their popular narratives. And who is their counterpart in the state that emerged in part as a reaction to the Holocaust and was founded in significant part by its survivors? Which writer speaks of Auschwitz in a voice that Israelis are willing to hear?The answer is virtually none. Israel is no country for the sentimental or the cerebral; Israelis would never have embraced a Wiesel or a Levi or their sentient messages. Night was never a major bestseller in Israel, and many of Levi’s writings were not even translated into Hebrew until after his death. And for good reason. Israelis saw the Holocaust as the inevitable outcome of 2,000 years of Jewish homelessness and Christian hate that ended by independence and armed strength, rather than as a historical aberration to be denied recurrence by tolerance and peace. Nor do they believe that the existential threat ended with the liberation of the camps. For Israelis, it continued with enemy forces—not merely odious ideas—massed on Israel’s borders. More than a personal or human tragedy, the Final Solution was perceived in Israel a national nightmare requiring a firm sovereign response.That muscular view, coupled with the presence of hundreds of thousands of survivors, created a bifurcation in Israel’s Holocaust memory, a clash between Shoah—destruction— and T’Kumah, or rebirth. The schism was evident in the two main repositories of Holocaust memory: Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and the Ghetto Fighters’ Museum, near Haifa, and in the name of the commemoration day, Yom Hashoah v’Gevurah (Holocaust and Heroism day), and even in its date. Israel commemorates the Holocaust not on the internationally-recognized anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, but on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. In the competition between mourning for the victims and lionizing the resisters, the latter clearly won, at least in the state’s early decades.These were the years in which native-born Israelis showed contempt for the millions supposedly slaughtered like sheep and the “sabonim” (soaps) who meekly escaped; when the exigencies of state-building justified the acceptance of the German reparations derided by many survivors as “blood money.” That environment, not surprisingly, produced poets like Abba Kover and Uri Zvi Greenberg who, despite their vast political differences, agreed on a militant, rather than mournful, response to the Holocaust. Novels and paintings, too, depicted the Holocaust but preferred tales of resistance and fantasies of revenge to real-life depictions of the camps. But in Israel, as in Europe and the United States, views of the Holocaust evolved. The first milestone was the 1961 Eichmann trial. Seen by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion as a platform for reminding the world about the Holocaust, the hearings also forced Israelis to confront their past. Especially poignant was the testimony of writer Yehiel de-Nur—pennamed Ka-Tsetnik, Concentration Camp Inmate—who collapsed in the witness stand. But while he, like Levi and Wiesel, lived through Auschwitz, and wrote what he described as chronicles rather than literature, his books never achieved lasting influence. Quickly overshadowed by the Six-Day War and its heady aftermath, the trial might have faded into Israeli memory if not for the 1973 Kippur War, which triggered a period of introspection throughout Israeli society, including its relationship with the Holocaust. The surprise Egyptian and Syrian attacks, claiming 2,600 lives, proved that Israelis could also experience helplessness.Like America and Europe, Israel began to engage the Holocaust in more nuanced and often agonized way. Young Israeli writers, many of them native-born, began to imagine the experiences of those interned in the camps and even the Nazis who ran them. Dan Pagis, poet and survivor, rose to prominence with his terse, tortured verse, and David Grossman, whose See Under: Love explored the Holocaust from different dimensions, became Israel’s leading novelist. The process climaxed in the late 1980s with the trial in Israel of former Sobibor guard John Demanjuk. As during the Eichmann proceedings a quarter century before, the survivors’ testimony forced Israelis to confront the Holocaust as an intensely personal, rather than national, memory. Demanjuk’s release for lack of evidence only deepened the shock. Those years saw the emergence of Israel’s preeminent Holocaust writer. Though not a survivor of the death camps, Aharon Appelfeld, a refugee from Ukrainian captivity who became a child cook in the Soviet army, nevertheless remained possessed by Holocaust themes. These included foreboding, loss, and, above all, the rootlessness of “a displaced writer of displaced fiction,” as Philip Roth described him. Appelfeld’s was a Holocaust of anger, and bore the mark of his determination to preserve its uniquely Jewish character. Attending a series of lectures he gave toward the end of his life, I was stunned by Appelfeld’s bitterness toward younger Israeli authors who, he claimed, had abandoned their Jewish identity for secular Israeli culture, and whose Hebrew was shorn of Yiddish overtones.Appelfeld’s rancor, his defense of Jewish heritage, and refusal to extract universal or moralistic meaning from