Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

First, that's semantics. If burning of a religious text incites violence, then the crime is with the people carrying out the violence, said violence having already been carried out.

It is absolutely not semantics, because the law simply does not outlaw blasphemy. It outlaws specific actions in certain contexts-- contexts in which there's a good argument they constitute incitement.

Laws all around the world already recognise that incitement to violence and violence itself are separate infractions.

Second, by that logic, any form of protest could be called public incitement.

Nope. Incitement requires a reasonable likelihood that the act could prompt violence or other crimes. Most protests do not meet that bar. Book-burning with an explicit aim to intimidate certain demographic groups does meet that bar.

Again, by that logic, any protest against anything could be considered incitement. You're basically saying "you can protest, but not in public." So either you're extending that to any form of protest against anything, or you're giving religion special treatment.

Nope. See above. Protesting religion is fine, including in public. Specific actions such as book burning are fine in private, but can constitute incitement in public. Context matters, and this is a reductive effort to remove it.

Again, citation needed on the intent. And again, with the embassy attacks, no-one forced them to do anything.

The intent is quite obvious to anyone paying attention, and incitement doesn't require one to force anyone else to do anything.

In fact, let's run a simple question - what's worse? Attacking a person's religion, or physically attacking them?

Physically attacking them, obviously. But why should the law only address the 'worst' of the two? If someone steals something, and the rightful owner of the item assaults them in return, then the perpetrator of the assault committed the worse offence. But... the thief still committed a crime.

 

[Gordon_4]

It is absolutely not semantics, because the law simply does not outlaw blasphemy. It outlaws specific actions in certain contexts-- contexts in which there's a good argument they constitute incitement.

Laws all around the world already recognise that incitement to violence and violence itself are separate infractions.



Nope. Incitement requires a reasonable likelihood that the act could prompt violence or other crimes. Most protests do not meet that bar. Book-burning with an explicit aim to intimidate certain demographic groups does meet that bar.



Nope. See above. Protesting religion is fine, including in public. Specific actions such as book burning are fine in private, but can constitute incitement in public. Context matters, and this is a reductive effort to remove it.



The intent is quite obvious to anyone paying attention, and incitement doesn't require one to force anyone else to do anything.



Physically attacking them, obviously. But why should the law only address the 'worst' of the two? If someone steals something, and the rightful owner of the item assaults them in return, then the perpetrator of the assault committed the worse offence. But... the thief still committed a crime.

All fair points, but it is reliably Muslims who lose their shit in big ways like this. As a faith, they really need to learn to chill the fuck out about morons who spend their money to buy a holy book they hate to set on fire. Especially when violent reactions like burning down an embassy - isn't that an act of war? - do nothing but prove these dipshits right. And why the fuck do you want to make that kind of asshole look right about anything?

 

[Hawki]

No, it's what you're defending.

This is about consequences. You can cast all sorts of moral blame that violence is the responsibility of the violent, but that doesn't negate the reality of cause and effect. It is a simple fact that some people can be excitable, emotional, angry, incitable; you and I and everyone knows it. We therefore know that if you really piss such people off, there's significant potential they may react destructively.

You think agitators should be free to to enrage people, you are tacitly accepting that riots, burnt-down embassies etc. are a price worth paying for their right to do so. If you don't admit this, you are simply denying reality.

The only way any of this holds true is if you ignore any sense of proportion.

If I burn a book someone likes, and they burn down my house in response, saying I "incited" them wouldn't hold up in any court of law. If I went to Canberra and burnt the Russian flag outside its embassy, Russia assassinating me wouldn't be accepted as justifiable by any sensible individual.

There is simply no way you can equate burning a religious text to storming an embassy, or anything similar. You just can't, and you know it.

Two things can be bad.

And which is worse?

It is absolutely not semantics, because the law simply does not outlaw blasphemy. It outlaws specific actions in certain contexts-- contexts in which there's a good argument they constitute incitement.

That's still semantics. If the burning of a religious text is banned, even if it's not an anti-blasphemy law in letter, it's still a blasphemy law in effect.

Laws all around the world already recognise that incitement to violence and violence itself are separate infractions.

Great. So why are we getting worked up over a hypothetical incitement to violence as opposed to the actual violence?

Nope. Incitement requires a reasonable likelihood that the act could prompt violence or other crimes. Most protests do not meet that bar. Book-burning with an explicit aim to intimidate certain demographic groups does meet that bar.

First of all, you haven't cited any actual source that says that was the explicit aim. The man who did the book burning was Iraqi. What, is he inciting violence against himself?

Second, actual violence and actual crimes have been comitted, yet for whatever reason, you're more worked up over the burning of a book rather than the burning of an embassy. Not that I expect anyone to really get that worked up per se (Muslims going berserk over Quran burnings is par for the course), but what I didn't expect was for people to take the side of the people doing the violence rather than the protest.

Nope. See above. Protesting religion is fine, including in public. Specific actions such as book burning are fine in private, but can constitute incitement in public.

I'm sorry, this is still semantics. You're basically saying "protesting religion in public is fine, as long as you don't burn the holy text of said religion." I mean, really? That's the litmus test?

