By Aly Kamadia, Editor-In-Chief, iDose
As Israel begins its assault on Southern Gaza, the atrocities that Netanyahu’s government continues to inflict on innocent Palestinians continue to shake the hearts of people worldwide. Included among individuals critical of Israeli behavior are those acutely aware that the immediate causes for Israel’s declaration of war were the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th.
Among the broad range of critics include enraged American Muslims.
The Associated Press is reporting that, “Muslim community leaders from several swing states pledged to withdraw support for U.S. President Joe Biden on Saturday [Dec. 2nd] at a conference in suburban Detroit, citing his refusal to call for a ceasefire in Gaza… Leaders from Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania gathered behind a lectern that read ‘Abandon Biden, ceasefire now’”.
The degree to which sentiments from Muslim Imams and leaders will translate into withholding votes for Biden in the 2024 US presidential election isn’t predictable – at least with meaningful precision.
But given the notable population of American Muslims in key areas (e.g., swing states), and the fact that they are haunted by having their own taxpayer dollars unconditionally fund the lethal weapons and ammunition unleashed on innocent Palestinian babies and women (or “animals”, as some bigots like to call them), is anyone surprised that many American Muslims want nothing to do with Biden?
Turning to the pieces that iDose features this month, you’ll see that another article by Shlomo Ben-Ami has been posted.
The article is fascinating for reasons beyond anything having to do with its primary arguments (which merit attention).
To remind readers, saying the name Noam Chomsky, or Slavoj Žižek, or (the late) Edward Said on (broadcast) American mainstream media is an act of blasphemy that simply won’t be tolerated, and will get one cancelled. Ben-Ami has the audacity of mentioning all three names in a single article, which constitutes the type of grave heresy that we welcome.
In terms of the article’s substance, the reader can assess Ben-Ami’s assertions regarding the oversimplified narratives gripping an excessive number of peoples views.
But we must be mindful that oversimplified narratives are almost always extremely effective (to be clear, I’m not referring to anything having to do with Israel/Palestine, and Ben-Ami is aware of the power of narratives). Anyone with basic literacy in propaganda ought to be laughing at the comical myths created by Silicon Valley, to note one example.
Consider the topic of Artificial Intelligence. In the beginning of the year, certain people were declaring that ChatGPT (an admittedly powerful though highly flawed tool) made it clear that humanity was right around the corner from creating Artificial General Intelligence. The machines were about to rise and perhaps enslave or destroy us all (meaning, we should immediately disregard issues such as nuclear warfare, climate change, etc.)
Fear not, however. The most brave and intellectual man to walk planet Earth, Sam Altman, put his foot down while emerging as the very Savior that humanity needed.
Well, as it turns out, the evidence points to Altman being much more interested in money and power (why am I not surprised?). I don’t deny that he may have an intellectual side to him (on a side note, I’m told he doesn’t have serious technical expertise). But it would be disingenuous for me to state that I’ve seen any evidence of Altman’s remarkable intelligence, let alone the genius being marketed.
In fact, the impression that I get is that many people in Silicon Valley sincerely believe that they’re the reincarnation of Oppenheimer.
In any event, the scholar Katharina Pistor masterfully addresses the OpenAI episode in her article, which is a must-read for anyone interested in Artificial Intelligence.
Next, in a long Q&A, physicist David Stainforth discusses the complexities of making predictions when it comes to climate change.
And finally, the seemingly age-old debate of “free will versus determinism” is given attention. I was a bit hesitant to post the relevant article because very little can be said about the topic in a few pages, irrespective of any author’s knowledge. But there is a certain hubris among more than a few scientists who believe that this question is already answered exclusively by contemporary science.
I welcome everything that the scientific method has to offer, but am certainly no fan of radical scientism.
Enjoy!
Aly Kamadia
Editor-In-Chief, iDose
© All Rights Reserved