the Holocaust appealed to Israeli grit. Still, he would never attain Levi or Wiesel-like stature. One reason is the immediacy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which can eclipse the horrific events of 80 years ago. Grossman’s fame, like that of Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, owed less to his treatment of the Holocaust than to his promotion of peace. Tension, meanwhile, continues to surround the lessons Israel should draw from the Holocaust—whether as Netanyahu told gatherers at Yad Vashem, “the strong survive, the weak are erased,” or as President Reuven Rivlin said at the same event, “The Holocaust will forever place the Jewish people as eternal prosecutors … against anti-Semitism, racism, and ultra-nationalism.”Most striking of all, though, is the absence of a broad audience for any Holocaust book, even Appelfeld’s. In a country where Holocaust curricula are taught in most schools, where 18-year-olds ritually visit the camps before enlisting, and the Knesset debates incessantly about expanding survivor pensions and extending them to the victims of fascism in North Africa and Iraq, how much awareness can any one writer add? Does Israel, where normal life comes to a complete halt on Holocaust Memorial Day, need another Night or Survival in Auschwitz?The same cannot be said for Europe and the United States, where recent polls indicate an alarming decline of even basic Holocaust knowledge, especially among young people. With the passing of the World War II generation and the rise of extreme right-wing parties around the world, some with fascist pasts, the voices of Wiesel, Levi, and Appelfeld need to be heard more than ever. Now, though, they must speak in a unified language understandable to all audiences, American, European, and Israeli alike. And their message must be one—that the Holocaust teaches us multiple messages, all of them complimentary. It is message of hope, of humanism, and Jewish national rebirth.
In SNL’s cold open, Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz meets his biggest fan in hell 
Will Heath/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/Getty Image As Trump’s legal team begins it defense, SNL imagines one of his lawyers taking a quick trip to hell. Following the opening arguments of President Donald Trump’s counsel, Saturday Night Live parodied Republicans’ impeachment trial strategy and skewed the controversial lawyer Alan Dershowitz’s role on Trump’s legal team in its opening sketch. The sketch begins with Beck Bennett’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell meeting with Cecily Strong’s Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate. Strong’s Collins brings up a moment in House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff’s closing arguments that Republicans expressed outrage over Friday night — Schiff cited a report that found Republican senators were warned: “‘Vote against the president — and your head will be on a pike.’” As Vox’s Li Zhou wrote, “the outrage was swift,” with GOP senator Sen. John Barrasso summing up the Republicans’ response as: “He has basically offended every Republican senator in there tonight.” Collins was one of the incensed senators, reportedly responding to Schiff from her seat in the Senate chamber, loudly saying, “Not true.” SNL had Collins venting to McConnell after the day’s proceedings concluded, with Strong saying, “I was upset that Adam Schiff said Republicans are afraid of standing up to the president.” She adds, “If Trump tried to intimidate Susan Collins, I’d walk right up to him and say,” she pauses, lowering her head and mumbling before blurting out, “I love you!” Bennett’s McConnell listens, before airing a grievance of his own, expressing frustration over Democrats’ demands the trial include witness testimony and the admission of new evidence. The real McConnell has expressed interest in concluding the trial quickly, and Bennett channeled that desire. “Republicans are simply requesting a fair trial — no witnesses, no evidence,” Bennett says. “That way we can acquit President Trump and focus on the real criminals in this country, teenagers who try marijuana.” The senators’ lamentations are then interrupted by the arrival of Jon Lovitz, playing celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The lawyer is known for representing sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — and for facing allegations from Epstein survivors that the financier forced them to have sex with Dershowitz as minors. Dershowitz has denied these allegations. “Yes, hello everyone it is I, Alan Dershowitz,” Lovitz says. “It’s wonderful to be here, because I’m not welcome anywhere else.” Giving a satirical preview of the remarks the real Dershowitz is expected to deliver Monday afternoon, Lovitz launches into a defense of the president that includes mention of Epstein and his former client O.J. Simpson before having a heart attack, and descending into hell. That’s when things get weird. Waiting for Lovitz with open arms is the devil — played by Kate McKinnon — who introduces herself as a huge fan. She then sits him down for a podcast, and asks, “How did you come up with this Trump defense? Because years ago you said you don’t need a crime to impeach the president, and now you say you need