Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Avnger]

Well, the quoted historian states that the story from these sources is "essentially the same". So if he's criticising one, he's criticising the others. He very much is criticising the Guardian for focusing on the presence of fascists.

"[E]ssentially the same" there is referring to the narrative being pushed by both the right and the left extremes (which isn't exactly a novel phenomenon). It's not in reference to the Guardian's news/articles and Ron Paul's editorial in the Guardian as being the same. Unless I'm missing something?

Well, ok, but if the far-right don't constitute a majority of protesters/revolutionaries, then they certainly hold an outsized presence in the post-revolution government, with numerous senior roles.

Seems like an entirely fair (and accurate) criticism!

NB: None of this is to justify the absurd demands Putin has issued to Ukraine, or the threats of invasion and annexation.

Of course! Unfortunately though, such a thing cannot be said about many of those pushing the original argument from the FAIR article.

 

[Agema]

"[E]ssentially the same" there is referring to the narrative being pushed by both the right and the left extremes (which isn't exactly a novel phenomenon). It's not in reference to the Guardian's news/articles and Ron Paul's editorial in the Guardian as being the same. Unless I'm missing something?

I don't know if you're missing something, but I'm pretty sure the author of the FAIR article is.

It basically wants to make the case "It's not as simple as good guys v. bad guys [like some people want you to believe]". The article then goes about demonstrating that in a hopelessly weak fashion, not least the incredibly indirect way of merely making a few vague and selective criticisms of someone else's essay.

 

[Silvanus]

"[E]ssentially the same" there is referring to the narrative being pushed by both the right and the left extremes (which isn't exactly a novel phenomenon). It's not in reference to the Guardian's news/articles and Ron Paul's editorial in the Guardian as being the same. Unless I'm missing something?

I think by using the phrase "from [...] through" to connect Ron Paul etc to the Nation and the Guardian, the author is attributing the narrative to all of them. That's how I took it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I don't know if you're missing something, but I'm pretty sure the author of the FAIR article is.

It basically wants to make the case "It's not as simple as good guys v. bad guys [like some people want you to believe]". The article then goes about demonstrating that in a hopelessly weak fashion, not least the incredibly indirect way of merely making a few vague and selective criticisms of someone else's essay.

...And then going on to demonstrate that the Ukrainian government is full of neo-Nazis and then link that essay to articles that excuse this fact by saying it debunks that fact...

 

[Silvanus]

Since we're reading the FAIR article 6 years after it was written, it's also worth noting that the far-right figures it mentions holding senior positions in government only held those positions in the Interim government, which lasted just over 3 months. They didn't hold those positions afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, it's grotesque that they held those positions at all. And this isn't an error on the part of the FAIR reporter, because the article was written during those 3 months.

But before we tie this into the current Ukraine-Russian tensions story, it's worth keeping in mind that those people aren't in government now and have never been members of the current government.

 

[Gergar12]

Latin American liberation theology sucks. Pope Francis who's the biggest proponent hates LGBTQ people more than many republicans do. You can't go to heaven, you can't get married, you can't be a catholic, you can't be a minister, you can't have sex. Yet, we are supposed to trust him when it comes to other things like economics. By the way I know people who used to go to his Church in Argentina, he was a good guy, but his anti-LGBTQ stance disqualifies him from making opinions on other things.

So whenever he brings up we must do X, Y, and Z on war, refugees, and social welfare. A republican or a neoliberal could just call him out on LGBTQ rights. Which is what I am planning to do.

 

[Avnger]

Latin American liberation theology sucks.

k

Pope Francis who's the biggest proponent hates LGBTQ people more than many republicans do.

Unprovable toss-up depending on how one defines "hates" and "many republicans."

You can't go to heaven

False

you can't get married

You are not supposed* to marry anyone of the same sex, correct.

you can't be a catholic

False

you can't be a minister

False

you can't have sex

Since sex is supposed* to happen only within the bounds of a loving marriage, this is by default also correct due to the marriage one above being correct.

Yet, we are supposed to trust him when it comes to other things like economics.

They're largely unrelated to each other. His opinion on many matters needs to be acknowledged due to him leading the 1.3+ billion Catholic faith, but you should always treat it with scrutiny like anyone else's; being pope does not, by default, make one a leading expert on much of anything beyond Catholic doctrine.

By the way I know people who used to go to his Church in Argentina, he was a good guy, but his anti-LGBTQ stance disqualifies him from making opinions on other things.

Again, they're pretty much unrelated. He can be entirely wrong about one topic but still correct one another (like any other human being).

So whenever he brings up we must do X, Y, and Z on war, refugees, and social welfare. A republican or a neoliberal could just call him out on LGBTQ rights. Which is what I am planning to do.

Literal 'whataboutism,' congrats.


*per the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine and practices

 

[Gergar12]

k



Unprovable toss-up depending on how one defines "hates" and "many republicans."



False



You are not supposed* to marry anyone of the same sex, correct.



False



False



Since sex is supposed* to happen only within the bounds of a loving marriage, this is by default also correct due to the marriage one above being correct.