Context matters, and this is a reductive effort to remove it.

I've given you plenty of context. I've shown an embassy on fire, and I've cited the motion in the UN to ban similar expressions.

If anyone's ignoring context, it's you.

The intent is quite obvious to anyone paying attention, and incitement doesn't require one to force anyone else to do anything.

Even if the intent was to incite violence (and that's a big if), so fucking what? If I burn a book, and people start burning down buildings in response, THAT IS ON THEM.

The actions are not equivalent.

Physically attacking them, obviously. But why should the law only address the 'worst' of the two? If someone steals something, and the rightful owner of the item assaults them in return, then the perpetrator of the assault committed the worse offence. But... the thief still committed a crime.

Except that analogy doesn't hold.

Burning books is not a crime. Burning buildings is a crime. And if you want to insist that burning books is a crime, at least consider the full implications of that before you do so.

 

[Eacaraxe]

You think agitators should be free to to enrage people, you are tacitly accepting that riots, burnt-down embassies etc. are a price worth paying for their right to do so. If you don't admit this, you are simply denying reality.

Maybe we shouldn't be appeasing violent religious fanatics...tolerating the oppressive, hateful, and atavistic laws that follow in their wake...or propping up the social, economic, and political systems in which violent religious fanaticism thrives.

Those aren't issues exclusive to Islam, or the economic south, lest we default to the 'ur just islamofobe lol' liberal boilerplate talking point. They just happen to be the most prominent, given western media's proclivity towards giving the pass to violent religious extremism that isn't Islam, notably Christianity and Judaism, whilst all-points bulletins go out worldwide anytime a Muslim throws a rock in anger.

One could call that in itself islamophobia to be certain, but that isn't about the religion as much as it is stoking the fires of ethnic, religious, or national conflict for profit. It's mere happenstance Muslims just happen to predominantly live where the oil and rare-earth minerals are.

All fair points, but it is reliably Muslims who lose their shit in big ways like this. As a faith, they really need to learn to chill the fuck out about morons who spend their money to buy a holy book they hate to set on fire. Especially when violent reactions like burning down an embassy - isn't that an act of war? - do nothing but prove these dipshits right. And why the fuck do you want to make that kind of asshole look right about anything?

I'd definitely be careful about those sorts of judgments in this day and age -- remember that the line fed to the US population about Benghazi (they were spontaneously protesting a stupid Youtube video made by Copts) turned out in short order to be a line of absolute bullshit, crafted to cover up the fact it was a premeditated and coordinated assault by a militant group against a CIA black site located on consulate grounds in violation of international law.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And which is worse?

Simply pointing toward which outcome is worse ignores a lot of what's going on. Just because burning down an embassy is from a more practical point of view worse, doesn't nulify the impact of buring a Qur'an in a country where muslims are a demonized minority.

The people who are burning these books in public aren't doing so to protest some oppressive regime, they're doing it for shits and giggles, because they know they can get away with hurting a part of the community they hate. If they really felt the need to protest the oppression caused by Islam in actual Islamic regimes they'd probably do something more constructive than just burn a holy book.

Should burning a book be banned? No. No book should be so special that burning it should be a crime. Should burning a holy book in public be heavily discouraged? Yes. And should one who does it anyway expect some heavy blowback? Also yes.

Not that I'm trying to be unbaised in this - I know the type that does this kind of "protest" and they can fuck right off.

 

[Asita]

1: That's not Godwin's Law. Godwin's Law states that the longer an Internet conversation goes on, the more likely comparisons to Hitler/Nazis are going to be made. What you're describing is Reductio ad Hitlerum.

2: If we're talking about fallacious comparisons, you realize that you're the one who made said comparison in the first place, right?

1) And even Godwin himself bemoaned the overapplication of the law to miscast an opponent's argument as fallacious or hyperbole even when such arguments are appropriate, abusing the concept for distraction purposes.

2) I made the comparison, yes, as an off-handed comment about book burning, of which the Nazis constitute a particularly famous example. That is not a fallicious comparison.

I reject your characterization wholeheartedly. To try and claim that people burning religious texts are closer to Nazis than the people doing the violence is simply perverse, and you know it.

I'm not talking about the people doing the violence. The categories under discussion were the people who are burning the books - as a public expression of their contempt and hatred for the group they belong to - and the people protesting the burning of the religious texts, which is not remotely limited to those committing violence. Hell, your OP for this discussion centers on your dissatisfaction that the Swedish and Denmark governments were speaking out against (or considering banning) such demonstrations, implicitly counting them in the category of "protesting the burning of the religious texts".

And let's review here: The Nazis burned books that they felt were subversive or represented views they deemed incompatible with their ideology, and made a public show of it to convey just how unwelcome they were, much like is the case here. Hence why it's so perverse that you try to turn it around and say that protesting the burnings better evokes the Nazis than the burnings themselves do.

As an aside, if you can't manage anything more substantive than copy-pasting my response with a small tweak for a childish "I know you are but what am I" retort, then kindly don't bother responding.