something crime-like.” The show is poking fun at Dershowitz’s inconsistency on abuse of power, which was highlighted last week when a 1998 interview of the lawyer surfaced. At the time, Dershowitz said a crime wasn’t necessary for the president to be impeached. During an interview with CNN last Sunday, however, he contradicted himself by saying, “without a crime there can be no impeachment” — arguing that abuse of power isn’t an impeachable offense ... despite the president having already been impeached for it. For her next question, McKinnon asks, “Is there anyone you wouldn’t represent?” To this, Lovitz’s response is simple: “As long as a client is famous enough to get me on TV, it’s all good.” The show takes a final dark turn when Epstein, played by Adam Driver, decides to visit his friend. “I love what you’ve been doing for the president,” Driver says. “All we get down here is Fox News, and it’s been a joy to see you work.” Lovitz is then introduced to a group of other inhabitants of hell, including the “Baby Shark” composer, Progressive’s Flo, and Mr. Peanut. Before he can get too comfy, however, he’s whisked away by Bennett’s McConnell, who is a regular visitor of hell (for sauna purposes, of course). “I’ve made a lot of friends here,” Beck says. “And they give me great advice on how to run the Senate.”
No. 4 Oregon holds off No. 7 Oregon State 76-64
Sabrina Ionescu knew in the back of her mind that she was one assist away from breaking Gary Payton's Pac-12 record for career assists.
Passage: They made music
"Sunday Morning" remembers just some of the talented musicians we've lost the past year, since the last Grammy Awards ceremony
NFL’s Saints fight to shield emails in Catholic abuse crisis
The New Orleans Saints are going to court to keep the public from seeing hundreds of emails that allegedly show team executives doing public relations damage control for the area's Roman Catholic archdiocese to help it contain the fallout from a burgeoning sexual abuse crisis.
In a polarized world, YouTube can not remain neutral
Social media can only reflect America’s epistemic crisis, not solve it. The US nonprofit Avaaz has a new report out detailing how YouTube is actively spreading climate misinformation to millions of viewers through its recommendation algorithms, including videos with exciting titles like, ahem, “CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering Vaccination Dangers and 911.” The report contains a number of recommendations for the platform, including working with “independent fact checkers” to identify such videos and remove or demonetize them. The recommendations make perfect sense — as long as climate misinformation can be reliably and fairly identified in a way that won’t get YouTube embroiled in political or ideological controversies. But I don’t think it can. Avaaz YouTube and other social media platforms do want to limit the spread of misinformation and hate speech, if only to relieve social pressure and defend their reputations. But they want to do so while remaining ideologically neutral, refraining from anything that might appear to be choosing sides in America’s culture war. Unfortunately, in a polarized and divided US, where even the most basic facts and values are contested, that posture is becoming impossible. The choice between neutrality and fundamental values like respect for evidence and non-discrimination is becoming unavoidable, and private companies like social media platforms, when pressed, will always choose neutrality, for business reasons. Social media platforms may well be, as Dawn Stover argues in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, bad for the climate. But in this as in other matters, they reflect an epistemic crisis they cannot themselves hope to solve. I’ve written about America’s epistemic crisis, our growing inability to learn and know things in common, before (see here, here, and here). This time I want to approach it from a slightly different angle, which will (I hope) help illuminate YouTube’s unsolvable dilemma. It’s a bit of a journey, involving an analogy drawing on the work of psychologist Daniel Kahneman, particularly his seminal 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow. (That book and his later work, often alongside psychologist Amos Tversky, went on to win Kahneman a Presidential Medal of Freedom and eventually a Nobel Prize in economics. Kahneman and Tversky’s work and friendship was the subject of journalist Michael Lewis’s book The Undoing Project: How a Nobel Prize–winning theory of the mind altered our perception of reality. None of them should be held responsible for my analogy.) We’ll look at the kind of reflective self-regulation that’s important at both the individual and social level, why the institutions meant to do it in the US have become so weak, and why YouTube can’t hope to fill the breach. Stay with me; it will all come full circle. Fast and slow thinking The broad thrust of Kahneman’s work was to challenge homo economicus, the conventional economic view of human beings as rational interest maximizers. There’s a lot to it, but at its heart is a distinction between System 1 (S1) thinking and System 2 (S2) thinking. Kahneman described S1 as “fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, and unconscious,” describing what are more colloquially known as “gut reactions.” S2 is “slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, and conscious,” which is closer to what we tend to conceive of as thinking — taking a step back, slowing down, consciously assessing and reasoning. S1 reflects your instincts and predispositions, your fears and blind spots, the stuff that is effectively programmed into your neural and endocrine systems by your DNA, your pre- and early postnatal care, and your formative childhood experiences. S1 is where we find what these days are called “implicit biases,” the kinds of preconscious predilections that shape how you react to a situation before “you,” the conscious, thinking you, is even fully aware of what’s going on. