#explainer

[dimension20official]

Want to get into Dimension 20, but don't know where to start? We've got a very helpful video for YOU up on Dropout and the Dimension 20 Youtube channel! Also, Brennan finally explains all the titles 🧠

Watch the full video here

[northgazaupdates]

The UN has made the claim that they distribute food in Gaza twice a week. They have made similar claims several times, explaining that hunger is still an issue because they are only able to distribute food two times a week.

However, some on the ground in north Gaza say this statement is dishonest. When the UN makes these statements, it implies that it is servicing the entire Gaza Strip. They are not. Due to Israeli blockade, absolutely no aid of any kind has reached northern Gaza in about two months.

People in northern Gaza are starving to death because there is no food, none. Some report having to make bread out of animal feed, eat cardboard, and drink seawater and dirty puddles. What little food can be scrounged up is not enough to support anyone’s nutritional needs, let alone those of 800,000 people.

If people in the central and southern regions are still starving, even with the UN and partners brining in food twice a week, imagine the state of people in the north. If even adults in the north are reporting severe hunger pains, imagine what children are experiencing.

The point of this post is not *necessarily* to lambast the UN, although there is plenty of reason to do so. Rather, it is to address one source of misunderstanding which is impeding some people’s ability to grasp the full breadth of the catastrophe in the north.

[mental-mona]

Primer on what is and isn't antisemitic re: I/P

by Sarah Tuttle-Singer  on Facebook:

I feel like the world needs a basic primer on this:

Criticizing Netanyahu and the current government of Israel isn’t antisemitic.

Holding Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and calling them N@zis is.

Supporting Palestinian rights isn’t antisemitic.

Saying Jews don’t deserve self-determination anywhere and that Israel has no right to exist is.

Advocating for peace, equality, and dignity for both peoples isn’t antisemitic.

Celebrating the murder, kidnapping, or r@pe of Jews is.

Being horrified by the suffering in Gaza isn’t antisemitic.

Denying or minimizing the suffering of Israelis on October 7 is.

Opposing specific Israeli policies isn’t antisemitic.

Using classic antisemitic tropes about Jewish power, money, blood, or control is.

Wanting an end to the war isn’t antisemitic.

Calling for the elimination of Israel while demanding no other nation on earth disappear is.

Criticizing Netanyahu isn’t antisemitic.

Saying “the Jews are Nazis” is.

Supporting Palestinian nationalism isn’t antisemitic.

Erasing Jewish indigeneity and history in the land is.

Calling out extremism in Israel — including the army — isn’t antisemitic.

Applying a moral standard to Israel that you apply to literally no other country is.

Wanting accountability for all sides isn’t antisemitic.

Attacking random Jews, synagogues, or Jewish businesses around the world is.

Feeling grief for Palestinian children isn’t antisemitic.

Mocking or dismissing or even celebrating dead Israeli children is.

Defending free speech on Israel-Palestine isn’t antisemitic.

Harassing Jewish students and making campuses unsafe for visibly Jewish people is.

Saying Palestinians deserve freedom isn’t antisemitic.

Saying Jews are “colonizers” is.

Calling for coexistence isn’t antisemitic.

Calling for intifada “from the river to the sea” without acknowledging what that means to many Jews is.

You can oppose war without opposing the existence of a people.

You can advocate for Palestinians without dehumanizing Jews.

You can love Israelis and Palestinians enough to believe neither should have to bury their children.

Do better.

[eternalistic]

A Simple Guide to Disarming 'Divide and Conquer' Propaganda

Do you ever get the feeling that online arguments are designed to make people angry? You're correct. Much of the outrage you see is fueled by an age old strategy called "Divide and Conquer."

The goal is simple: to gain or maintain power by breaking down unity among people. Propagandists exploit existing divisions and create narratives that blame one group for the problems of another. This keeps everyone fighting each other, distracted from the real systemic issues that affect everyone.

The good news is that once you can see the game, you can stop playing. This guide will teach you how to spot the five main tactics of "Divide and Conquer" and give you a simple, powerful reply for each one.

The Five Tactics or 5Ds of Disinformation: Propagandists use a five-step playbook to create division. These are often called the "5Ds": Dismiss, Distort, Distract, Dismay, and Divide. They are the specific actions taken to turn people against each other.