And where is your evidence that it was an attempt to cite retaliation? And even if it was, said retaliation has involved attacks on embassies?

It says a lot about you that you're more religious to religious sensitivities than actual violence.

Intimidation is the intention. Inciting retaliation is the upshot, and frankly, I've no patience right now for you pretending to be ignorant of that fact when you out and called the Swedish and Denmark governments cowards for wanting those book burnings to stop because they're predictably provoking violent retaliation.

There's a reason I called it "but I'm not touching you" style incitement; the immediate goal is just to be annoying (intimidating in this case), but the upshot is that the action keeps continuing until retaliation occurs to make you stop, at which point you cry to mommy about that retaliation. Is the retaliation acceptable? Usually no. That does not change the fact, however, that you deliberately provoked it...and if pointed out, you then object to recognizing your role as the causative factor, insisting that the retaliation be viewed without that context. Hence "'I'm not touching you' style incitement".

It says far more about you that you evidently want the actions provoking that violence to continue and evidently consider the violence a bargain price, considering that your response to politicians - who should, by all rights be concerned in large part with public safety - wanting the demonstrations to stop so as to prevent further violence was to call them cowards.

 

[Silvanus]

That's still semantics. If the burning of a religious text is banned, even if it's not an anti-blasphemy law in letter, it's still a blasphemy law in effect.

The burning of a religious text is not banned. It is only banned when additional circumstances are present. The circumstances and the act together constitute incitement.

Great. So why are we getting worked up over a hypothetical incitement to violence as opposed to the actual violence?

Because we want to prevent violence from occurring. If you tolerate incitement, you must also be tolerating the foreseeable results.

First of all, you haven't cited any actual source that says that was the explicit aim. The man who did the book burning was Iraqi. What, is he inciting violence against himself?

I think you're getting two things mixed up; the intent and the incitement. There is overlap but they both have distinct implications.

The /intent/ is to intimidate Muslims, embolden bigots, and to pressure the government into banning the book-- essentially to whip up aggression against a religious minority.

The /incitement/ of violence that I'm referring to is inciting a violent /backlash/. Such as the burning of the embassy. It is not necessarily their intent to provoke this, but violent backlash is easily foreseeable as a result of the action.

Second, actual violence and actual crimes have been comitted, yet for whatever reason, you're more worked up over the burning of a book rather than the burning of an embassy. Not that I expect anyone to really get that worked up per se (Muslims going berserk over Quran burnings is par for the course), but what I didn't expect was for people to take the side of the people doing the violence rather than the protest.

Yet again: literally nobody is doing this. It's utterly foolish to believe that in order to be against a crime, one must be in favour of a greater crime.

X steals a bike from Y, and Y assaults X in response. I'm saying X committed a crime and Y committed another, worse crime. You're saying that because I'm recognising the theft is a crime at all, I must therefore be fine with the assault.

I'm sorry, this is still semantics. You're basically saying "protesting religion in public is fine, as long as you don't burn the holy text of said religion." I mean, really? That's the litmus test?

Incitement is the litmus test. Lots of actions are banned in the context of a protest, while protests in general are legal and allowed. This is the case in every free country.

I've given you plenty of context. I've shown an embassy on fire, and I've cited the motion in the UN to ban similar expressions.

If anyone's ignoring context, it's you.

You've pointed to that context as terrible, and then said you'd prefer the circumstances that brought it about were unchanged. That's not really consideration, it's just reaction.

Even if the intent was to incite violence (and that's a big if), so fucking what? If I burn a book, and people start burning down buildings in response, THAT IS ON THEM.

The actions are not equivalent.

Literally nobody has said the actions are equivalent.

Except that analogy doesn't hold.

Burning books is not a crime. Burning buildings is a crime. And if you want to insist that burning books is a crime, at least consider the full implications of that before you do so.

Burning books is not a crime, even according to the Danish proposal. Some actions become other crimes-- incitement-- when combined with additional circumstances.

 

[Ag3ma]

Maybe we shouldn't be appeasing violent religious fanatics...tolerating the oppressive, hateful, and atavistic laws that follow in their wake...or propping up the social, economic, and political systems in which violent religious fanaticism thrives.

Yes, that's a nice idea. However, it's also the real boilerplate, because turning nice ideas into credible policy in this complex world is where the real problem lies. I think it's also a mistake to treat this like an "other side of the world" problem as well. There are widening cracks in our own societies - not all religious or racial - which people seem happy to ram crowbars into and yank for all they are worth.

The only way any of this holds true is if you ignore any sense of proportion.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. You go to the "wrong side of the tracks", and start insulting everyone you meet. How long do you think you get away with that before someone shoves your teeth down your throat?

Sure, it's totally disproportionate for someone to break your face because you called his mother a prostitute, and it puts them squarely in the wrong, but guess what? Some people will do that anyway and you know it. I'm guessing you don't say stuff like that to people you think might do so. That's partly because you're (as far as I can tell) not a c*nt and you wouldn't do it to pretty much anyone, but also because you have an understanding of cause and effect and a sense of self-preservation. I'm sure you could sit in your hospital bed with your jaw wired congratulating yourself on your moral superiority... but you'd rather avoid the whole, painful experience.