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images Daniel Kahneman receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama. S2 enables free will and the pursuit of long-term goals Insofar as we have any ability to regulate or evolve the S1 systems we inherit — insofar as we have any true free will, in the sense of being able to choose our characters and our fates — it is through S2 thinking, our (limited) ability to step back and consider a situation with some degree of objectivity, to assess our own reactions as a third-party observer might, and to take deliberate steps to shape our conduct toward our aspirations. It is our S1 systems that push us to road rage or binge eat or endless procrastination. All those things feel right in the moment, because they respond to preprogrammed neural and hormonal signals that we had no hand in consciously choosing. It is only through S2, through perspective-taking and regulating our short-term impulses, that we get work done, develop long-term skills, or stay physically healthy. Of course, using S2 to successfully regulate S1 isn’t easy; if it were, therapists would go out of business. S1 is a lot more powerful and a lot older, evolutionarily speaking. Most of the time, for most people, S2 serves S1, not the other way around. (As philosopher David Hume put it, “reason is a slave to the passions.”) Very rarely do people question the assumptions and biases they have inherited. More often, S2 is put to use constructing narratives to justify that inheritance, in service of identity formation and reinforcement, not Truth. It is difficult to use S2 to impose discipline, to hold ourselves to higher, consciously chosen standards rather than reflexively accepting or justifying our gut responses. But that is the work of being a responsible moral and epistemological agent. It’s what grown-ups do. The reason I’ve gone through all this is that I think there is something analogous to S1 and S2 thinking going on at the collective, national level. Fast and slow thinking, socially Socially speaking, the equivalent of S1 thinking (“fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, and unconscious”) is a default to our immediate family/clan/tribal/identity commitments, the places and people and cultural narratives with which we are familiar and instinctively comfortable. The equivalent of S2 thinking (“slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, and conscious”) is our ability to take a step back, bracket or restrain our immediate group interests, identify mutual interests across factional lines, and strike non-zero-sum agreements between groups based on a shared set of rules — transpartisan rules, meant to serve not one faction or the other, but to create a pluralist framework in which multiple factions can thrive. (Think, for instance, of international trade.) Shutterstock Nice S2 thinking there, shame if something happened to it. Our (limited) ability to self-regulate and restrain our S1 thinking, our group-level gut instincts, is more or less what has enabled complex global civilization. But always and everywhere, factional thinking, our tendency to pull our circles of trust and care inward, to fear or dominate the Other, threatens S2 goals. There are occasionally individual leaders with the wisdom to consistently apply S2 thinking, but as pretty much every monarchy and hereditary system in history has shown, if a particular group is in charge long enough, they will inevitably come to rule for their own benefit, while telling themselves they are doing otherwise. Groups are no better than individuals at self-regulating over time. So, if we can’t trust any particular set of individuals to maintain it consistently, how can S2 thinking be built into society in an enduring way? The answer, such as it is, lies in institutions. We build S2 thinking into the infrastructure of public life to the extent that we enshrine it in institutions and rules that command trust across factional lines. Take, for example, the institution of professional science. We want to know the truth about the natural world, but we know that individual humans, even highly educated humans, are prone to all kinds of cognitive blind spots, biases, and errors. The best way we’ve found to correct for those cognitive flaws is to create a kind of guild with special rules and procedures meant to counteract them — strict rules of experimentation and analysis, peer review, replication of results, and the like. The idea is that the guild, collectively, will engage in the kind of sustained self-scrutiny