Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Eacaraxe]

Actually, most liberal democracies have laws against incitement.

They do -- but the threshold for what defines incitement, and the burden of proof on the state, varies. Case in point, here in the United States we have the imminent lawless action standard, which is the highest burden of proof of all liberal democracies for holding someone criminally liable for incitement. Until you believe black people shouldn't be getting murdered by cops without consequences.

In the United Kingdom, it's apparently incitement to protest the monarchy, but not to shout racial epithets in public at the top of your lungs (or make public statements on social media) because the disinherited grandson married a biracial woman. Even though the latter's hate speech and a criminal act all to its own, as evidenced by the teenagers getting arrested for quoting rap lyrics on Instagram.

In Israel, incitement is "being Palestinian in public".

 

[Silvanus]

They do -- but the threshold for what defines incitement, and the burden of proof on the state, varies. Case in point, here in the United States we have the imminent lawless action standard, which is the highest burden of proof of all liberal democracies for holding someone criminally liable for incitement. Until you believe black people shouldn't be getting murdered by cops without consequences.

In the United Kingdom, it's apparently incitement to protest the monarchy, but not to shout racial epithets in public at the top of your lungs (or make public statements on social media) because the disinherited grandson married a biracial woman. Even though the latter's hate speech and a criminal act all to its own, as evidenced by the teenagers getting arrested for quoting rap lyrics on Instagram.

In Israel, incitement is "being Palestinian in public".

Yeah, the current patchwork of standards-- and their potential for police abuse-- are pretty dogshit.

 

[Hawki]

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?

Quite a few, yes.

They're not out there blowing shit up just because they fuckin' feel like it.

That's a bit more debateable though. The latest suicide bombing was in Pakistan, that's hardly a response to Western imperialism.

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.

That's a strawman, and you know it. I said Christian extremism and Islamic extremism aren't equivalent, that isn't to say Christian extremism doesn't exist.

If you're wondering about Latin America, yes, there was Jair Bolsenaro for instance and Bolivia (forget her name, she was a Christian nut, the one who succeeded Morales). Of course Christian extremism is a problem in Latin America, just as it is in the United States. None of said extremism, however, is on the same level as Islamic extremism. None of those examples I cited have come close to the likes of the Taliban or ISIS.

As for Africa, sorry, I'm not sure what examples of Christian extremism you're on about. No doubt it exists, but again, see Boko Haram in the Sahel, or the conflict in Sudan (Muslims attacking Christians), or whatnot. There's many compounding factors, yes, but if you're looking at Africa, Islamic extremism is far more of an issue than Christian extremism.

Now if we're talking about individual countries, yes, Christian extremism can be worse than Islamic extremism (again, the United States, where the majority of terrorist attacks are from the far right), but as a global aggregate? It's not even a competition.

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.

Israeli settlements are globally condemned, and have been recently in Oz.

And yes, the shield of antisemitism charges has been used to attempt to shield Israel from criticism, I agree, but even then, my understanding was that the US is among those that condemns the settlements.

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

First, even if I intentionally omitted Gaza, how does that somehow disprove what I said? Islamism is a global threat, hardcore Judaism/Zionism/whatever has no real influence beyond Israel. On a global scale, these aren't equivalent issues. It's like being scared by Hinduvata when it doesn't really have any real reach beyond India.

Second, I didn't mention Gaza for two reasons. One, is that I thought the West Bank would be enough to prove my point, Gaza didn't enter my mind. Second, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, the West Bank isn't. Hamas's explicit goal is to make all of Israel/Palestine an Islamic state (this isn't hyperbole, I've read both of their charters), is a terrorist organization that has conducted regular attacks against civilian targets, and enacts draconian laws against its own people. It's quite possible to condemn both Israel and Hamas.

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

Yes, I'm aware of the Ughyrs, thanks for asking. And who are the most strident critics of their incarceration? Not Islamic nations, I'll tell you that. They'll hapilly table UN motions to ban Quran burning, but remain silent on what's happening in China.

And before you answer, of course, any criticism of China could be perceived as hypocritical and opportunistic, that's true, but again, not all things are equal.[/quote]

 

[Hawki]

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

In this case, no, I don't see a difference.

Actually, most liberal democracies have laws against incitement.

Great. So where's the incitement?

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.

People have been reacting with far more grief at the burning of the Quran than the actual violence that followed it. Even if they're not literally stating it, their words convey the effect.

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.

I'm not assuming anything.

There's two key actions that have been comitted in this context - the burning of the Quran, and the burning of an embassy.

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

Great. So you should be fine with the burning as a protest against religion, unless you're engaging in semantic games as to where the cutoff is.

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

Who's "reasonable" in this context though? The people who were triggered by the burning, are they "reasonable" people?

There's any number of actions that have led to violence. Desegregation in the US led to violent protests. That isn't an argument against desegregation.

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.