So you will understand this concept as it applies to yourself.

Then to go back to agitators, there's an element of cowardice that in this situation the agitators are often not going to suffer the consequences - they are going to spill out on a whole load of people who have done nothing but will see their property trashed, be assaulted, even killed. It is within the scope of government to say "If that shit causes too much trouble, we're banning it." And they do. This is how the world works.

So we can let the far right burn antagonise sectors of the community, but I really don't think it's a nuanced, adult and intelligent approach to just bellow "BUT MUH FREEDOMS" when the government opines that it doesn't like the far right doing so. It might be a statement of values, but it's also a painfully naive and unrealistic attitude to how the world works.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Yes, that's a nice idea. However, it's also the real boilerplate, because turning nice ideas into credible policy in this complex world is where the real problem lies. I think it's also a mistake to treat this like an "other side of the world" problem as well. There are widening cracks in our own societies - not all religious or racial - which people seem happy to ram crowbars into and yank for all they are worth.

The issue is far less complex than you give it credit, and by no means whatsoever is it a "their side of the world" problem. Nobody's giving two shits about what Muslims in Indonesia, Nigeria, or Sierra Leone think, just the ones where the oil and rare-earth minerals are. Just like nobody's giving two shits about the continued existence of the LRA, for example.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because that is the meaning of the words you typed. It is your responsibility to communicate accurately with others, and do not blame them when you fail to do so.



AT THE TIME, remdesivir had at least one large and decently conducted clinical trial supporting its use against covid... which is more than IVM ever did. Is it really going to hurt you that much to admit that someone with a PhD in biological sciences and over 20 years had a better grasp of the available information than you did?



He was just wrong, and anyone with a shred of honesty would accept that, ideally starting with himself. The manner in which he was wrong is proof enough he either does not really get the science, or that he recklessly wrote something he knew was extremely unsafe to claim. A couple of months after facts demonstrated how wrong he was, he then wrote a piece blaming everyone else for allegedly misunderstanding him. Ironically, this is the guy who publicly berated the health authorities for not having the humility to admit they were wrong.

As for the pediatric deaths from covid, this was probably worse, as claiming no kids without pre-existing conditions had died of covid was just flatly inaccurate based on easily accessible data.



No he isn't: it says clearly on his university profile "Professor of Surgery": https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/martin-makary He certainly has elements of public health in his research interests, but one might note these are overwhelmingly based around the financial and economic aspects of healthcare.

So you care about winning some semantic battle vs the point there's no evidence lockdowns were a good intervention?

There was a time when there wasn't any clinical trials supporting remdesivir against covid. You can't just make up shit and gaslight people. I already said I'd take the L on some of the stuff, which you cut out when quoting me for some reason.

Again, no proof of Marty being any more wrong than anyone else. You just spout rhetoric with no evidence. Literally everyone that talked about covid had a bad take on herd immunity but this specific guy is unreliable just because I don't like him!!! Fauci was responsible for far more dangerous messaging; on Feb 29th, he told New Yorkers to continue living like normal when the virus was spreading exponentially whereas Marty said we need to do some serious shit in January. But no, Marty is unreliable because I don't like him... Where's this evidence that he was wrong about pediatric deaths? And if he was wrong, he wasn't wrong by much since I doubt there's very many healthy kids that died from covid. Are you trying to say his messaging signaled to parents to let their kids play and whatnot and caused unneeded child deaths? Based on the risk analysis, if you're fine with driving your kid to wherever like a normal parent does already, that's a greater risk than covid. Whereas the amount of people that died because Fauci said everything was fine is higher by so many folds I wouldn't even know where to start. Wikipedia says he's a professor of public health.

Look, I would be for this solely based on book burning is bad. It doesn't matter what book

It's bad when AUTHORITIES burn books. Why can't you burn your own book? The Supreme Court ruled burning the American flag is protected by the 1st amendment, why wouldn't books? I get why they don't want those books burned. You could just simply make a law you can't burn anything unless it's your own property for obvious possible safety reasons (or you need a permit) and that could fly in even in America (I don't know Denmark/Swedish freedom of speech rights).

I'd recommend you reread those quotes, because neither of them support the idea that testing doesn't show positive until after symptom onset.



This is such a foolish paragraph it almost beggars belief. "What does it matter"? Oh, I don't know-- maybe because covid carries a responsibility to self-isolate, while the common cold does not. Maybe because a public health response relies on accurate knowledge of where/when incidences are cropping up. Maybe because each disease has radically different implications for work and family plans over the next several weeks.



Science is not a set of policy instructions. You still seem to think it is.

1)

Rapid COVID tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

But if the tests work much better when taken three times over the course of several days.

www.nature.com

FDA: Don't use rapid COVID tests on people without symptoms

More sensitive PCR tests should be used on these individuals instead.

www.nbcnews.com

2) It was a bit before rapid tests were regularly available (not that that really matters per #1 anyway)
3) Lab tests take time

The ideal situation that if you possibly got exposed, you could test and find out if you have covid or not before symptoms was never a thing that was possible. It's not even possible now. If that's not possible, what's the point of testing? If you tested positive for covid, doctors told you to stay home and rest, it's not like you had to do something different or special if you did have covid or if it was the flu.