and self-correction that individuals often can’t manage on their own, and thus grope its way toward truth. Science enforces its norms and procedures not only with explicit professional rules, but also with social pressure. Being a scientist means something to scientists; they take it seriously, so other scientists take it seriously too. We know all too well that science and the sheen of objectivity it carries can be put to horrific uses (see: eugenics). Plenty of recent evidence confirms that science remains a flawed institution. Peer review contains all sorts of implicit biases; replication is spotty at best. Even with its rules and procedures, a lot of nonsense and shoddy work gets through the gates. Science is composed of humans prone to self-serving reasoning just like everyone else. But overall, as a bit of S2 infrastructure, science has served humanity extraordinarily well. Take another example: journalism. Post-war US journalism sought to become something slightly more akin to science. It formed a kind of loose guild and developed some guild rules meant to serve as collective self-regulation. Reporters had to get confirmation of every fact from two sources; they had to contact anyone mentioned in a story for comment; they had to run stories past fact checkers and editors; they had to publish corrections. These were the workaday rules passed along in local newsrooms to young reporters. Shutterstock S2 tools. All those rules were designed to counteract the natural cognitive flaws of individual humans, who are prone to subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) shade and shape the stories they tell. The hope was that journalism would provide something on current events closer to objective truth, like science, and enable similar social advances to those science had unlocked. To say the least, journalism too has always been a flawed institution, its failings even more copious and better known than those of science. It has proven far less resilient than science too, far easier to corrupt. Nonetheless, it was and remains a noble experiment in designing S2 thinking, mechanisms of self-analysis and self-correction, into the social infrastructure. So it is with the academy, politics, K-12 education, and all our other public institutions. Their role is collective self-regulation, some imposition of S2 thinking on groups naturally inclined toward a variety of S1 -isms. And as flawed as they are, as often as they fail, as badly as they are often bent to the service of culturally dominant groups, humans haven’t found any social S2 mechanism that work better. Only better institutions. The US was founded on S2 institutions The US — in theory, if lamentably not in practice — is a nation founded on an S2 system, on explicitly transpartisan rules meant to bind everyone equally. The checks and balances among branches of government are meant to ensure that no one group takes power and rules on its own behalf. Government administrative and legislative procedures are reified habits, ensuring that certain mechanisms of self-correction are automatically in place. The Bill of Rights is just a set of S2 rules, a way of taking certain classes of decisions out of S1 hands. And just as with science, all this S2 infrastructure is held in place in part through explicit rules, but also in part (much larger part than most people thought, as the Trump years are demonstrating) through norms, unwritten rules enforced via social approbation or disapprobation. The institutions work on a foundation of social trust. Groups put aside their short-term interests insofar as they believe that they are part of a larger Us, a larger identity, working collectively toward long-term goals that are to everyone’s mutual benefit. Groups and factions enforce the norms and respect the rules if they trust the S2 infrastructure and believe it is working in their interests. Many people in the US no longer do. Javier Zarracina for Vox S2 systems are breaking down in the US The last 60 years or so of movement conservatism in the US can be seen as a sustained attack on America’s S2 infrastructure. The story of its attack on journalism — which I discussed in more detail here — is illustrative. In the post-WWII period of liberal ascendency in the US, conservatives became convinced that journalism was dominated by liberals slanting the news in their favor. (Did you know Richard Nixon consulted with none other than Roger Ailes about creating a conservative news channel?) To put it in terms of my analogy, conservatives claimed that journalism was no longer an S2 institution, a set of transpartisan rules and procedures meant to produce fair, unbiased, and reliable information, but an S1 front, an institution meant to serve one faction’s interests under the guise of transpartisanship. It can be debated — and has been, exhaustively — just how much validity there was and is to these conservative complaints about mainstream media. Regardless, what became clear is that the complaints were not animated by a desire to strengthen journalism as an S2 institution. Conservatives did not want less bias or more rigorous fealty to transpartisan rules. When their time came to create a news network of their own, they created Fox, a funhouse-mirror version of journalism with few self-correction