They're largely unrelated to each other. His opinion on many matters needs to be acknowledged due to him leading the 1.3+ billion Catholic faith, but you should always treat it with scrutiny like anyone else's; being pope does not, by default, make one a leading expert on much of anything beyond Catholic doctrine.



Again, they're pretty much unrelated. He can be entirely wrong about one topic but still correct one another (like any other human being).



Literal 'whataboutism,' congrats.


*per the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine and practices

Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ+ Issues: Roman Catholic Church

Learn more about where the Roman Catholic Church stands when it comes to LGBT equality, including marriage and ordination.

www.hrc.org

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a text which contains dogmas and teachings of the Church, names “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and names “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.” While the Catholic Church does not consider “homosexual orientation” sinful in and of itself, it does have a very negative attitude toward it. The 1986 Letter states, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

"Other parishes have denied membership to LGBTQ individuals and families."

"Despite Pope Francis’ famous “Who am I to judge?” comment––made in response to a question about the acceptability of gay men as priests––his statement is not official church teaching"

As John Sturt Mill stated, and I am paraphrasing here; inaction is action.

Edit: Also double standards are bad. You must be moral, but I can't.

 

[tstorm823]

Edit: Also double standards are bad. You must be moral, but I can't.

I don't think you understand Catholicism. From a Catholic perspective, no person is moral. We are all sinners by our nature (except Jesus and Mary exclusively). "You must be moral" would be an impossible demand.

 

[Agema]

Latin American liberation theology sucks.

Given the cultural and socioeconomic context of Latin America, my view of it is positive.

Let's remember that the Latin Americans made this: it's their creation for their situation, based on and relevant to it, where whether we like it or not Catholicism is incredibly deeply embedded in their culture. In that it is likely more fruitful than trying to drive change by importing ideology from other cultures, further divorced from their lives and beliefs.

 

[MrCalavera]

but his anti-LGBTQ stance disqualifies him from making opinions on other things.

Edit: Also double standards are bad.

Based on this, all political figures with anti-LGBTQ stance should be disqualified.

I agree.

 

[Avnger]

I don't think you understand Catholicism. From a Catholic perspective, no person is moral. We are all sinners by our nature (except Jesus and Mary exclusively). "You must be moral" would be an impossible demand.

Personally, I'd reframe that as "everyone should always strive to be perfectly good while knowing that actually achieving such a thing is impossible due to human nature". That's more a quibble in interpretation (I come mainly from a Franciscan/Jesuit background) though.

That said, I will make it clear that LGBT+ issues is one area that my beliefs don't match with current Church teachings.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Why Comparing Chinese Africa Investment to Western Colonialism Is No Joke

Trevor Noah did his best to spin Chinese investment in Africa into neo-colonialism—regardless of the underlying reality.

fair.org

Latin American liberation theology sucks.

It is perhaps the best thing to come out of Catholicism (which admittedly isn't saying much, but whatever).

 

[tstorm823]

Why Comparing Chinese Africa Investment to Western Colonialism Is No Joke

Trevor Noah did his best to spin Chinese investment in Africa into neo-colonialism—regardless of the underlying reality.

fair.org

I have to ask... is someone actually paying you to post this trash?

 

[Generals]

I have to ask... is someone actually paying you to post this trash?

I sure hope so, being Xi's and Putin's spokesperson shouldn't be done for free!

 

[Agema]

I have to ask... is someone actually paying you to post this trash?

At face value, the article is correct. Western nations really did colonise Africa by playing the indigenous peoples off against each other and sending in troops to oppress them into line, and China is not (yet?). Likewise, post-imperial interventions via organisations such as the World Bank / IMF have hardly been problem free - which even the World Bank and IMF have come to admit.

That said, the article is perhaps unrealistically rosy about Chinese investment. The Africans I know don't think it's any kind of friendship, and are well aware it is potentially just selling themselves to a different owner - but ultimately China is investing in ways that the West won't, and if they need it they'll take it. There is a huge risk that these are investments that the West has left because they are poor value - so if they start going wrong, whether China starts repossessing bits of Africa or lets its companies take a hit remains to be seen. But I figure it'll turn out to be vigorouly collecting on debts.

China is starting from a position of weakness - it needs to get a solid foothold before it can really assert itself. But I can see literally no reason it will not end up doing just as Western powers do, because nations do not become superpowers through charity.

 

[tstorm823]

At face value, the article is correct.

At face value, the article is a response to a Trevor Noah segment. Which, to be fair, I can forgive people for forgetting it's intended to be a comedy show.

But like, what compels a person to link that article here?

 

[Avnger]

That said, the article is perhaps unrealistically rosy about Chinese investment.

This is underselling it a bit. It takes a quote from the Chinese foreign minister about there being "no strings attached" to belt and road investments and uncritically repeats it (without even sourcing it to said minister)...

 

[Seanchaidh]

I have to ask... is someone actually paying you to post this trash?

Is someone paying you for every post?

I sure hope so, being Xi's and Putin's spokesperson shouldn't be done for free!

So sorry that you don't like it when the propaganda you bought hook, line, and sinker is pointed out to you.

 

[Avnger]

So sorry that you don't like it when the propaganda you bought hook, line, and sinker is pointed out to you.

Ironic. Where's that spiderman pointing meme when you need it?