Alright, if you care about prevention of violence and nothing else, you can make a claim that book burnings should be banned because they could incite violence. However, by that standard, almost any protest could be banned because of the same reasons.

 

[Silvanus]

As for Africa, sorry, I'm not sure what examples of Christian extremism you're on about. No doubt it exists, but again, see Boko Haram in the Sahel, or the conflict in Sudan (Muslims attacking Christians), or whatnot. There's many compounding factors, yes, but if you're looking at Africa, Islamic extremism is far more of an issue than Christian extremism.

You were given a very relevant example above: the conflict against the LRA is one of the longest running and most devastating in the continent.

 

[Hawki]

You were given a very relevant example above: the conflict against the LRA is one of the longest running and most devastating in the continent.

Again, how does that disprove anything?

I'm aware of the LRA. The LRA is a hardcore Christian terrorist organization, that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that Christian terrorism is on the same level as Islamic terrorism. Even if we contained this entirely to Africa, is Christian terrorism really the bigger threat than Islamic terrorism? Boko Haram, ISIS, and Al Qaeda all have a presence in Africa, and in the case of BH, is waging an insurgency all across the Sahel (spoiler, the Sahel is big). Plus, again, Sudan, with northern Muslims attacking southern Christians, hence the formation of South Sudan (which has its own problems, I know).

I'm sure most people here would gladly condemn any form of terrorism from any form of religion, but if we're evaluating which is the bigger threat? Globally, the answer is clear, and in Africa, I'd say the answer is also clear.

 

[Silvanus]

In this case, no, I don't see a difference.

You don't see the difference between making something illegal, and barring it from big public displays? D'you believe sex and nudity are illegal?

People have been reacting with far more grief at the burning of the Quran than the actual violence that followed it. Even if they're not literally stating it, their words convey the effect.

Right, so you're just inferring it from your interpretation of online conversations. Suffice it to say it's not accurate. I talk more about video games on this forum than I do about the opioid crisis, but suffice it to say I think the latter is more significant.

I'm not assuming anything.

There's two key actions that have been comitted in this context - the burning of the Quran, and the burning of an embassy.

You still haven't addressed the actual point I was making there.

If I object to one, why are you acting like I must therefore think the other is fine? It simply does not logically follow.

Great. So you should be fine with the burning as a protest against religion, unless you're engaging in semantic games as to where the cutoff is.

??? No. Being fine with protest doesn't mean I must therefore be fine with absolutely anything a protest might do.

Try the following: "You support the right to protest? Great, so you should be fine with assault as a protest, unless you're engaging with semantic games as to where the cutoff is".

Doesn't follow, does it?

Who's "reasonable" in this context though? The people who were triggered by the burning, are they "reasonable" people?

If someone literally doesn't see the likelihood of violence ensuing as a result of these book burnings, then they're either being dishonest or dense.

There's any number of actions that have led to violence. Desegregation in the US led to violent protests. That isn't an argument against desegregation.

Indeed. The benefit of an action can outweigh the cost. Besides which, segregation was institutionally violent to begin with, so dismantling it reduced violence in the long run.

Alright, if you care about prevention of violence and nothing else, you can make a claim that book burnings should be banned because they could incite violence. However, by that standard, almost any protest could be banned because of the same reasons.

I didn't say I care about nothing else. I care about a lot of other things.

In every case, a balance judgement has to be made. For protests in general, the balance overwhelmingly favours allowing them to go ahead. For book burning, the balance is very differently weighted: it brings zero benefit to anyone, and drastically increases the likelihood of violence.

 

[Asita]

Again, you brought up Nazis, not me.

Ok, let me be clear here: When I said "Godwin himself bemoaned the overapplication of the law", I am saying that he bemoaned the fact that people like yourself invoke it to dismiss or otherwise discredit legitimate or otherwise warranted comparisons to the Nazis. The gripe in that case was that - much as you did here - people respond to a legitimate historical invocation by name dropping Godwin's Law to derail the conversation.

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.

No, these ones really weren't done to protest ideology/regimes, unless you're being so sweeping with your concept of "ideology" as to encompass Islam as a whole. Let me put it to you this way: If I piss on a copy of the Bible, that is not a protest against Marjorie Taylor Greene or other self-professed "Christian Nationalists" in Congress, nor is it a protest against Westboro Baptist Church, or even the policies of the Catholic Church. That's taking a swipe against Christians in general. The book is not representative of those people or organizations, because it is not specific to any of them. Rather, it's something generally applicable to the much broader supercategory of the faith they (and many others unrelated to them) have in common. To put it a different way, if I burn an American Flag, that is not a performative gesture against Ron DeSantis, Florida, or even the Deep South. Rather, that's a performative gesture against the United States as a whole.

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.