mechanisms (fewer every year) and a mission to strengthen the exclusionary S1 identity of a particular demographic. Fox was, in comically exaggerated form, exactly what conservatives had accused the mainstream media of being: a propaganda outlet pretending to be “fair and balanced,” an S1 faction posing as an S2 institution. The media world has since become split between a mainstream media that goes on believing it is an S2 institution, unbiased and transpartisan, and a growing right-wing media universe convinced that the MSM is liberal and that there are no S2 institutions, only competing factions, their truth or ours. Thus have conservatives assaulted all of the S2 institutions in American life. In a 2010 quote I never tire of using, conservative radio pioneer Rush Limbaugh called government, academia, science, and media the “Four Corners of Deceit.” All of those institutions are S1 posing as S2, he said, entirely taken over by liberals, and “everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie.” They can’t fool Limbaugh. I have called the resulting closed loop “tribal epistemology,” the elevating of group interests over transpartisan principles of evidence, reasoning, and verification, so that what’s good for Us becomes what’s is and must be true. As a result of this long assault (and many other factors, including their own failings), trust in US institutions, and social trust generally, is at a historic low. Something like 30 to 40 percent of the country has been absorbed into a right-wing bubble of counter-institutions meant to produce, in Kellyanne Conway’s memorable phrase, “alternative facts.” There are things within the conservative movement that look like journalism outlets and think tanks, but they operate on a purely S1 basis, to serve factional interests. The federal government arguably fits that description these days. The question is, if only one of America’s two warring factions believes the information that mainstream institutions produce, abides by their rules, or socially propagates their norms, are they still S2 institutions at all? Are there still S2 institutions? We know what an individual with weak or disregulated S2 systems looks like: a drifting set of impulses, compulsions, fears, and hungers, forever reacting, with no ability to step back, get perspective, and self-regulate in service of long-term goals. (See: Donald Trump.) Most people like that don’t live happy lives. Or become president. What becomes of a nation that loses all capacity for S2 self-regulation, when its constituent groups are no longer able to abide by a shared set of rules, pursue a shared set of long-term goals, or even accept a shared set of facts? We’re finding out. And that brings us, at last, back to Avaaz and YouTube. Social media platforms are being put in an impossible position Social media platforms have been under attack for allowing the spread of misinformation and hate speech, from Facebook’s alleged role in Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide to YouTube’s spread of alt-right videos to Twitter’s hosting of frequent harassment campaigns. Critics, including Avaaz, are pressuring the platforms to do more collective S2 thinking, to rule some content misleading or out-of-bounds. It is putting the platforms in an impossible situation, stuck between two incommensurate goals. As journalist Neima Jahromi puts it in her New Yorker story on YouTube, CEO Susan Wojcicki wants to “avoid accusations of ideological bias while also affirming her company’s values.” Asa Mathat for Vox YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki On one hand, as Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress in 2018, “It’s really important to me that we approach our work in an unbiased way.” Social media platforms don’t want to be seen as taking sides in political or ideological disputes — in particular, they don’t want to run afoul of Republicans, who run the federal government at the moment. That means, as Wojcicki recently wrote in a blog post, the platform leans toward openness, even if that sometimes means tolerating “content that is outside the mainstream, controversial, or even offensive.” It is in YouTube’s political and economic interest not to alienate or exclude anyone in particular; everyone is potential ad revenue. On the other hand, YouTube does affirm values beyond openness. It routinely removes videos that violate its policies and has sought to cut back on “borderline content and harmful misinformation.” Last year it implemented a range of new policies intended to reduce misinformation, including boosting “trusted” news sources and putting pop-up on cards with Wikipedia content on videos about certain subjects like the moon landing and the Holocaust. Earlier this year, it removed thousands of videos, specifically videos “alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” It has recently taken anti-vaccination videos off its ad lists, such that they can’t be monetized. So YouTube wants to remain ideologically neutral, but also affirm basic epistemic and moral values. Unfortunately, in a country high on polarization and low on social trust, with tattered and weak S2 institutions, that is no longer possible. Take the climate misinformation videos Avaaz identified. YouTube A climate denialist