I already don't do things if I'm sick and know I'm very likely to be contagious regardless of what it is (it's only a few days anyway). Why couldn't public health work out how "hot" or "cold" an area just using hospital data and tests they do and expand that out to the population level? If this is so important, how'd Japan do fine and completely shun testing?

If masking outside wasn't supported by science, then why'd Fauci tell people to mask outside?

 

[Silvanus]

1)

Rapid COVID tests miss 90% of asymptomatic cases

But if the tests work much better when taken three times over the course of several days.

www.nature.com

FDA: Don't use rapid COVID tests on people without symptoms

More sensitive PCR tests should be used on these individuals instead.

www.nbcnews.com

2) It was a bit before rapid tests were regularly available (not that that really matters per #1 anyway)
3) Lab tests take time

Rapid tests with a high success rate, when properly administered, became available during the pandemic. I don't have any interest in this irrelevant diversionary blather.

The ideal situation that if you possibly got exposed, you could test and find out if you have covid or not before symptoms was never a thing that was possible. It's not even possible now. If that's not possible, what's the point of testing? If you tested positive for covid, doctors told you to stay home and rest, it's not like you had to do something different or special if you did have covid or if it was the flu.

It was perfectly possible in various scenarios. At my workplace at the time we tested every workday, and isolated if positive. And yes, self-isolation for so many days is indeed something to do with covid and not with flu. Now, testing every day is excessive. But it shows its possible. Your gripes about feasibility have always been bunk.

I already don't do things if I'm sick and know I'm very likely to be contagious regardless of what it is (it's only a few days anyway).

We already know you don't have the faintest idea what the appropriate thing to do when sick is, and that you barely care if you affect others.

Why couldn't public health work out how "hot" or "cold" an area just using hospital data and tests they do and expand that out to the population level?

Because accuracy matters. You're essentially arguing that public health officials should abandon accurate measurements for epidemiology, and just guess... even while at other times you lambast estimates for being inaccurate. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot whine about the inaccuracy of estimates and then urge that they stop gathering data and use more guesswork.

If masking outside wasn't supported by science, then why'd Fauci tell people to mask outside?

I didn't say it's not "supported by science".

Listen to the actual words I'm saying. Science is not a set of policy recommendations. Science is not policy. You can support policy with science if you want.

 

[Eacaraxe]

...And yes, self-isolation for so many days is indeed something to do with covid and not with flu...

It really is something to do with the flu, but if "we're" not mature, educated, or possessed of the capacity for critical thought enough to understand the why's and how's of it during the global pandemic that killed millions on the books (i.e. not even accounting for unreported deaths, falsified records, or Covid's impact on excess mortality rates altogether), we're definitely not ready to have that conversation about the flu.

We have, evidently, a civilization that finds itself on the verge of violent revolt faced with the mere suggestion to wash your hands after taking a shit.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

We have, evidently, a civilization that finds itself on the verge of violent revolt faced with the mere suggestion to wash your hands after taking a shit.

This is a society that has fetishized screaming "You can't tell me what to do" at the top of your lungs.

 

[Hawki]

Those aren't issues exclusive to Islam, or the economic south, lest we default to the 'ur just islamofobe lol' liberal boilerplate talking point. They just happen to be the most prominent, given western media's proclivity towards giving the pass to violent religious extremism that isn't Islam, notably Christianity and Judaism, whilst all-points bulletins go out worldwide anytime a Muslim throws a rock in anger.

That would be true if the levels of violence were equal. Islamism controls entire countries (e.g. the Taliban controlling Afghanistan), and has numerous terror networks that operate internationally - Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS, plus local ones such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There's no Christian or Jewish equivalent in the 21st century, and when there's extremism, people don't turn a blind eye. No-one gave the Catholic Church a pass, the actions of Jewish settlers are routinely condemned in the West Bank. Even if you factor in support for Israel, hardcore Judaism is nowhere near as terrible as Islamism in the results it produces.

One could call that in itself islamophobia to be certain, but that isn't about the religion as much as it is stoking the fires of ethnic, religious, or national conflict for profit. It's mere happenstance Muslims just happen to predominantly live where the oil and rare-earth minerals are.

That doesn't really sync up though. When the US invaded Iraq, it was notably ignorant of the Sunni and Shia divide. The Cold War between Iraq and Saudi Arabia might have countries like the US backing the latter, but it's still a regional struggle for regional hegemony. And rare-earth minerals are found in any number of places, it's just that it's extremely damaging to get them. That's why much of the world relies on China for it.

The people who are burning these books in public aren't doing so to protest some oppressive regime, they're doing it for shits and giggles, because they know they can get away with hurting a part of the community they hate.

You realize that the person who burnt the Quran was Iraqi, right? Is he stoking hatred against himself?