The Battlegrounds Framed Using the 9 Categories of Division The 5D tactics are almost always aimed at real, identifiable differences between people. This makes the manufactured division feel more natural. Common battleground topics include: Skin Color, Sexual Preference, Nationality, Language, Social Customs, Class, Religion, Political Identity, Profession

Each tactic with an example, and a simple reply to disarm it:

1. Dismiss This tactic attacks the messenger, not the message. The goal is to discredit a person, group, or source so you won't listen to their argument, regardless of whether it's valid.

Example (using Profession): "You can't believe that study, it comes from 'ivory tower' academics. They don't know anything about the real world."

The Response: "Your comment is using the 'Divide and Conquer' tactic known as 'Dismiss'. It is an attempt to attack the messenger by being dismissive, in order to shut down a conversation about the real issues."

2. Distort This tactic works by twisting facts, using misleading statistics, or telling half-truths to create a false and emotionally charged narrative about a group.

Example (using Nationality): "These videos of immigrants shoplifting prove they are criminals and a threat to our country."

The Response: "Your comment is using the 'Divide and Conquer' tactic known as 'Distort'. It is an attempt to mislead people by distorting the facts, in order to distract from the real issues."

3. Distract This is the classic "whataboutism" tactic. It works by changing the subject to avoid the current conversation, often by bringing up another grievance to create a new conflict.

Example (using Class): "Why are we talking about corporate tax cuts when the real problem is lazy people on welfare?"

The Response: "Your comment is using the 'Divide and Conquer' tactic known as 'Distract'. It is an attempt to change the subject with a distraction, in order to shut down a conversation about the real issues."

4. Dismay This tactic aims to spread hopelessness and fear. The goal is to make people feel so overwhelmed and powerless that they give up and stop trying to solve problems.

Example (using Political Identity): "The whole system is rigged and corrupt. Voting doesn't matter. There's nothing any of us can do to stop them."

The Response: "Your comment is using the 'Divide and Conquer' tactic known as 'Dismay'. It is an attempt to spread hopelessness, in order to make people give up on fixing the real issues."

5. Divide This is the final goal of the other four tactics. It explicitly creates a stark "us vs. them" conflict, making it clear who you are supposed to fight.

Example (using Religion): "This is a battle for the soul of our nation between our faith and theirs. You have to pick a side."

The Response: "Your comment is using the 'Divide and Conquer' tactic, known as 'Divide'. It is an attempt to be divisive by creating an 'us vs. them' conflict to distract from the real issues."

How can this method be effective? Using these replies may feel different from a normal argument, and that's the purpose. Here’s the strategy behind the phrasing:

It's Not a Personal Attack. Notice that the replies focus on the comment ("Your comment is using…") and not the person. You are analyzing their words, not judging their character. This makes it educational rather than confrontational.

You Don't Take the Bait. Propagandists want you to get trapped arguing about their distorted facts. By labeling their tactic, you refuse to play their game. You shift the focus from their topic to their method, which disarms them.

You Educate Onlookers. Your reply isn't just for the original commenter. Everyone else reading the thread sees it and learns to recognize the tactic for themselves. You are effectively inoculating the audience against this kind of manipulation.

The goal isn't to win every argument online. The goal is to bring clarity to the conversation and discredit the manipulative games being played. By calmly labeling the tactics, you strip them of their power and help everyone think more critically.

[justforbooks]

What is the strait of Hormuz and why is it crucial for oil supplies?

Effective closure of the narrow waterway could spell trouble for many developed economies

The US-Israeli war on Iran has ignited fears that escalating military aggression in the Middle East could send oil prices soaring, push up prices at the pump and drive a global economic downturn.

The US began “major combat operations” in Iran on Saturday morning, shortly after Israel launched a strike against Tehran. Within hours of the US-Israeli strikes, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards reportedly warned tankers in the strait of Hormuz that no ship would be allowed to pass through the world’s most critical oil trade route.

Iran has not formally confirmed a block on the narrow waterway, which would be an unprecedented escalation in the region, but ships appear to be avoiding the strait after an attack on a ship off Oman. At least 150 tankers carrying crude, liquified natural gas and oil products had dropped anchor in open waters across the Gulf past the strait on Sunday, Reuters reported.

If the halt continues, it could block up to 15m barrels a day of crude oil from reaching their destinations.

In a worst-case scenario, experts have said oil market prices could surge from about $67 a barrel on Friday night to $100. This would spell trouble for many developed economies, including the US, that have struggled to shrug off the impact of inflation on growth and productivity. That has left households facing a cost of living crisis.

