“Seriously, can you please point to some sources were the people who detonated themselves in Pizza restaurants, or at wedding parties or on the London underground were called “militants” by the liberal media (your term) and not terrorist.”
OK, I will.
Pizza restaurants first. Here are are some BBC stories about the attack on the Sbarro pizza restaurant.
Link 1. “Hamas, the hard-line Palestinian militant group, said one of its members had been the bomber.
Link 2. It starts, “With Palestinian militants continuing to carry out suicide attacks in Israel…”
Later, happy Palestinians staged the Sbarro show – no mention of terrorists there in the BBC’s own voice either. Why don’t you google through bbc.co.uk for Sbarro and look for the word “terrorist” in the BBC’s own voice, rather than in quotes?
Incidentally, the father of a 15 year old girl murdered at Sbarro, commented on this blog here.
Now for a wedding party. Here are some BBC stories about the 2005 suicide bombing of a wedding in Amman, Jordan.
Link 1 – “At least several hundred people have marched through Amman to denounce the bombers and show loyalty to King Abdullah II. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” they chanted, referring to the Jordanian-born militant believed to lead al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Link 2 It refers to “bombers”, but not terrorists. Again, why don’t you have a look through the BBC website for stories regarding this crime and see if you can find the bombers described as terrorists in the BBC’s own voice?
Finally, here’s something about the London Underground. In the immediate aftermath of the “7/7” London bombings of 2005 certain BBC staff did use the word terrorist several times. “Terrorist atrocity”, even. As in the case of Beslan, it looked for a moment like a change of heart. But this indelicacy contradicted policy. So the BBC went back through the stories and changed “terrorist” to “bomber”.
For proof, Harry’s Place got screenshots. This story was discussed in the Telegraph, which named the BBC official responsible as Helen Boaden. She was worried the word terrorist might offend the World Service customers.
(Links to old Biased BBC posts take you to the relevant month. You may have to scroll down to see the relevant post.)
Natalie,
Many thanks – nailed it.
Gunnar,
As I was saying – terrorists is what they were but militants is what they were called in the lexicon of the morally bankrupt.
My favourite is when some of the more extreme Beeboids describe them as ‘activists’, you know, like those people who stuff election literature into envelopes in Britain. The BBC thinks people like this and people who blow up Israeli citizens are both ‘activists’.
Now, where is that link about Helen Boaden talking about the use of words in reporting aiding clarity?…
Hi Natalie,
Many thanks for the links. Much appreciated.
Link 1
Does not describe the suicide bomber as militant. The word “terror” is linked to the event, however, not directly by BBC own words but via quotations as you point out.
Link 2
The bombing is linked to a terror attack in the BBC own words:
“Its members can be seen at the scene of every terrorist attack in their luminous orange and yellow vests, meticulously collecting human remains, from body parts to spatters of blood.”
Describing the attacker as:
“Moments earlier a Palestinian with explosives strapped to his waist had entered the packed restaurant and blown himself up.”
Will leave little doubt in most peoples mind.
The Sbarro link calls the event “suicide bombing”. The person is described as a “suicide bomber”.
The same can be said for the other links you provided.
As I see it, you want the BBC to label suicide bombers as terrorists. I would say that the term suicide bomber already contains the term “terror” but you may see it different.
Gunnar,
What about the numerous occasions where the BBC change reported speech ? You know- the stuff inside quote marks ?
Gunnar: keep squirming!
How would they describe people like “Red Robbo” and Arthur Scargill if they made some kind of comeback ?
“What about the numerous occasions where the BBC change reported speech ? You know- the stuff inside quote marks ?”
This one is wrong. It’s not, however, the same policy as not using the word themselves. As I said before, you should concentrate on them breaching their own rules rather than following them, otherwise it’s the same story (and usually the same enraged mooing) repeated with a different link.
This is adapted from a comment I made recently on another thread.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7338055.stm
Israel will ‘respond’ over raid
the Blindly Biased Conglomeration informs us. Note that the “raid” left two Israeli civilian workers shot dead by the BBC’s “militants.”
Israel has again held Hamas responsible for a raid by Palestinian militants on an Israeli fuel depot.