If they really felt the need to protest the oppression caused by Islam in actual Islamic regimes they'd probably do something more constructive than just burn a holy book.

Again, semantics. You're basically saying "it's fine to protest, just don't do this."

Should burning a book be banned? No. No book should be so special that burning it should be a crime. Should burning a holy book in public be heavily discouraged? Yes.

You're getting yourself into knots here. You're outright stating that no book burning should be made a crime, but then say that certain types of books should be "heavily discouraged" from being burnt.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/canadian-schools-under-fire-for-reconciliation-book-burning/news-story/7f83c6b893908b7df9d1cb8fa4adb383

I bring this up because it's an example where as much as I might have detested the idea of burning thousands of books, no-one, as far as I'm aware, reacted violently to it. If people do react violently to someone burning a book, again, THAT IS ON THEM.

And should one who does it anyway expect some heavy blowback? Also yes.

All kinds of actions may or may not involve blowback. If you're worried about blowback, there's very few actions that would be undertaken, because there'll always be blowback from someone, somewhere.

Not that I'm trying to be unbaised in this - I know the type that does this kind of "protest" and they can fuck right off.

Again, an Iraqi citizen. So...he can fuck off then?

 

[Hawki]

1) And even Godwin himself bemoaned the overapplication of the law to miscast an opponent's argument as fallacious or hyperbole even when such arguments are appropriate, abusing the concept for distraction purposes.

Again, you brought up Nazis, not me.

2) I made the comparison, yes, as an off-handed comment about book burning, of which the Nazis constitute a particularly famous example. That is not a fallicious comparison.

It's a comparison you can make only if you ignore any kind of context behind it.

Nazis burnt books because of their ideology (obecting to the ideas within said books) and using the burning to intimidate people. The book burning was done to protest against ideology/regimes. If we have to play the "who's the Nazi?" game, then the people reacting against the book burning would be the Nazis, and the people burning them would be the Jews. Which isn't a comparison I'd normally make, but if you want to play this game, those are the players.

And let's review here: The Nazis burned books that they felt were subversive or represented views they deemed incompatible with their ideology, and made a public show of it to convey just how unwelcome they were, much like is the case here. Hence why it's so perverse that you try to turn it around and say that protesting the burnings better evokes the Nazis than the burnings themselves do.

Sorry, this is utterly insane. You say something that's technically historically accurate about the Nazis, but then flip it around so that people protesting against the Nazi-proxy ideology are the ones in the wrong. By your own paradigm, the Jews are the villains for any protest against Nazism.

And no, under normal circumstances I wouldn't compare Islam/Islamism to Nazism (again, proportion), but if you want to compare them, that's where the comparison lies.

As an aside, if you can't manage anything more substantive than copy-pasting my response with a small tweak for a childish "I know you are but what am I" retort, then kindly don't bother responding.

Again, you're the one who brought Nazis into this. If anyone's being childish, it's you.

Intimidation is the intention.

Who was he intimidating?

Inciting retaliation is the upshot,

The "rebellion," as you call it, didn't occur in Denmark, it occurred in Iraq.

Some rebellions may indeed be worth supporting (see Iran, and the Arab Spring), but if your "rebellion" is due to someone burning a book, then it's not a rebellion worth anyone's time.

and frankly, I've no patience right now for you pretending to be ignorant of that fact

You've been playing ignorant the entire time, don't go onto me about ignorance when I've posted footage of your "rebellion" and links to the UN debacle because all you can do is play "who's the Nazi?"

when you out and called the Swedish and Denmark governments cowards for wanting those book burnings to stop because they're predictably provoking violent retaliation.

If the governments are so terrified of Islamism that they want to stop protests against it, then yes, they're cowards. Since you've brought in WWII, they're the proverbial Neville Chamberlains.

And I get it, there's plenty of reasons to be afraid of Islamism (sane, rational people would be), but there's some principles worth defending.

There's a reason I called it "but I'm not touching you" style incitement; the immediate goal is just to be annoying (intimidating in this case), but the upshot is that the action keeps continuing until retaliation occurs to make you stop, at which point you cry to mommy about that retaliation. Is the retaliation acceptable? Usually no. That does not change the fact, however, that you deliberately provoked it...and if pointed out, you then object to recognizing your role as the causative factor, insisting that the retaliation be viewed without that context. Hence "'I'm not touching you' style incitement".

I'm still waiting for an actual citation that the burning was designed to deliberately provoke, as opposed to being a protest.

It says far more about you that you evidently want the actions provoking that violence to continue and evidently consider the violence a bargain price, considering that your response to politicians - who should, by all rights be concerned in large part with public safety - wanting the demonstrations to stop so as to prevent further violence was to call them cowards.

Again, the violence is not occurring in areas those countries have jurisdictions over. No, I don't consider violence a "bargain price," because all it's resulted in is embassies being burnt, but it says a lot about you that you're far more worried about the supposed incitement to violence than the actual, documented violence.

 

[Hawki]

The burning of a religious text is not banned. It is only banned when additional circumstances are present. The circumstances and the act together constitute incitement.