Bjarne Schieldrop, the chief commodities analyst at the financial services group SEB, said: “It has become quite clear now that this is the biggest bluff in history and it has gone horribly wrong. Now it is difficult for Trump to back down and pull out all his gunboats and fighter jets without losing face.”

How much oil does Iran have?

Iran is home to the world’s fourth largest proven oil reserves, holding up to 170bn barrels of oil, or about 9% of all global crude. It is behind only Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada as the largest country by domestic oil reserves.

It is the fourth largest oil producer in Opec and one of the largest crude exporters in the world. It also has the world’s second largest proven gas reserves, with about one-sixth of global gas.

Decades of political unrest, war and sanctions throttled its crude production from a peak in 1974 of about 6m barrels of oil a day to about 3.5m barrels. In recent months its output has reached historic highs, despite US sanctions and Israeli bombardments, due to close ties with China. Beijing imports about 90% of Iran’s crude, which is subject to international sanctions.

Although Iran’s crude exports make up about 3-4% of the global market, its significance for the global oil markets extends well beyond its own production, according to experts.

Jorge León, the head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy, said: “The country’s geopolitical weight is rooted in its strategic location, its influence over regional security dynamics and its capacity to disrupt critical energy infrastructure and transit routes.”

Why is the strait of Hormuz so important?

The strait of Hormuz is one of the most important arteries for global trade. About 20% of all oil supplies and about 20% of seaborne gas tankers pass through it.

The strait lies between Oman and Iran. It links the Gulf to the north with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea beyond. It is 20 miles (33km) wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lanes just 2 miles (3km) wide in either direction.

This location makes it a crucial choke point for oil deliveries from Opec countries to customers in Asia. Options to bypass the strait are limited.

Will Iran formally shut the strait?

For years, Tehran has warned that it could shut the strait in retaliation against any military aggression, but it has stopped short of a prolonged block on the trade route.

León said Iran had now retaliated in a “far more aggressive and expansive manner than in prior exchanges”, which he said “marks a structural widening of the conflict beyond contained or symbolic strikes”.

Ajay Parmar, a director at the energy market specialists ICIS, said: “Shutting the strait would be a last-resort tactic for Iran. We would expect to see this in a hot-war scenario.”

However, with tankers anchored and crew waiting outside the strait to see how events unfold, the impact on trade is already being felt. León added: “Whether the strait is closed by force or rendered inaccessible by risk avoidance, the impact on flows is largely the same.”

The tankers in limbo include a vessel chartered by Centrica, the owner of British Gas, containing a spot-market cargo of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar. The destination of the vessel is not certain, although it may have been on the way to Asia. A Nigerian vessel due to arrive in Qatar on 5 March before importing LNG to Europe aborted the trip before arriving in the strait.

Tamsin Hunt, a senior analyst at S-RM, a global intelligence and cybersecurity consultancy, said: “Closing the strait in full would be devastating for Iran’s own economy, as it would mean halting all its exports of oil and other goods. Iran would likely only close the strait as a last resort if the regime feels its core survival is under threat.”

Parmar said Donald Trump would hope to avoid an escalation that caused global oil prices to rocket, raising costs for US voters before midterm elections in November.

But a full closure of the strait is not the only tactic at Iran’s disposal. Hunt said: “Vessels could face potential signal jamming, detentions of ships and crew, firing of warning shots, and sea mines that would partially obstruct the strait. Even small disruptions would have an outsized impact on the global oil sector, with delays, diversions and increased insurance and freight costs likely to drive global prices up.”

What does the US attack mean for global oil markets?

Before the strikes, oil market observers had expected scenarios involving limited military action to add about $10 a barrel to the global oil price.

Financial markets now expect a 9% jump in the price of Brent crude to $73 a barrel on Monday alone. Rystad Energy has said the price could jump by as much as $20 at the start of the week, to about $90 a barrel, unless there is a rapid de-escalation on Sunday before the New York oil futures market resumes trading at 11pm UK time. The price is still expected to rise despite the Opec nations and other oil-producing countries such as Russia agreeing a larger than planned production increase when they met on Sunday to counter the effects of the conflict.

A prolonged disruption of the strait of Hormuz could drive oil prices above $100 a barrel, analysts said. Even in the scenario of a short and targeted US campaign, Hunt said, any strikes on Iran’s oil production and supply lines would disrupt flows to its key trading partner, China, driving increased prices globally as China competed in the global market to replace its losses from other sources.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[midstpodcast]

GET HYPED FOR #UNEND ☁️ 🚀

Our amazing Junior Lore Keeper Jared Deiro is BACK and broadcasting straight from the Fold with all the latest happenings in the Cosmos! A supernatural ship is launching into the UN-known as the new series begins, and there's already intrigue lurking between the crewmates...