And:
Several militant groups, including Islamic Jihad, say they were to blame and Hamas has denied that its forces were involved in the attack.
And:
Israeli officials say the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis.
No, they don’t. They say the terrorists targeted this point.
The raid, which happened just after a fuel delivery to Gaza, sparked a gun battle in which at least four militants were involved, the Israeli military says.
See above.
Two militants were killed as they fled back into Gaza, the Israeli military said, while at least one other apparently escaped.
Ditto.
Later, Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle in Gaza City which the military said had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants involved in the attack.
Ditto.
Maybe John Reith can get his friends at the BBC to stop lying to us and to follow the guidelines which state that they should accurately quote people who talk of terrorists.
Unless Reith was actually the one who wrote the bloody “report”.
Here is the recommendation on terrorism, that the BBC so contemptuously dismisses, from the BBC-appointed panel’s review of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
b) the BBC is right to avoid terms which are a barrier to understanding, and should use words
which best express the desired meaning clearly and effectively. The term “terrorism” should
accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for
actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing
terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state
or non-state agencies. While those immediately responsible for the actions might be described
as terrorists, the BBC is right to avoid so labelling organisations, except in attributed remarks;
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:bvYxATC4Pt0J:www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.pdf+BBC+Review+of+the+Israeli-Palestinian+conflict&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
How does the BBC justify ignoring that advice?
They are not attributed remarks. This is indirect reported speech. If it is outside of inverted commas, then the words are still the BBC’s.
Alex, I’m finding it difficult to believe you just said that.
On second thoughts, perhaps not.
“They are not attributed remarks. This is indirect reported speech. If it is outside of inverted commas, then the words are still the BBC’s.” — what pathetic, snivelling nonsense you do spout. You are in with a good chance to become the next DG. In fact, I suspect you ARE the DG, since your weasely and mendacious excuses are so typical of Al Beeb.
Tne sources did NOT say ‘militants’, and the BBC pretends that it is conveying what they said, but it is NOT doing so. Therefore, the BBC is lying, and in trying to excuse their lying you are simply acting as a backside-licker to the liars.
“Tne sources did NOT say ‘militants’”
What did they say then? Quotes please.
“the BBC pretends that it is conveying what they said, but it is NOT doing so.”
It is conveying the information important to the story, namely that Israel has again held Hamas responsible for a raid by Palestinian militants on an Israeli fuel depot, that several militant groups, including Islamic Jihad, say they were to blame and Hamas has denied that its forces were involved in the attack, that the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis, that the raid sparked a gun battle in which at least four militants were involved, that two militants were killed as they fled back into Gaza while at least one other apparently escaped and that a vehicle had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants involved in the attack.
The moral judgement contained in the word ‘terrorist’ is secondary to the quotes.
To call it ‘lying’ is rubbish – the facts the sources gave are still accurate without the word, the BBC has simply toned down the emotional punch a little, and the militants/terrorists do not come out of the story any more sympathetically for the BBC’s doing so. If that is the same as lying, you have some serious issues with moral equivalence.
Just to rehash something that was discussed a few weeks back when an amoral Palestinian entity terrorist fired 500 rounds from a Kalashnikov at a school. (The BBC also made sure they always referred to it as a “seminary,” so as not to confuse the folks.)
That’s right… he loaded and reloaded as he fired bullets at children as they cowered in corners, under desks. He looked children in the eyes before he shot them in the face with an assault rifle.
But could the BBC bring itself to describe the 15 and 16 year olds he slaughtered like dogs, as “children?”
What do you think? No… Children of a Lesser God indeed.
And I have to pay a tax to pay for this?
It’s not rocket science, despite all the bullshit about ‘guidelines’, ‘aiding understanding’ and ‘reported speech’. The BBC hates to use the word “terrorist” because they know that by so doing they imply that the perpetrator is “evil”. This is “judgmental”, and the BBC hates to be “judgmental” (unless they’re judging George Bush, Israel or the “Tories”). Since terrorists these days are generally the BBC’s much-loved Muslims, they refuse to apply a word with “evil” accretions to Muslims. Got it?