video from PragerU. Who decides what is true on climate change? Some of the videos dispute that CO2 has any role in climate change. Avaaz calls that misinformation. On what basis? Well, Avaaz trusts the scientific community, which overwhelmingly agrees that CO2 drives climate change. In Avaaz’s worldview and value set, science is an S2 institution and climate science, as part of it, warrants trust. But the people who are disputing CO2’s role in climate change see climate science as an S1 front, not to be trusted. They believe that the global climate climate scientific community is dominated by liberals, who give each other grants and research money based on fealty to predetermined conclusions. They believe that establishment climate science is just dressed-up liberalism. And they are backed up in this belief by one of the nation’s largest and most active political factions and one of its two political parties. Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was on Chris Hayes’s podcast recently reciting climate denialist myths that date back to the 1980s, including some that question CO2’s role. The conclusion is unavoidable: to trust establishment climate science as the arbiter of truth on climate change is to take a side against conservatives. YouTube will have to make that choice again and again. It can turn to “independent fact checkers,” but that just moves the problem back a level — then the fact checkers have to make the choice. Each time a person, whoever it is, is confronted with that choice, they can take one of two paths. The first is to trust climate science, thereby defining these videos as misinformation worthy of being blocked or demonetized. Doing that will mean taking sides, which will inevitably draw accusations of bias and threats of reprisal. Sure enough: “In April, Ted Cruz held a Senate subcommittee hearing called ‘Stifling Free Speech: Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse’,” Jahromi reports. “In his remarks, he threatened the [social media] platforms with regulation; he also brought in witnesses who accused them of liberal bias.” Photo by Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images Ted Cruz explains why everyone is always being unfair to conservatives. Conservatives have run this con on one institution after another, battering it with complaints of liberal bias until it is cowed and overreacting in the other direction. It worked on mainstream journalism and now it looks like social media platforms are falling for it as well. YouTube lists Fox News as a “trusted source.” Facebook lists Check Your Fact, a subsidiary of the right-wing Daily Caller, as a “trusted fact checker.” Right-wing misinformation can not be excluded when right-wingers comprise a third of the population and run the federal government. The second path is to bow to this kind of pressure and accept that carbon dioxide’s role in climate change — and, by proxy, the trustworthiness of establishment climate science — is a subject of legitimate controversy, and that both sides deserve to be heard. Then the misinformation spreads. This is the basic structure of the problem: if YouTube leaves the videos up, it allows some portion of its audience to be deceived; if it takes them down or demonetizes them, it steps in the middle of an ideological battle against an activist movement, a political party, and at least at the moment, the president himself. There’s no third choice, no way both of Wojcicki’s objectives can be met at once. And that’s just the clear-cut cases. Beyond overt science denialism, what about videos arguing that climate change damage projections are exaggerated, or that the climate is less sensitive to emissions than conventionally assumed, or that climate change is not as bad a problem as poverty or hunger? Where is the line between misinformation and legitimate dissent? Do we want YouTube drawing it? YouTube is ill-equipped to play an S2 role These same kinds of question have arisen, and will arise, around dozens of other problems. What counts as hate speech? Online shock jock Steven Crowder directed months of racist, homophobic abuse at my colleague Carlos Maza. First YouTube did nothing, then it announced it wouldn’t remove Crowder’s videos, then it announced that it would prevent them from being monetized. (No one ended up happy.) Since I started working at Vox, Steven Crowder has been making video after video "debunking" Strikethrough. Every single video has included repeated, overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity. Here's a sample:— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) May 31, 2019 People who believe that racism and homophobia are bad felt that YouTube wasn’t taking its commitment to inclusion seriously; conservatives felt that YouTube was biased against them for what they claimed were “just jokes.” There will be dozens, hundreds of similar factual and moral questions facing YouTube (and Facebook, Twitter, etc.) in coming years — what is misinformation, what is hate, where is the line. These are important decisions defining the boundaries of US culture. It seems clear that social media platforms can’t avoid making them, but equally clear that the chances of them doing the job well are vanishingly slim. For one thing, YouTube “now attracts a monthly audience