Again, semantics.

Because we want to prevent violence from occurring. If you tolerate incitement, you must also be tolerating the foreseeable results.

Most liberal democracies tolerate incitement. Most liberal democracies tolerate protest.

The /intent/ is to intimidate Muslims, embolden bigots, and to pressure the government into banning the book-- essentially to whip up aggression against a religious minority.

Citation needed.

The /incitement/ of violence that I'm referring to is inciting a violent /backlash/. Such as the burning of the embassy. It is not necessarily their intent to provoke this, but violent backlash is easily foreseeable as a result of the action.

And you realize that if the backlash to burning a book is burning an embassy, that reflects far worse on the latter group than the former, right?

Come on, I know you're smarter than this. The only way any of this works is if you assume that all actions are equivalent.

Yet again: literally nobody is doing this. It's utterly foolish to believe that in order to be against a crime, one must be in favour of a greater crime.

That's assuming that a crime was comitted.

If you see book burning as a crime, that's on you. I don't. If I did, then there'd be a lot of school teachers in Canada who should be charged with crimes for instance (see the link earlier).

X steals a bike from Y, and Y assaults X in response. I'm saying X committed a crime and Y committed another, worse crime. You're saying that because I'm recognising the theft is a crime at all, I must therefore be fine with the assault.

No, I am not saying that. A better response would be X holding a demonstration against bikes, and Y assaulting X.

Only Y has committed a crime. X has not.

Incitement is the litmus test. Lots of actions are banned in the context of a protest, while protests in general are legal and allowed. This is the case in every free country.

Great. So where was the incitement?

Literally nobody has said the actions are equivalent.

Perhaps not, but people are more worked up over the book burning than the actual violence that stemmed from it.

Burning books is not a crime, even according to the Danish proposal. Some actions become other crimes-- incitement-- when combined with additional circumstances.

Still waiting for a source on incitement.

 

[Hawki]

Let me ask you a hypothetical. You go to the "wrong side of the tracks", and start insulting everyone you meet. How long do you think you get away with that before someone shoves your teeth down your throat?

Sure, it's totally disproportionate for someone to break your face because you called his mother a prostitute, and it puts them squarely in the wrong, but guess what? Some people will do that anyway and you know it. I'm guessing you don't say stuff like that to people you think might do so. That's partly because you're (as far as I can tell) not a c*nt and you wouldn't do it to pretty much anyone, but also because you have an understanding of cause and effect and a sense of self-preservation. I'm sure you could sit in your hospital bed with your jaw wired congratulating yourself on your moral superiority... but you'd rather avoid the whole, painful experience.

So you will understand this concept as it applies to yourself.

None of this applies to the scenario though.

If the man who burnt the Quran went about harassing Muslims in Denmark, then yes, he'd be a jackass. That isn't what he did. He burnt the Quran as an act of protest. A Christian Iraqi protesting against Islam...I mean, it's not as if there's anything in the ME that might warrant such a protest, right?

Then to go back to agitators, there's an element of cowardice that in this situation the agitators are often not going to suffer the consequences - they are going to spill out on a whole load of people who have done nothing but will see their property trashed, be assaulted, even killed. It is within the scope of government to say "If that shit causes too much trouble, we're banning it." And they do. This is how the world works.

1: By that standard, anyone who protests against anything is a coward unless they have boots on the ground, so to speak. So for instance, back to my Russian embassy example, protesting in front of the embassy isn't particuarly brave, and certainly nowhere near as brave as those fighting in Ukraine, but it isn't all or nothing. The 'braver' thing for the man to do might be to head back to Iraq to protest directly in the region, but that's straying dangerously near to "go back to where you came from" arguments.

2: The "shit causing too much trouble," as you put it, occurred in Iraq, not Denmark. The actual crimes occurred in Iraq, not Sweden. The perpetrators were in Iraq, not Scandinavia.

I mean, actually consider the implications of this. Awhile back, when China exerted control over Hong Kong, there were fistfights in universities between Chinese and HK students. Is it really "too much trouble" to prevent the HK students from protesting against China, because of how Chinese students react? Arguably, yes, from a purely utilitarian perspective. But consider the implications for a moment - the idea that if a bully (China/Islamists) make too much of a fuss, you just back down. Standing up to bullies takes courage, sometimes you even lose (I would know), but often, it's worth it.

So we can let the far right burn antagonise sectors of the community, but I really don't think it's a nuanced, adult and intelligent approach to just bellow "BUT MUH FREEDOMS" when the government opines that it doesn't like the far right doing so. It might be a statement of values, but it's also a painfully naive and unrealistic attitude to how the world works.

Again, the man who burnt the Quran was Iraqi. The far right would, under most circumstances, want nothing to do with him.

And yes, some statements of values are worth it. If one set of values includes free speech, and another set of values includes blasphemy laws (take Pakistan for example, which was among those who voted in favour of the bill), those values are on a colission course. Sometimes, you have to take a stand. And I know that's easy for me to say, since I'm not the one doing the proverbial standing, but given what I've read here, it's clear that many don't agree.