“The BBC hates to use the word “terrorist” because they know that by so doing they imply that the perpetrator is “evil”.”
And you would like the BBC to be more forthcoming about who the goodies are and who the baddies are. Silly me, I always assumed “Biased BBC” was the complaint rather than the demand.
“This is “judgmental”, and the BBC hates to be “judgmental” (unless they’re judging George Bush, Israel or the “Tories”).”
Now if you can back this up and show some double standards, you’ve got yourself a case.
Even though most reports in the media are liberally sprinkled with direct quotes from Hamas spokespersons, nearly all Israeli remarks take an indirect form.
Just having a look on Google gives this though:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8VUV8N80
“We decided that we will continue to talk and will not let terrorists have a veto voice on the talks with the pragmatic forces,” Mekel said.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel said the attack would cause further harm to civilians by threatening the supply of fuel and other humanitarian goods to Gaza.
And this:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/world/story/97A256E5293826618625
“Israel sends food, gas, medical supplies and humanitarian assistance every day and the terrorists who attacked the crossing today are trying to harm this operation and are harming mostly the well-being of the people,” he said.
In both direct quotes Mekel uses the word terrorist, not militant.
Presumably the plethora of direct quotes from Hamas, and dearth of similar from Israel reflects the success of the great Palestinian P.R. machine, and the laziness of the journalists reporting on it, in equal measure.
The unelected State Broadcasting Party use language that is consistent the leftist political slant of their output, eg:
Oldspeak: tax
BBC newspeak: licence, when referring to their own tax.
Oldspeak: government spending
BBC newspeak: government investment. This will revert to the oldspeak when the Tories get in.
Oldspeak: global warming
BBC newspeak: climate change. This expression was promoted by the green lobby as a calculated attempt to obfuscate the issue, because deep down every leftist knows s/he is wrong about everything. Use of the term was promoted by the leftist IPPR in a propaganda manual entitled ‘Warm Words’. Enthusiastically adopted by the BBC.
Oldspeak: immigration
BBC newspeak: migration. Immigration was deemed to be too broad a term, in that it lumps together asylum seekers, economic migrants, tourists, illegals, etc, so to avoid confusion, the BBC uses a term that is even less specific.
Oldspeak: terrorist
BBC newspeak: militant. Terrorists don’t see themselves as terrorists. In fact, I reckon most terrorists would feel quite flattered by the term ‘militant’, seeing as it connotes a principled, conscientious resistance to injustice, whereas a terrorist is a violent delusional thug with a vendetta.
I daresay there are plenty more examples to be found.
By CHOOSING not to describe terrorists as terrorists the BBC is not simply remaining “neutral”; it is sparing, forgiving – generous even – to the perpetrators concerned, and is therefore making a clear value judgment of its own. “These people are not as bad as other commentators are making out – hey, they are as deserving of fair treatment in our description of them as are their victims”. In this way, the BBC gives covert support to terrorists. At other times (remember Trevor Brooks’ interview on ‘Today’, or the ‘Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ debacle?) it even offers them a platform – quite often adding a bit of positive spin, or (as its known to us here) a spot of “turd polishing”.
I have just heard (Sunday 4 pm, Radio 4) the BBC say the pope had visited the site of the WTC ‘which was destroyed by TERRORISTS’!
So they do know the word! Progress!
OK, BBC sorts out there: please do explain, *when* is a Terrorist a Terrorist? Is a suicide bomber in a pizza bar one? Sombeody killing civilians at an Israeli checkpoint?
Somebody firing Qassams randomly into Sderot?
The publicly-funded BBC must now publicly explain which persons and acts count as terrorists and terrorism.
“The moral judgement contained in the word ‘terrorist’ is secondary to the quotes.”
There is no moral judgement,if you create fear by terrorising you are a terrorist.
Curiously, in reporting the Pope’s visit to Ground Zero, the R4 3pm 4pm news this afternoon did actually describe the Twin Towers as having been destroyed by “terrorists”.
But that hardly negates any of the arguments on this, or indeed any other, Biased BBC threads.
Cheers.
However, by 5pm “terrorists” had been dropped, but the BBC would at least allow that those who died on that day were “murdered”.