of two billion people and employs thousands of moderators,” reports Jahromi. “Every minute, its users upload five hundred hours of new video.” That may quite simply be too much to moderate; it may be that the business model society has allowed social media companies to establish precludes any serious, thoughtful filtering. But lack of effective moderation doesn’t seem good either. There’s a certain school of thought, dating to Enlightenment ideals, that says more speech is always better, that the answer to bad speech is good speech. But that view appears regrettably naive in the age of information overload. It has become all too clear that, if anything, misinformation and hate spread faster than trustworthy information. What best drives “engagement,” the holy grail of social media, are negative, brain-stem reactions: outrage, fury, contempt. If there is no governing principle in the algorithm beyond serving what people are most likely to click on in the moment, then at least some very large fraction of users will sort themselves into bubbles of misinformation or hatred. (See this harrowing New York Times story of a young man getting sucked into alt-right YouTube.) Stopping the spread of hate and misinformation requires moderation. It requires S2 gatekeepers. But those gatekeepers cannot, by definition, be “neutral.” And therein lies the rub. As private companies, social media platforms will always be more averse to controversy than they are committed to limiting misinformation. A sufficiently large and organized political faction will always be able to bully them into treating any act or fact as “controversial” and thus not their place to adjudicate. Of all the institutions in American life, private social media companies are the least likely to hold the line against social dissolution. They cannot solve America’s epistemic crisis, they can only reflect it. The New York Times Alt-right YouTube. The only hope for small-l liberal values is to improve and strengthen S2 institutions It’s good that Avaaz and other groups are pressuring social media companies, but the fact that citizens of a democracy are petitioning multi-billion dollar corporations to restore respect for truth and decency is not a good sign. Just as an individual can only pursue long-term goals by using S2 thinking to shape, direct, and correct the flaws of S1 thinking, so too a pluralist democracy can only prosper in the long-term by designing some kind of S2 infrastructure — institutions, laws, rules, procedures, and norms — to prevent its various internal factions and identities from falling into zero-sum struggle. A country without functioning S2 infrastructure, without a frontal cortex, ceases to be a nation. It becomes an erratic collection of factions locked in zero-sum struggle, reacting to situations as they arise, unable to look ahead or effectively plan — unable, for instance, to implement a coherent multi-decade policy program to both prepare for and prevent the worst of climate change. In a situation of all-against-all struggle, groups without access to economic and social power pay the price. The little people, the outsiders, the vulnerable demographics suffer the most. Ultimately, the Founding Fathers’ central insight, however poorly it has been implemented, remains valid: pluralism and freedom can only be maintained in the long run by “rule of law, not of men,” rule of S2 thinking, not of factional S1 impulses. It is transpartisan institutions and transparent rules, equitably enforced, that create social trust in a pluralist democracy. And it is social trust that enables such S2 infrastructure to persist. When it’s working, it creates a positive feedback loop. But right now it isn’t working. The opposite loop is running, thanks to the many failures of US institutions and the coordinated right-wing backlash against them. Social trust is declining; as it does, institutions have a harder time operating effectively; as they stumble, it further reduces social trust. If anything can check that negative feedback loop, it’s not going to be social media companies writing better algorithms. Those who believe in liberal values, who respect science and expertise and seek a peaceful, equitable multiethnic democracy, must devote themselves to taking power and reshaping public institutions to be more effective, trustworthy, and small-d democratic. Building S2 infrastructure that lives up to the lofty ideals in America’s founding documents is long, slow work. But it is the only path back from the abyss.
Keuchel apologizes for 2017 Astros' sign-stealing scandal
Dallas Keuchel has become the first member of the 2017 Houston Astros to offer a public apology for the team's sign-stealing scheme during their run to the World Series championship.
The joyful voices of Zaza Kanto
In the capital of Madagascar, an island nation where nearly 80 percent of people eke out a living on less than $2 a day, an unexpected sound emerges from the slums of the capital, Antananarivo: Zaza Kanto, an a capella group of boys, ages 11 to 16, whose joyful sounds and viral videos have elevated them to national fame. They've also earned praise from Fredo Austin, of the band Freedom's Boombox, who mentored the young men as part of an exchange program called American Music Abroad. Seth Doane reports.