The Jews weren't the ones burning the books to express their contempt for and intimidate the people that the books represented. So no, that does not remotely hold true under my paradigm. That's just what you want it to be because pointing out that the book burning behavior you approve of is not something to be applauded evidently got under your skin.

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

Quod erat demonstrandum. Bringing up the Nazis is not in itself childish. Bringing them up is not inherently unwarranted. I brought up the Nazis because we're talking about book burning, something well associated with them, as part of a chastisement that the association with that tactic was not one you wanted to court. That you don't like it does not make it irrelevant, hyperbolic, or childish.

Who was he intimidating?

Who were the Nazis intimidating with their book burnings? The people associated with those books.

A book burning is a performative gesture meant to symbolize the desired destruction of the contents of the book and those things associated with it. This is not rocket science, don't be obtuse.

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.

Ok, first of all, I have not once said the word "rebellion" in this discussion. In fact, as best I can tell, yours is the first usage of that term in the last ten pages at least. The word I used was retaliation, which does not convey the same meaning. A rebellion is open resistance to authority. Retaliation is the act of causing harm in response to harm inflicted.

Second, where it occurs is not relevant. The relevant factor is what inspired the action.

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?"

I'm not playing "who's the Nazi". You're the one who tried to pull an uno reverse card in response to me linking one image to convey that championing book burning was not a good hill to die on.

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.

Nobody is arguing that you can't protest "Islamism". We're arguing that this is not the way to do it because it predictably causes more harm than good.

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.

...And we're done here. You aren't so much as making a token effort to understand the position you're arguing against. You clearly just want it to be wrong on principle, otherwise you might have realized how stupid that allegation is. You know why I'm worried about the incitement to violence? BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN VIOLENCE! These are not separate things here. As you yourself pointed out, the violence is not occurring in areas those countries have jurisdiction over, but the things the violence is in response to are. So the causative factor is the aspect you can control to reduce the violence. And that causative factor costs you nothing to give up.

If you actually cared about the violence as much as you pretended, this would be easy calculus. Burning the books triggers a violent response. Consquentially, choosing not to burn the books results in less violence. If your goal is reducing violence, that's an easy choice to make. That doesn't even warrant being called a concession! It's just not including book burning in your tactics after it's shown to be counterproductive and causing more harm than good!

Here, ask yourself this: Why on earth do you care about burning a book so much that you evidently consider abandoning that particular tactic to be a betrayal? That you see the burning of a book to be worth the violent response that you know the action inspires? That you see prioritizing the lives put at risk by that action over continuing to use that same action to be cowardice? That you see arguments to the effect of "hey, can we please stop doing this thing that predictably results in violence, because it puts people in danger" to be "more worried about the incitement to violence than the actual violence"? Why is this particular tactic evidently so important to you that leaving it behind is in your eyes the same as saying that something can't be criticized at all?

Now, I will be the first to admit that I have been testy in this conversation, but let's be honest here, you've been consistently leaping to conclusions about me and making insinuations about my character and motive since we started, and that always gets me testy.

 

[Hawki]

You don't see the difference between making something illegal, and barring it from big public displays? D'you believe sex and nudity are illegal?

Well first, I don't think one man burning one book outside one embassy is a "big public display."

Second, sex and nudity aren't really the best analogies here. I suppose the best equivalence would be me walking through the streets naked to protest against public nudity being illegal (which isn't as far-fetched as you think, there was a bathing suit controversy way back in the early 20th century here). The difference is that it's highly unlikely anyone would react violently to that, and if they did, that says more about them than it does me.

Right, so you're just inferring it from your interpretation of online conversations. Suffice it to say it's not accurate.

First, I was specifically referring to this forum.

Second, even if we're talking about global news, I imagine it would vary by country. The people pressing the UN vote would likely be more aggrieved by the Quran burning than the embassy burning, and vice versa.

You still haven't addressed the actual point I was making there.

If I object to one, why are you acting like I must therefore think the other is fine? It simply does not logically follow.

Well frankly, I'm not sure what point you're making.

I don't think you, or literally anyone else is literally in favour of embassy burnings, but I find it baffling that there's even debate on the topic. You specifically mentioned "actions" rather than "crimes." Okay, fine. We have the "action" of burning a Quran versus the "action" of burning an embassy. One action is so small that it barely earns mention by itself, the other...well, even the other I'm not that taken surprise by, it's more the extenuating factors of Denmark/Sweden's reaction, and the UN stuff. It's a perfect shitstorm, but instead, we've gone down this merry path of arguing the book burning itself.

??? No. Being fine with protest doesn't mean I must therefore be fine with absolutely anything a protest might do.

Try the following: "You support the right to protest? Great, so you should be fine with assault as a protest, unless you're engaging with semantic games as to where the cutoff is".

Doesn't follow, does it?

No, it doesn't, but the burning of a Quran (or anything) isn't assault.

If someone literally doesn't see the likelihood of violence ensuing as a result of these book burnings, then they're either being dishonest or dense.