I use ‘climate change’ to mean ‘climate change’. A poor soul concludes above that this makes me a lefty. He needs to reboot his brain. I couldn’t be less of a lefty.
“To call it ‘lying’ is rubbish – the facts the sources gave are still accurate without the word, the BBC has simply toned down the emotional punch a little” – do you have the slightest idea what an idiot you are, Mr ‘twat’ Alex? Do you understand the first thing about language? ‘Terrorist’ is an English word that means one thing, ‘militant’ is another word that means something else entirely.
The Israeli sources used the word ‘mekhablim’, which means ‘terrorists’. The BBC changed their words, which in the eyes of any sane person with an IQ above room temperature is lying.
” “This is “judgmental”, and the BBC hates to be “judgmental” (unless they’re judging George Bush, Israel or the “Tories”).” ”
“Now if you can back this up and show some double standards, you’ve got yourself a case”, says Mr ‘twat’ Alex. OK, here is one, and let’s see you admit the case; but I am not holding my breath:
On the BBC website, Israel villages on the West Bank are described in toto as ‘illegal’. This is not a factual statement: this is a judgemental opinion. The villages are –claimed– by some people to be ‘illegal’. They are asserted by other people to be perfectly legal, or that the concept of ‘legality’ is irrelevant, inappropriate and/or misapplied. Now, does the BBC say ‘they are claimed’ (or ‘claimed by some’) ‘to be illegal’? No. The well-known, properly appointed and competent court of law called ‘BBC’ says that they ARE illegal.
The BBC even refuses to call terrorists ‘terrorist’ when they are Arabs or other Muslims, using the idiotic pretext that in this way they don’t make a judgement. But when it comes to Israel (or the USA, or the Tories, as a great many posts on this site attest, quoting chapter and verse), they have no such fear of making judegements.
Case proven. Next!
“There is no moral judgement,if you create fear by terrorising you are a terrorist.”
And if you believe in the use of military or paramilitary action to further your political agenda, you are a militant. Both apply here. If there is no moral judgement in the choice between the two, what are you complaining about.
“Do you understand the first thing about language? ‘Terrorist’ is an English word that means one thing, ‘militant’ is another word that means something else entirely.”
Absolute rubbish. ‘Militants’ quite often are terrorists and terrorists are almost always fairly militant in their approach.
“The Israeli sources used the word ‘mekhablim’, which means ‘terrorists’.”
You seem to be the one who has trouble understanding how language.
Firstly, is ‘mekhablim’ a direct translation used in exactly the same contexts and with exactly the same connotations as ‘terrorist’ is in English? Given how different Israeli discourse on the subject is, I doubt it.
Secondly, I said “quotes please”.
‘However, by 5pm “terrorists” had been dropped, but the BBC would at least allow that those who died on that day were “murdered”.’
Ah, the BBC – one step forward, one step back. They evidently lack the courage of their (lack of) convictions. Will they also say the 7/7 victims were ‘murdered’ (as they certainly were)? Or the Sbarro pizza bar? or the Jerusalem yeshiva?
/crickets
As I said before, you should concentrate on them breaching their own rules rather than following them,
A strawman argument, we are not debating whether the BBC is or is not following its own ‘rules’ but rather that these very rules lead to a biased output.
The moral judgement contained in the word ‘terrorist’ is secondary to the quotes
There is no moral judgement contained in the word terrorist it is a simple description of a methodology
if you create fear by terrorising you are a terrorist And if you believe in the use of military or paramilitary action to further your political agenda, you are a militant. Both apply here. If there is no moral judgement in the choice between the two, what are you complaining about.
The complaint is not about any ‘moral’ judgement, but about simple descriptive accuracy. The BBC is not Humpty Dumpty.
All terrorists are indeed militant, but not all militants are terrorists. By using the same word for both activities the BBC (deliberately?) muddies the perceptions of it’s audience. After all all dogs are animals but the BBC would be accurate although misleading its audience if it reported an attack on a child by a rottweiler as an attack by an animal.