EXPERIENCE UNEND ON YOUTUBE AND WHEREVER PODCASTS ARE FOUND! 🧡

[passerkirbius]

Compulsory Voting Looks Like...?

In my Voting With Spite post, I mentioned that Australia has compulsory voting, and I noted that quite a few people had either positive or negative reactions to that idea. I thought it might be a good idea to talk briefly about what Compulsory Voting actually does to your voting scene.

Now, to be clear, I'm going to be talking about the Australian Experience - that's what I know. I'm aware that Brazil and Belgium both have Compulsory Voting as well, and their experiences are likely to be a bit different. So, let's go through the big ones:

Do you need ID to vote?

Here, the answer is no - an ID can help, because when you get your name marked off the roll at a voting station, they use your name and address, and our driver's licenses have that, but it's not essential. Indeed, if you've changed address and that hasn't been recorded on the roll, you can still vote - this is called a "declaration vote", because the vote is put into an envelope where you "declare" that the information provided is correct, and the vote is counted once the electoral commission has verified the information.

One might think that this open up our system to a lot of fraud, but one of the fun parts about compulsory voting is that voter fraud is very easy to study - in such a system, if someone steals someone else's identity to vote, it will appear that that person has voted twice, and it gets investigated. The only other big fraud option is fraudulent enrolment - and again, because everyone is on the electoral role, if there's concern regarding a fraudulent enrolment, the electoral commission can check with people at the address of the enrolment. The AEC do these sorts of checks after every election, and it turns out, while there are often double votes, most of those are administrative errors (crossing off the wrong person somewhere), or entirely innocent (people with memory issues voting multiple times because they forgot that they'd already voted). During the 2018 election, only 118 cases were deemed worth forwarding to the Federal Police, out of over 20 million votes.

Do Politicians still play to the base?

In Voluntary voting systems, there is a well-known phenomenon where there's an incentive for politicians to, instead of trying to aim for policies that will satisfy the most people, to instead aim directly at their "base", their natural political home voters. The idea is that you don't actually need to persuade the other side to vote for you, you actually need to persuade your side to vote for you. The only prevailing counter to this is that you don't want to be so egregious that you motivate the other side to vote against you.

Historically, this has not been the case in Australia. In Australia, you can depend on your base to vote for you - they aren't going to stay at home, because it's compulsory to vote.

So they play to the centre?

Honestly, it's complicated. The question is often not about whether you're politically "in the middle", but where you live - Just like in other electorates, there are safe seats (where voter movement isn't likely to kick out the incumbent party) and marginal seats (where the margin of votes for a given party is quite small, generally less than 5%). Marginal seats are where political parties can potentially score a seat with only a little bit of a push, so it's standard strategy to build your campaign promises to directly target those marginal voters.

What those marginal voters actually want varies quite a bit, depending on where in the country they are - a marginal seat in Rural NSW need different targeting than a tiny marginal seat in Melbourne. In general these voters are looking for actual improvements in facilities and economic policy, rather than ideology, so while politicians from those seats may be absolute culture warriors, that often isn't what people in the seat are asking about or listening to - they want to know what the nutcase is actually going to do for them.

With that said, rural voters are more likely to want a personal connection to their MP and are much more likely to vote on who they, personally, like the most. This is less the case in Urban electorates, who care much less about who the MP is and what they're like, and much more about their party's platform.

But also also, there is a strong emphasis in politics about playing to "Ordinary Australians", which one can consider a code for "centre views". Of course, Australia as a society is pretty conservative in many ways, so what you consider "centre" may be a little left of what we consider "centre"...

So yeah, not nearly as simple as "playing to the centre" - there's a lot more involved there.

Are there such thing as "Independent" voters?

In Australia, at least, the idea of an "Independent" voter doesn't really exist - Australia's leaders aren't voted for in Primaries, so you don't need to have your political affiliation marked. Some Australians are members of political parties, but that number is tiny - in 2022, the two major parties had 100,000 members between them, in a population of 26 million people - about 0.4% of the population, maybe 0.5% if we count all the minor parties as well.

Are compulsory voters more engaged voters?

In a word? No. Australian society in general doesn't encourage people being overly involved or engaged in politics, especially in working-class subcultures (and of course, every Australian claims to be working class, regardless of their actual class). Like in many places, there's a pressure in face-to-face conversation to suppress political discussion to avoid conflict, and I can assure you that researching your candidates/parties before an election isn't a common activity (and I understand why - there's so many of them).