I can see the likelihood of violence, just like I can see the likelihood of violence in any number of protests. I've already mentioned cases of violence breaking out in regards to Hong Kong. That doesn't make the HK students in the wrong for protesting against China, it makes the Chinese students wrong for attacking them for carrying out the protest. Similarly, in this case, the crime is with the violence being committed. The only way you could bring a charge against the burner is if you could prove there was explicit intention of inciting violence, and even then, his offences would be less severe than the people doing the violence itself.

There's always going to be the possibility of violence in response to protest. We can certainly debate what is and isn't valid protest, but if the sole concern is violence, then very little protest would ever occur.

Indeed. The benefit of an action can outweigh the cost. Besides which, segregation was institutionally violent to begin with, so dismantling it reduced violence in the long run.

Great, so you're against institutional violence.

Is Islamism institutionally violent or not?

I didn't say I care about nothing else. I care about a lot of other things.

In every case, a balance judgement has to be made. For protests in general, the balance overwhelmingly favours allowing them to go ahead. For book burning, the balance is very differently weighted: it brings zero benefit to anyone, and drastically increases the likelihood of violence.

Okay, then we have very different boundaries as to where the demarcation point is.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Quite a few, yes.

Not quite a few; all. We'll get to this in a minute.

That's a bit more debateable though. The latest suicide bombing was in Pakistan, that's hardly a response to Western imperialism.

The Islamic State bombed a rally held by a pro-Taliban political party, looking to seize power in the wake of Imran Khan's ouster and arrest. Literally every part of that is expressly because of Western imperialism. Pakistan being in a perpetual cycle of divide-and-conquer between its own branches of government (including the military) is explicitly because of, and in service to, Western imperialism. This entire clusterfuck is in the region in which the US alone conducted 430 drone strikes (which we admit) over the course of fourteen years -- and that doesn't include the ones the Pakistanis conducted themselves, with US-supplied drones.

That's a strawman, and you know it. I said Christian extremism and Islamic extremism aren't equivalent, that isn't to say Christian extremism doesn't exist.

State terror is still terror, my dude. And when it comes to terror, nobody is remotely on the scale of the US. Particularly when it's Christian and Jewish religious extremists cutting the campaign contribution checks to see their religious fanaticism executed through vaguely-obfuscated public policy.

Israeli settlements are globally condemned, and have been recently in Oz.

And yes, the shield of antisemitism charges has been used to attempt to shield Israel from criticism, I agree, but even then, my understanding was that the US is among those that condemns the settlements.

Again, how's that shake out in terms of public policy? What happens to BDS legislation, and their authors and supporters? Last I checked, we're still pouring cash to the tune of billions straight into Israeli coffers despite their "shenanigans".

First, even if I intentionally omitted Gaza, how does that somehow disprove what I said? Islamism is a global threat, hardcore Judaism/Zionism/whatever has no real influence beyond Israel...Second, I didn't mention Gaza for two reasons. One, is that I thought the West Bank would be enough to prove my point, Gaza didn't enter my mind. Second, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, the West Bank isn't. Hamas's explicit goal is to make all of Israel/Palestine an Islamic state (this isn't hyperbole, I've read both of their charters), is a terrorist organization that has conducted regular attacks against civilian targets, and enacts draconian laws against its own people. It's quite possible to condemn both Israel and Hamas.

Remember when I said we'd loop back around to who created what terrorist groups? Israel created Hamas. Specifically, the Israeli government funded the creation of Hamas as a right-wing extremist counterweight to the PLO and secularist, left-wing Fatah party -- thereby dividing and conquering with their own ready-made bogeyman there to justify any and all military action Israel might take against Palestinians.

That's not conspiracy theory, that's explicit and unambiguous admission by then-serving Israeli politicians and military leaders who played a direct role in Hamas' creation.


Let's not forget Hamas controls Gaza specifically because Israel blocked aid to the PNA during the Hamas-Fatah conflict, attacked Palestinian targets indiscriminately and engaged in collective punishment which harmed Fatah far worse than Hamas during Operation Summer Rains and Operation Autumn Clouds, outright refused to intervene during the battle for Gaza between Hamas and Fatah...and as if that wasn't enough, cited the Hamas takeover they caused as its excuse to implement the Gaza blockade.

Yes, I'm aware of the Ughyrs, thanks for asking. And who are the most strident critics of their incarceration? Not Islamic nations, I'll tell you that. They'll hapilly table UN motions to ban Quran burning, but remain silent on what's happening in China.

Just the ones not stuffing their pockets full of yuan. Which is something that puts us at far greater risk of World War III, than a bunch of morons burning Qurans and the morons pissed about burning Qurans.

And, dude...

You were given a very relevant example above: the conflict against the LRA is one of the longest running and most devastating in the continent.

You gotta know you're fucking up when you have me and Silvanus on the same side of an argument.

