DISQUS

Some odd omissions:

Boston-based Going.com, social networking / events startup.

Somerville-based LocaModa, creators of Wiffiti, innovative new social media.

(I've worked for both of them, though I don't work for either currently)

Another correction: Bahrain is majority Shia, and Kuwait is about 1/3 Shia, so it is incorrect to lump all the gulf emirates together as predominantly Sunni. Also, Yemen is probably close to half Shia, though I don't know if there are accurate current numbers.

Also, Syria, though predominantly Sunni, is dominated and ruled by a Shia splinter sect, the Alawites. Druze, numerous in both Syria and Lebanon, are also probably a Shia splinter sect. Neither of these are the same as the mainstream ("Imami") Shia, but they're certainly not Sunni either.

Another correction: Bahrain is majority Shia, and Kuwait is about 1/3 Shia, so it is incorrect to lump all the gulf emirates together as predominantly Sunni. Also, Yemen is probably close to half Shia, though I don't know if there are accurate current numbers.

Also, Syria, though predominantly Sunni, is dominated and ruled by a Shia splinter sect, the Alawites. Druze, numerous in both Syria and Lebanon, are also probably a Shia splinter sect. Neither of these are the same as the mainstream ("Imami") Shia, but they're certainly not Sunni either.

You're absolutely wrong about the term "anti-semitism". You are correct in stating that Jews and Arabs are both semitic ethnic groups. However, "anti-semitism" does not refer to prejudice against or hostility towards all people of semitic background. "Anti-semitism" is anti-Jewish prejudice/hostility. Language is funny sometimes, and words can mean different things than what they etymological background suggests they ought to mean. This term is by no means alone in being like that. However, it is what it is.

Furthermore, since there's no major phenomenon of prejudice against people of semitic background in general and specifically (that is, prejudice that is against all semites but not against any other groups), there's not really a role for a term that would have that meaning. So there just isn't a word for it.

You're absolutely wrong about the term "anti-semitism". You are correct in stating that Jews and Arabs are both semitic ethnic groups. However, "anti-semitism" does not refer to prejudice against or hostility towards all people of semitic background. "Anti-semitism" is anti-Jewish prejudice/hostility. Language is funny sometimes, and words can mean different things than what they etymological background suggests they ought to mean. This term is by no means alone in being like that. However, it is what it is.

Furthermore, since there's no major phenomenon of prejudice against people of semitic background in general and specifically (that is, prejudice that is against all semites but not against any other groups), there's not really a role for a term that would have that meaning. So there just isn't a word for it.

My response to this, on the Facebook thread ( http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=593026268... ):

Facebook seems to be changing Beacon to opt-in, but in a screwy way:
http://www.allfacebook.com/2007/11/breaking-fac...

"Users must click on “OK” in a new initial notification on their Facebook home page before the first Beacon story is published to their friends from each participating site. We recognize that users need to clearly understand Beacon before they first have a story published, and we will continue to refine this approach to give users choice.

If a user does nothing with the initial notification on Facebook, it will hide after some duration without a story being published. When a user takes a future action on a Beacon site, it will reappear and display all the potential stories along with the opportunity to click “OK” to publish or click “remove” to not publish."

If they actually do it that way, it's good as far as privacy goes, but I think it still shows they don't get it.

They will definitely satisfy the requirement that nothing gets shared until a user has taken a specific action to choose to share it, and that's great. However, I suspect that when people first encounter this, their initial reaction will likely be paranoia. Huh, wha?? Where did that come from? How did Facebook get this information? etc. As a result, a lot more people will think it's creepy and say no.

Facebook should be building a system based on enticing people to choose to participate, and see it as a positive feature to adopt, rather than a negative feature to stomp on. This change would be a partial step in that direction, but I wonder why they wouldn't go all the way. All I can think of is that they really don't get it, and don't understand why people have reacted the way they have.

While I agree that Fox is hypocritical and ironic, I still don't want to have anything to do with attacking a broadcaster for showing sex. I wish more would do it. I wish Fox would stop being hypocritical about it, too, but this particular campaign seems to be aimed at getting advertisers to pull because of the sexy content, not because of the politics. I think that's wrong, so I oppose this campaign.

I fully support embarassing Fox by spreading that video, though. At least then the goal can be to get them to stop condemning "liberals" for supposed "depravity".

While I agree that Fox is hypocritical and ironic, I still don't want to have anything to do with attacking a broadcaster for showing sex. I wish more would do it. I wish Fox would stop being hypocritical about it, too, but this particular campaign seems to be aimed at getting advertisers to pull because of the sexy content, not because of the politics. I think that's wrong, so I oppose this campaign.

I fully support embarassing Fox by spreading that video, though. At least then the goal can be to get them to stop condemning "liberals" for supposed "depravity".

anonymous: ... and anytime the tax on cigarettes goes up even a little bit, many people quit, and fewer people start. So it actually also improves childrens' health :) But to the extent that it takes money disproportionately from poorer people, at least that's where almost all the money is going. Unlike all the other regressive taxes and fees we have, that go to the general fund, which primarily benefits people with a lot more money.

I don't like this one at all. The other videos focus on real flaws, this one is a mix. We should not be making fun of politicians for doing anything gay-friendly, for getting divorces, etc. Sure, Republicans hate that stuff - so let *them* attack it! We can point out hypocrisy, but that's not what this video does.

I hope you pull this video off the site, and replace it with something better.

You're conflating "don't judge people based on knowing where they went to college" (good advice) with "it doesn't matter where you go to college" - a very different and much broader statement. People pick colleges for many different reasons, and get a lot of different things out of them, and the statement you're making covers much more ground than your essay here addresses. I could easily say "it matters very much where you go to college" and not contradict any of your other points here.