The issue is far less complex than you give it credit, and by no means whatsoever is it a "their side of the world" problem. Nobody's giving two shits about what Muslims in Indonesia, Nigeria, or Sierra Leone think, just the ones where the oil and rare-earth minerals are. Just like nobody's giving two shits about the continued existence of the LRA, for example.

People give plenty of shits in those areas, what are you talking about? There's plenty of interest in Oz about Islamism in Indonesia (we experienced the Bali Bombings after all), Nigeria is currently experiencing an Islamist insurgency that's raging across the Sahel (heck, France has troops there, though Wager's moving in), and the LRA? What about them? You can't compare the LRA to groups like Al Queeda, the scale is nowhere near equivalent.

Islamism is a global movement. There's no Christian terrorist equivalent.

 

[Silvanus]

It really is something to do with the flu, but if "we're" not mature, educated, or possessed of the capacity for critical thought enough to understand the why's and how's of it during the global pandemic that killed millions on the books (i.e. not even accounting for unreported deaths, falsified records, or Covid's impact on excess mortality rates altogether), we're definitely not ready to have that conversation about the flu.

We have, evidently, a civilization that finds itself on the verge of violent revolt faced with the mere suggestion to wash your hands after taking a shit.

Recommended isolation period for covid according to most medical organisations was ~twice as long as for influenza.

 

[Eacaraxe]

That would be true if the levels of violence were equal.

You're right, they're not.

Islamism controls entire countries (e.g. the Taliban controlling Afghanistan), and has numerous terror networks that operate internationally - Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS, plus local ones such as Hamas and Hezbollah...

Precisely how many of those did Western nations (and Israel) fund, train, equip, and even create? Of those which weren't Western products, how many exist in response to Western imperialism? They're not out there blowing shit up just because they fuckin' feel like it.

There's no Christian...equivalent in the 21st century...No-one gave the Catholic Church a pass...

You haven't been paying attention to the rise of right-wing extremism in Latin America, or anything related to religion in Africa, have you.

or Judaism...the actions of Jewish settlers are routinely condemned in the West Bank...

How's that shaking out in terms of public policy? Last time I checked, a politician can't so much as speak a mildly skeptical word about Israeli policy -- even in the wake of Netanyahu's current crypto-fascist regime -- without public excoriation as antisemitic.

Even if you factor in support for Israel, hardcore Judaism is nowhere near as terrible as Islamism in the results it produces.

Ah, this is why you mentioned the West Bank, but not Gaza.

When the US invaded Iraq, it was notably ignorant of the Sunni and Shia divide.

The US public was notably ignorant of the Sunni/Shia divide. US policymakers were acutely aware of it, and counting on it (and the public's ignorance) as part of its post-invasion nation-building strategy.

Unfortunately for the US, all those sewage pipes, power and phone lines, water treatment plants, roads, and radio towers we blew up in the invasion (and didn't replace) didn't really care if the people using them were Sunni or Shia. US troops on nighttime, house-by-house, sweep-and-clear patrols rounding up military-age men to detain without probable cause or due process couldn't tell (or care about) the difference between a Sunni and a Shia at a glance. Nor for that matter, did the willy pete, cluster munitions, and depleted uranium we dropped on civvie pops by the truckload, know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

The Cold War between Iraq and Saudi Arabia might have countries like the US backing the latter, but it's still a regional struggle for regional hegemony. And rare-earth minerals are found in any number of places, it's just that it's extremely damaging to get them.

This is about to get really fucking funny in a sec.

That's why much of the world relies on China for it.

No shit. Where in China is it coming from, and is anybody in particular getting ethnically cleansed there?

 

[Silvanus]

Again, semantics.

If you don't see the substantial difference, then you're being simplistic.

Most liberal democracies tolerate incitement. Most liberal democracies tolerate protest.

Actually, most liberal democracies have laws against incitement.

And you realize that if the backlash to burning a book is burning an embassy, that reflects far worse on the latter group than the former, right?

Yes, a fact that was never disputed, and is irrelevant to my point. There is absolutely zero reason for either of us to have to consider all actions "equivalent". I have no idea why you'd dream up that weird requirement.

That's assuming that a crime was comitted.

If you see book burning as a crime, that's on you. I don't. If I did, then there'd be a lot of school teachers in Canada who should be charged with crimes for instance (see the link earlier).

Focusing on the word "crime" here has caused you to miss the point entirely. There is no reason to assume that if someone is against a certain /action/, they must therefore be in favour of a different, more severe /action/. You are making this assumption, but it's logically bunk.

No, I am not saying that. A better response would be X holding a demonstration against bikes, and Y assaulting X.

An analogy that completely removes the act itself, because demonstrations (including against religion) are not banned.

Great. So where was the incitement?

Doing something that any reasonable person can see will probably lead to violence is what I would term incitement. This fits that bill.

Perhaps not, but people are more worked up over the book burning than the actual violence that stemmed from it.

OK? I'm not really interested in trying to judge what people are 'worked up' about and judging them for it. I don't give a shit about that aspect of the conversation. I care about the prevention of violence aspect.