 

[Hawki]

Ok, let me be clear here: When I said "Godwin himself bemoaned the overapplication of the law", I am saying that he bemoaned the fact that people like yourself invoke it to dismiss or otherwise discredit legitimate or otherwise warranted comparisons to the Nazis.

And who's deciding whether it's unwarranted?

Rhetorical question, you think it's warranted, I don't.

No, these ones really weren't done to protest ideology/regimes, unless you're being so sweeping with your concept of "ideology" as to encompass Islam as a whole.

Islam is an ideology, just like any religion. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Let me put it to you this way: If I piss on a copy of the Bible, that is not a protest against Marjorie Taylor Greene or other self-professed "Christian Nationalists" in Congress, nor is it a protest against Westboro Baptist Church, or even the policies of the Catholic Church. That's taking a swipe against Christians in general.

Is it?

I mean, it could be, or it barring any of those examples you mentioned, are you attacking Christians, or are you attacking Christianity? If I piss on the flag of Russia, am I attacking Russians, or am I attacking Russia? If I tear up the flag of Israel, am I attacking Israel, Jews, or Zionism? When Stan Grant attacks whiteness, is he attacking the concept, or the people who would be called white? When TB states all fantasy is eugenic, are they attacking the fantasy genre, or are they calling me a eugenicist because I write fantasy (this actually happened, BTW)?

If you believe you can't distinguish between the ideology and the followers, that isn't an unreasonable proposition, but it's one I disagree with. To borrow a quote, "no idea is above scrutiny, just as no person is below dignity."

The Jews weren't the ones burning the books to express their contempt for and intimidate the people that the books represented.

No, but people were protesting against the Nazis. You're so fixated on the act of burning books, you're ignoring everything else.

If a Jewish person burnt a copy of Mein Kemph in protest, would they be in the wrong to do so?

Quod erat demonstrandum. Bringing up the Nazis is not in itself childish. Bringing them up is not inherently unwarranted.[/quote]

I agree, but again, Reductio ad Hitlarium. You may think the comparison is warranted, I don't.

I brought up the Nazis because we're talking about book burning, something well associated with them, as part of a chastisement that the association with that tactic was not one you wanted to court. That you don't like it does not make it irrelevant, hyperbolic, or childish.

You're certainly entitled to think that. I still do. This entire Nazi detour has been childish.

Who were the Nazis intimidating with their book burnings? The people associated with those books.

And who was the book burner intimidating? You're comparing one man to an entire government.

Again, your entire moral paradigm seems to be that anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis, regardless of any actual context.

A book burning is a performative gesture meant to symbolize the desired destruction of the contents of the book and those things associated with it. This is not rocket science, don't be obtuse.

And? Ideas don't have special protection. And if you think religion does deserve special protection, good for you, I don't.

Second, where it occurs is not relevant. The relevant factor is what inspired the action.

Actually, the relevant factor is the action itself. What inspires the action may be relevant, but it's never as relevant.

Words aren't violence. Violence is.

I'm not playing "who's the Nazi". You're the one who tried to pull an uno reverse card in response to me linking one image to convey that championing book burning was not a good hill to die on.

You brought up the image of Nazis burning books. You brought Nazis into this. You could have chosen any image of book burnings from any culture from any point in time, but intentionally or not, you chose the Nazi image.

Just own it.

Nobody is arguing that you can't protest "Islamism". We're arguing that this is not the way to do it because it predictably causes more harm than good.

Well, you can make that argument if you want, but you would have to agree that you're compromising on principle, right?

...And we're done here. You aren't so much as making a token effort to understand the position you're arguing against. You clearly just want it to be wrong on principle, otherwise you might have realized how stupid that allegation is. You know why I'm worried about the incitement to violence? BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN VIOLENCE! These are not separate things here. As you yourself pointed out, the violence is not occuring in areas those countries have jurisdiction over, but the things they are in response to are. So the causative factor is the aspect you can control to reduce the violence. And that causative factor costs you nothing to give up.

I want you to actually consider the implications of your argument.

Yes, on a technical level, not burning the Quran would have resulted in a scenario where violence didn't occur. However, consider the following:

1) If carrying out a non-violent action results in violence, why is the onus on the people doing the former to cater to the demands of the latter?

2) What, specifically, about this religion is causing such violence? We don't even need to look at the Quran, look at cartoon depictions of Muhammad for instance? I can certainly find other examples in other religions, but not with this amount of regularity.

3) If your view is entirely based on the question as to whether violence occurs, then you would also concede that any form of protest (or at least certain forms of protest) must also be subjected to the same scrutiny. I'm not talking about assault, I'm talking about similar displays.

If you actually cared about the violence as much as you pretended, this would be easy calculus. Burning the books triggers a violent response. Consquentially, choosing not to burn the books results in less violence. If your goal is reducing violence, that's an easy choice to make. That doesn't even warrant being called a concession! It's just not including book burning in your tactics after it's shown to be counterproductive and causing more harm than good!