I repeat what I said on a previous thread, I believe that the BBC abjures the use of the word terrorist because some (many?) of its employees believe that some terrorist activity is justified by the cause. I find this to be morally objectionable.
-“Do you understand the first thing about language? ‘Terrorist’ is an English word that means one thing, ‘militant’ is another word that means something else entirely.”
-Absolute rubbish. ‘Militants’ quite often are terrorists and terrorists are almost always fairly militant in their approach.
For someone who claims that I have trouble understanding how language [sic], you do seem to have a serious issue with comprehending simple words. Ever heard of overlapping meanings? For example, some people are bankers and some are fools; and some are bankers and also fools at the same time. That doesn’t mean that ‘bankers’ and ‘fools’ have even remotely the same meanings.
-“The Israeli sources used the word ‘mekhablim’, which means ‘terrorists’.”
-You seem to be the one who has trouble understanding how language.
Firstly, is ‘mekhablim’ a direct translation used in exactly the same contexts and with exactly the same connotations as ‘terrorist’ is in English?
Yes.
-Secondly, I said “quotes please”.
I take it that you speak Hebrew, then, and would benefit from reading an Israeli paper in the original language?
As I see it, you want the BBC to label suicide bombers as terrorists. I would say that the term suicide bomber already contains the term “terror” but you may see it different
Indeed, Gunnar I do see it differently a suicide bomber is not always a terrorist. An essential feature of terrorism is its impact on the civilian population, which is why it is outlawed under the Geneva Conventions.
Those jihadists who attacked the USS Cole on a suicide mission were not engaged in a terrorist attack, no civilians where involved and the intention was to attack a specifically military target. Similarly back in 1944, Japanese pilts who flew their planes into US warships were suicide attacks but not terrorists
“And if you believe in the use of military or paramilitary action to further your political agenda, you are a militant.”
Just pure steaming BS! The term ‘militant’ had long been used in British politics to apply to activists on the left such as Derek hatton, Red Robbo et al. They called themselves ‘Militant’ because they were always trying to cause strikes and strife but not paramilitary action.
Alex, how old are you? This is not rhetorical: I really do want to know how old you are hence the question “how old are you”? Please answer.
FYI, I am 47.
Browsing the last six threads I note that (Angry Young) Alex is present in all of them. Often his is the latest comment, on more than one occasion his is also the first.
Most of his arguments have already been made, and disposed of on previous threads over time.
It really is tedious and succeeds, as most trolls do, only in hijacking the threads so that they revolve around him, and his alter-ego Victoria.
Allan:
Point taken on the definition of ‘militant’, 24.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“I take it that you speak Hebrew, then, and would benefit from reading an Israeli paper in the original language?”
Know the letters but not what they mean. Got any Yiddish?
“– is ‘mekhablim’ a direct translation used in exactly the same contexts and with exactly the same connotations as ‘terrorist’ is in English?
– Yes.”
Really? Exactly? Do you have much experience in translation? I’m assuming you know Hebrew, how would you translate that old chestnut “שואה” into English?
And if we’re really going to get into the horrifically complex world of translation issues (which, I guarantee I won’t get bored of before you) what are the Hebrew words for ‘militant’, ‘gunman’, ‘paramilitary’, ‘bomber’ (suicide and standard), ‘activist’ and any other words the BBC uses for ‘מחבל’?
“Most of his arguments have already been made, and disposed of on previous threads over time.”
Are you suggesting we might have been over the militant/terrorist thing before?
Many times Alex, and we’ve (you and I) already been through the Hebrew translation of “terrorist” argument too.
Perhaps your apparent lack of memory recall is one of your problems – that would explain why you repeat yourself so much.
What has Yiddish got to do with anything?
Tedious is your middle name.
“Fuck off Alex”
“And if you believe in the use of military or paramilitary action to further your political agenda, you are a militant.”
If you are a militant who uses terror to further your political ends you are a terrorist.Terrorism is a tactic.
No, can’t do Yiddish.
Shoah means catastrophe, disaster, calamity. And no: שואה does NOT mean ‘the Holocaust’, as Al Beeb’s (and Reuters’) mega-liars claim.
“You seem to be the one who has trouble understanding how language.”……..and?