As a consequence, Australians don't tend to change their vote that often - in fact, studies in Australia have shown that there's a strong correlation between how you vote, and how your parents vote. A Labor voter is likely to stay a Labor voter, and a Liberal voter is likely to stay a Liberal voter, even if they're not a member of the party. This is why most election promises are much more about giving stuff to voters, rather than about legislation around society itself - It's considered safer to deal with infrastructure than it is to deal in culture wars issues.

Wait, if voters don't change often, how do opposition win?

Well, rarely is the honest answer to that question here. Since 1950, the party in federal government has changed only seven times:

Once in 1972, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 1975, from Labor to the Coalition (although that one was a particularly odd one)

Once in 1983, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 1996, from Labor to the Coalition

Once in 2007, from the Coalition to Labor

Once in 2013, from Labor to the Coalition

Once in 2022, from the Coalition to Labor

And during that time, there's been 27 elections, so in 20 out of 27 elections, the incumbent won. But with that said, every time the opposition wins, it's in a landslide, winning a huge number of seats.

The reasons for this are obviously complex, but the way I like to think about is that in Australia there's a certain inertia in the voting populace. Once your vote is set, there's not a lot that's going to change that vote - you're generally going to vote for the party that aligns most with you, and that isn't likely to change much. But as a party keeps fucking up (because they always fuck up), the more that votes wobbles - it might, initially, move your party down the preferences, which you might not notice (because it still funnels to you), but eventually, you've pissed off so many people that everyone votes for anyone but you arseholes, which results in the other party getting in with a landslide.

The previous government is usually horrifically savaged, to the point that it takes a few election cycles for them to slowly rebuild numbers, regain talent, and get themselves into a position where, now that the other side has fucked up sufficiently, voters are willing to let them have another shot at the big time.

This, awkwardly, also tends to stifle politically-lead social change, as well. Firstly, it can take decade or more for a party that is willing to engage with your chosen direction of society to become the Government, and even once they are there, it tends to be the case that Governments won't consider leading such changes until they are certain that everyone wants it - The Gay Marriage Postal Survey is an example. Any opinion poll could show you that the majority of Australians were for gay marriage, but the Coalition government of the time was against it. As a delaying tactic, they insisted on a postal survey (it couldn't be a plebiscite, because they couldn't get that through their own MPs) so every Australian had to vote on the issue. The result? 61.6% were for Gay Marriage (and up to 90% in some electorates!).

What if you can't vote?

Australia is something of a world leader in working to ensure that everyone can vote, because it's been generally established that you can't punish someone for not doing something the government has made it impossible for you to do. So, all Australians have access to:

Early Voting (usually for at least 3 weeks before election day)

Postal Voting (and you just have to post it on Election day, it can be received afterwards).

The voting infrastructure is set up that you can vote at any polling station in your state (we now print lower house ballots on demand, so every station has access to every ballot), and there are specific polling stations for interstate voters (where upper house ballots for every state are available).

There are mobile polling stations for voters, so even if you live in a remote town and can't drive to the nearest polling station, polling stations can drive out to you!

These mobile polling stations also attend prisons and hospitals to provide voting access for people who cannot leave to vote.

We even now have telephone voting for Blind folk, with a specialised system set up to allow for a secret ballot, so the phone person assisting the blind voter won't know who the blind voter is.

Australian embassies in other countries are also available for voters, although you are not actually required to vote if you're not in the country during the election campaign.

So, our voting infrastructure is built, as much as is practicable, to ensure that every voter gets every opportunity to vote. If you can't get to a booth on the day, you can early vote or postal vote.

To be clear, this is not a requirement of compulsory voting - it's quite possible to go to this level of effort in a voluntary voting system, and I can absolutely imagine a compulsory voting system that also made it difficult for people to vote (likely disproportionately affecting your political enemies).

Does Compulsory Voting help Minor Parties?

Not really - Preferential voting definitely helps minor parties, but not Compulsory voting. There is one way it might help though - As noted above, if you're pissed off with your current party, you may bump another party higher up on your preferences, even put them as your "1" vote. In a Voluntary voting system, such people might, instead choose not to vote and stay at home, so in that sense, I guess minor parties can be the beneficiaries of voter anger, but of course, that couldn't be the case without preferential voting.

Got more questions? My asks are always open! Ask away!