Because sometimes, it's not just calculus.

The Nazis invaded in WWII, with violence. The Allies fought back, with violence. There's plenty of examples where violence may be justified. HOWEVER, we have a case of a non-violent act being responded to with violence, and your goal seems to be to remove the possibility of violence by not carrying out protest, or at least, demanding protest be done in a certain way.

Here, ask yourself this: Why on earth do you care about burning a book so much that you evidently consider abandoning that particular tactic to be a betrayal?

I don't know if "betrayal" is the word I'd use, Denmark and Sweden can't "betray" me. But it's still moral cowardice on their part, since they're effectively acquiescing to the threat of violence by curtailing freedom of expression.

That you see the burning of a book to be worth the violent response that you know the action inspires? That you see prioritizing the lives put at risk by that action over continuing to use that same action to be cowardice? That you see arguments to the effect of "hey, can we please stop doing this thing that predictably results in violence, because it puts people in danger" to be "more worried about the incitement to violence than the actual violence"? Why is this particular tactic evidently so important to you that leaving it behind is in your eyes the same as saying that something can't be criticized at all?

There's a difference between criticizing an action, and banning an action.

Again, actually consider the implications of your argument (or if you have, reconsider them). Consider the sequence of events:

1: A non-violent action is carried out in protest.

2: Violence erupts in response to the protest.

3: In response, the government bans the protest.

You're basically fine with intimidation carrying the day.

 

[Hawki]

The Islamic State bombed a rally held by a pro-Taliban political party, looking to seize power in the wake of Imran Khan's ouster and arrest. Literally every part of that is expressly because of Western imperialism.

Not really. The Taliban owe their existence to the United States in a sense, but just as much to the USSR. And none of that particular action has to do with Western imperialism.

Pakistan being in a perpetual cycle of divide-and-conquer between its own branches of government (including the military) is explicitly because of, and in service to, Western imperialism. This entire clusterfuck is in the region in which the US alone conducted 430 drone strikes (which we admit) over the course of fourteen years -- and that doesn't include the ones the Pakistanis conducted themselves, with US-supplied drones.

Pakistan's been a troubled state since day 1, that cycle began long ago. You can attribute that to Western imperialism (partition of India), just as you can attribute that to Islamism.

State terror is still terror, my dude. And when it comes to terror, nobody is remotely on the scale of the US. Particularly when it's Christian and Jewish religious extremists cutting the campaign contribution checks to see their religious fanaticism executed through vaguely-obfuscated public policy.

I put "state terror" in a different category. For instance, North Korea is the king of state terror, that doesn't make Kim Jong-Un a terrorist. I know there's an argument to be made about war being terrorism and whatnot, but we can at least agree on what terrorism is, otherwise we're going in circles.

As for the extremists, I actually agree you have a point.

Again, how's that shake out in terms of public policy? What happens to BDS legislation, and their authors and supporters? Last I checked, we're still pouring cash to the tune of billions straight into Israeli coffers despite their "shenanigans".

Ear, you're arguing against stances I don't actually have. I agree that the US shouldn't be funding Israel. I agree that external pressure against Israel hasn't changed much. The one thing I can't comment on is BDS because there's so much information from all different sources.

Remember when I said we'd loop back around to who created what terrorist groups? Israel created Hamas. Specifically, the Israeli government funded the creation of Hamas as a right-wing extremist counterweight to the PLO and secularist, left-wing Fatah party -- thereby dividing and conquering with their own ready-made bogeyman there to justify any and all military action Israel might take against Palestinians.

That's not conspiracy theory, that's explicit and unambiguous admission by then-serving Israeli politicians and military leaders who played a direct role in Hamas' creation.

Ear, actually read what I said. Quote what I said that contradicts any of what you just posted.

I know the origins of Hamas. I agree with pretty much most of what you said. How does any of that negate Hamas's actions and goals in the present day? I can agree that the US played a role in the creation of the Taliban, while also criticizing the Taliban for their actions RIGHT NOW. It isn't an all or nothing world. History rarely is.

Just the ones not stuffing their pockets full of yuan. Which is something that puts us at far greater risk of World War III, than a bunch of morons burning Qurans and the morons pissed about burning Qurans.

I actually agree that the Ughyr situation is more serious than Quran burning, but that's not a good card to play. The thread is "Funny events in Woke world," not "China's treatment of Ughyrs." The difference is that I doubt there's any debate as to whether China's actions are abhorent, there is debate as to Quran burning. It's a debate I never thought would occur, but here we are.

And, dude...

You gotta know you're fucking up when you have me and Silvanus on the same side of an argument.

You might also want to check where I responded to Silvanus on the topic.