“can’t do Yiddish.”
Your loss. Lovely language.
“Shoah means catastrophe, disaster, calamity. And no: שואה does NOT mean ‘the Holocaust’, as Al Beeb’s (and Reuters’) mega-liars claim.”
I know, hence my omitting the first ‘ה’. But it did make you think of the word “השואה”, didn’t it? How many non-Hebrew speakers would think of Hitler when you said the word ‘calamity’? This is why we laugh at BabelFish.
Anyway, what I’m really interested in is the various alternatives for ‘מחבל’ that Israeli journalists use to avoid sounding repetitive.
I’ve scratched the surface of this before with the inexplicably banned Biodegradable, but as I said, translation issues are something I’m very interested in, and the terrorist/militant question comes up like clockwork.
Nearly Oxfordian: “I use ‘climate change’ to mean ‘climate change’. A poor soul concludes above that this makes me a lefty. He needs to reboot his brain. I couldn’t be less of a lefty.”
Oooooh, touchy! What I said clearly has no logical connection to you or your opinions; I must have touched upon what for you is a highly emotional issue – or are you ignorant and/or arrogant enough to think the science really is settled?
My point was merely that the term ‘climate change’ is a generalisation of the type typically employed by those attempting to bolster a weak argument by moving the goalposts. Leftists (and Beeboids) seem genetically predisposed to cling to weak arguments, so they use this kind of thing rather a lot.
Alex,
They could really use your finely honed ability to twist words, ignore concerns, manipulate the facts, deflect the blame and muddy the waters at NuLabour HQ right now! Hey why not? You would make the perfect socialist MP(parasite)! With you on his team he may even last a few months longer?
Gordon McBean has not exactly surrounded himself with the best and brightest has he?
Everything he does and says is an unmitigated disaster and his cabinet of brainless noddies dont help so why not help your heroes?
Alex for NuLiebour: you know it makes sense!
“I’m very interested in, and the terrorist/militant question comes up like clockwork.”
Easy,they are different words,see they even look different.
One could say “militant shop steward” but not,in the normal world.”Terrorist Shop Steward” .
One would say teenage drinkers are terrorising a neighbourhood,but not militanting a neighbourhood.
“One would say teenage drinkers are terrorising a neighbourhood,but not militanting a neighbourhood.”
Wouldn’t call them ‘terrorists’ though, would you?
Alex:
“can’t do Yiddish.”
Your loss. Lovely language.
What a pretentious little prick you are!
Of course Yiddish has become fashionable in the last few years among the shmendriks of this world, although as I learned from experience if you try speaking Yiddish to a young Israeli he’ll laugh his head off.
You, my angry young “friend”, will only ever manage a smattering of goyishe Yiddish.
Nu?
“Wouldn’t call them ‘terrorists’ though, would you”.
Yes,they are terrorising that is what terrorists do.Would you call them militants?
“I know, hence my omitting the first ‘ה’. But it did make you think of the word “השואה”, didn’t it?”
Only because I followed the argument a few weeks ago, with mounting revulsion at the dirty tricks antisemites use to discredit Israel.
“Oooooh, touchy! What I said clearly has no logical connection to you or your opinions; I must have touched upon what for you is a highly emotional issue – or are you ignorant and/or arrogant enough to think the science really is settled”
– I have been accused on this site before of being a lefty because of my environmental concerns, so there is no ‘touchiness’ involved, merely a response to the usual dumb conflation.
Since I have never claimed, even remotely, that the science is settled, your last sentence is merely the usual demagogue’s last resort strawman nonsense.
unbelievably 5live at 7.30 pm tonight reported the pope as visiting the WTC site which is where, we were informed, “2700 people were murdered by terrorists”. i could not believe my ears. but then again i think the bbc makes a distinction for 9/11 as this attack a) killed a lot of people and b) predates the afgan/iraq interventions. maybe too much for the beeb to try to spin this one.
“unbelievably 5live at 7.30 pm tonight reported the pope as visiting the WTC site which is where, we were informed, “2700 people were murdered by terrorists”. i could not believe my ears.”
I think you will find the word was “tourists”.Much less judgemental.