The question is not "does Christian fundamentalism exist (in Africa)?", the question was whether Christian fundamentalism was on the same scale as Islamic fundamentalism. Because the answer to the first question is obviously yes, the answer to the question is almost certainly no.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

DO YOU NOT READ WHAT I TYPE? RIGHT NOW, rapid tests don't allow you to test after exposure and get a positive result (if do have covid) before symptoms, what does it matter when the tests were or weren't available?

Why is infecting people with the flu OK? I've always stayed home when contagious because what's the point of getting others sick?

Even with all the covid testing, millions upon millions cases of covid were easily missed. The official case count was always only the tip of the iceberg. Why do you need to know every case? You can easily find out how much community spread there is without testing everyone. How do you think they followed covid spread during the pandemic? They missed at least 90% of cases. Number of hospitalizations is far more important. Denmark removed all covid restrictions based squarely on hospitalizations and dropped them all during a covid surge.

I know the difference between science and policy, I don't know why you're insinuating I don't. Why was Fauci for masking outside if the science didn't support it? Fauci is an infectious disease expert is he not? It's not like I'm asking why the President or a governor enacted some policy. I'm asking why the top expert in field recommended and supported a policy not based in science.

 

[Asita]

*snip*

Again, I'm done. You're not even trying to understand the point, you're fabricating a position for me and then condescending to me why you think I hold it and why that reason that you fabricated for me whole cloth for a position you presume I must possess means I'm wrong. Case in point:

Again, your entire moral paradigm seems to be that anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis, regardless of any actual context.

I never made anything remotely resembling that claim and there is no way to reasonably infer that from my post. That's a position you conjured up for me as soon as you recognized the image I pulled as being from Nazi Germany. My post:

I mean bluntly, I want you to take a step back a minute and think about what you're championing. We aren't talking about cases where you were clearing off your bookshelves and tossed your copy of <religious text>. We're talking about cases where you'd be making a public display of burning books specifically to - at best - express your contempt towards that faith and its members. And let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that isn't the point. It's a purely performative gesture with the sole purpose of communicating how much the burner hates those people.

Take a step back from your opinions on those religions for a minute and ask yourself this: Is book burning really a hill that's worth dying on?

The Nazis are only relevant in me asking "Is book burning really a hill that's worth dying on?" That's only about as far as saying "this isn't a good look"! But no, that committed the grave sin of making you self-conscious, so therefore you immediately jumped to playing "who's the real Nazi" in the very next post (making it quite galling when you later accuse me of doing so because I took your bait and disputed your claim that "The closest equivalent to the Nazis in this scenario would be people protesting burnings of religious texts") to try to paint me as having lost perspective.

You then committed to making attempt after attempt to paint me as necessarily irrational, claiming that my position is really for a "curtail on acts of protest provided there's religion involved", and that I care more about "religious sensitivities than actual violence". You equivocated between me not condemning "people protesting burnings of religious texts" and actively defending "people doing the violence", have put words in my mouth to make it sound like I was being ridiculously grandiose and criticize me on those grounds, and claimed that I believe "anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis"!

Time and again you made hasty judgements about me and whatever irrationalities you presumed I must have without ever even taking a step back to ask yourself if those claims were well evidenced, much less try to understand my actual positions.

So I am done. If you want to continue having a rhetorical conversation, you can do it without involving me.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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

It took decades of dedicated pressure and oodles of studies showing people died less often to get Doctors to start washing their hands.

We're currently having the same fight with the exact same statistics to get doctors to use checklists. It's fucking bizarre

 

[Casual Shinji]

It took decades of dedicated pressure and oodles of studies showing people died less often to get Doctors to start washing their hands.

Can't wait for that to get a resurgence among conservative circles. 'Doctors washing their hands is causing kids to get autism and then become trans communists. It's all the globalists doing.'

 

[Ag3ma]

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

I'm not sure "semantics" quite covers writing something with a meaning plainly different from your belief.

Lockdowns mostly served the function they were designed to, which was to restrict massive spread of illness and reduce risk of the overwhelming and potential collapse of the healthcare system, which could have resulted in massive additional loss of lives.

There was a time when there wasn't any clinical trials supporting remdesivir against covid.

And at that time, no-one should have been taking it outside a clinical trial. Then a clinical trial provided some evidence it just about worked, and it was given emergency approval. I think remdesivir was massively overused (at least in the USA) for the high cost and very modest effectiveness it offered, sure. But then, odds are there are people alive today who otherwise would not be had they not received it, and I doubt they're complaining.

You can't just make up shit and gaslight people.

Have you any idea how you appear when you don't seem to remember anything longer than 15 minutes beforehand when it doesn't suit you?

Again, no proof of Marty being any more wrong than anyone else.

What bothers me about "Marty" is not so much that he was wrong (everyone was wrong about at least something) but the manner in which he was wrong and his reaction to being wrong. He made comments that anyone with good knowledge of the area would find hard to justify, and yet saw fit to spew them in particularly high-impact, public media.

 

[Baffle]

We're currently having the same fight with the exact same statistics to get doctors to use checklists. It's fucking bizarre

I had a day in hospital yesterday and they do so many lists here (that's not a complaint). I (the patient) had to relay my details (personal and injury) to every medical person I spoke to, which can get same-ish because you're dealing with quite a few people, but it's so much better a system (in my mind) than relying on data transfer from professional to professional, because you only need one communication failure there and all of a sudden you've got a different operation (I'm sure there are more checks than that, but I still think this approach is good).

Edit: It was weird being conscious all the way to the operating theatre, but I guess that's how it's done now.

 

[Ag3ma]

None of this applies to the scenario though.

It kind of does, because the article makes clear that lots of people are now champing at the bit to burn Qurans. These are largely not spontaneous acts of genuine protest, they are shit-stirring. It suggests, possibly, this may include actions by Russia and its sympathisers to damage Sweden's diplomatic relationships.

1: By that standard, anyone who protests

This is naive or dishonest, as above.

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.

You mean the Swedish embassy in Iraq, which will be owned (maybe rented) by the Swedish state, is by diplomatic convention Swedish territory, and tends to have Swedes present, plus of course the Swedish state having a duty of care to foreign nationals it may employ in its embassy operations, and the general reputation and diplomatic considerations of Sweden?

I mean, actually consider the implications of this.

Take a look in the mirror.

You are the one presenting a weird, black and white absolute view where the ability for people to express themselves should exist without limits, irrespective of how damaging it might be. Let's remind you that you saw fit to simply insult politicians who expressed their concerns about people using freedoms in ways that could end up causing significant harm to others or the nation as a whole.

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

Emphatically untrue: only a minority of the far right are purists, the majority are pragmatic enough to use incidental people and useful idiots where it can advance their cause. Hence in a very similar vein the famous anti-Nazi poem "First they came...".

 

[Silvanus]

Well first, I don't think one man burning one book outside one embassy is a "big public display."

Second, sex and nudity aren't really the best analogies here. I suppose the best equivalence would be me walking through the streets naked to protest against public nudity being illegal (which isn't as far-fetched as you think, there was a bathing suit controversy way back in the early 20th century here). The difference is that it's highly unlikely anyone would react violently to that, and if they did, that says more about them than it does me.

It doesn't really matter what the best analogy is, here. Do you recognise the difference between something being illegal, and something being disallowed from a public display? Because earlier, you said there was no substantial difference.

First, I was specifically referring to this forum.

Second, even if we're talking about global news, I imagine it would vary by country. The people pressing the UN vote would likely be more aggrieved by the Quran burning than the embassy burning, and vice versa.

The UN is concerned specifically because it leads to the embassy burning.

Well frankly, I'm not sure what point you're making.

I don't think you, or literally anyone else is literally in favour of embassy burnings, but I find it baffling that there's even debate on the topic. You specifically mentioned "actions" rather than "crimes." Okay, fine. We have the "action" of burning a Quran versus the "action" of burning an embassy. One action is so small that it barely earns mention by itself, the other...well, even the other I'm not that taken surprise by, it's more the extenuating factors of Denmark/Sweden's reaction, and the UN stuff. It's a perfect shitstorm, but instead, we've gone down this merry path of arguing the book burning itself.

I've explained the point multiple times and you've sailed right by it. We do not have the action of the book-burning "versus" the action of burning embassy. It's not a goddamn competition for which is worse, where we must only address the worse of the two. One shitty action provoked another, shittier action. If one wants to prevent the shittier action, then one of the most effective ways to do so is to prevent the the provocation from occurring.

No, it doesn't, but the burning of a Quran (or anything) isn't assault.

Obviously. But apply the same logic. "If you're fine with protests, then you must therefore be fine with [insert any action here] if it occurs at a protest" -- the logic simply does not follow.

I can see the likelihood of violence, just like I can see the likelihood of violence in any number of protests. I've already mentioned cases of violence breaking out in regards to Hong Kong. That doesn't make the HK students in the wrong for protesting against China, it makes the Chinese students wrong for attacking them for carrying out the protest. Similarly, in this case, the crime is with the violence being committed. The only way you could bring a charge against the burner is if you could prove there was explicit intention of inciting violence, and even then, his offences would be less severe than the people doing the violence itself.

There's always going to be the possibility of violence in response to protest. We can certainly debate what is and isn't valid protest, but if the sole concern is violence, then very little protest would ever occur.

Balance of probabilities. The likelihood of violence breaking out in an average protest, without police brutality, is pretty low. The likelihood of violence being sparked in retaliation to a holy book-burning is high.

Great, so you're against institutional violence.

Is Islamism institutionally violent or not?

In most of its formulations, yes. Of course, Islam is not Islamism.