Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Trunkage]

It's going to take me ages to respond to everything, so if I haven't responded to a post, chances are I haven't got round to it yet.



First, the "shit-stirring" came after the protest, not before. Second, even if all of that's true, what of it? There's always the risk that protest will have knock-on effects. The entire Arab Spring is an example of protest leading to violence.



Is it? Because the revelation that protest can have knock-on effects isn't a revelation, it's a fact. But if the line of preventitive action is at book burning, than that's an extremely low bar.



Well first, the people storming the embassy aren't on Swedish territory, they breached Swedish territory, so that would put them in the wrong.

Second, you're right that a country generally has responsibility for the safety of its nationals outside said country, but if the standard for safety is preventing protest at home...well, sure, okay, if you want to argue that. But lots of countries are at odds with embassies in said countries, that usually wouldn't prevent them from criticism. Might have their ambassador expelled, but what's the alternative?



I never said anyone should be able to express without limits, I made a clear distinction at assault, for instance. And I insulted politicians (which is pretty much par for the course in most democracies) for kowtowing to acts of intimidation. Yes, realpolitik, I know, consider the tensions between Sweden and Turkey for instance, I don't expect governments to not engage in realpolitik, but when it amounts of this? Really?

Basically, I can see three lines of argument to which you could object to the Quran burning. Either:

a) You think religious texts should be free from being burnt in an act of protest.

b) You think it shouldn't be done because it could damage a country's standing by letting it occur.

c) You think it could lead to incitement of violence against people who follow the religion in question.

You don't seem to be arguing for a, but more b and c. As such, if that's the case:

b) I don't think I can say much that hasn't already been said. Did burning the Quran incense Muslims? Yes. Should the action be banned for that? No. I say that in the same way that I don't believe religion should be free from insult or criticism, and burning a holy text is, in my view, a legitimate way of expressing contempt against said religion. Same way burning a flag is fine for expressing contempt against a country.

c) While it's true that the far right has latched onto this, that came after the burning, not before. You'd have to demonstrate that the original Iraqi man who burnt it was deliberately trying to incite violence. I've asked numerous times for evidence of this, so far, none has been provided. But again, actually consider the implications, where any protest against a religion/religious body is, by definition, seen as an attack on the followers. Since it's already been brought up, how many times has criticism of Israel been deflected by accusations of antisemitism? Yes, antisemitism exists, yes, antisemitism makes Israel a target, yes, the BDS movement has anti-semitic elements, none of those facts should exclude Israel from criticism, just as the fact that Islamophobia exists should prevent Islam from being criticized.



Well first, again, the far right latched on after, not before. All kinds of groups may have overlapping aims, that doesn't put them in tandem, that doesn't preclude those aims being followed. Far right Ukrainians are fighting against Russia, that doesn't put Russia in the right (morally).

Second, I don't think that poem really applies, because the person "speaking out" is the original protester. If anything, that poem is an example of why protest should be allowed, because if you're prevented from speaking out about X, then how long until you can't speak out about Z? I don't think Denmark or Sweden are on that trajectory yet, but preventing book burnings as an act of protest isn't a good sign, regardless of who's doing it. The proverbial Nazis in this scenario are the people storming the embassy and pushing their agenda in the UN.

Edit: Also, this isn't meant as a "gotcha" moment, but:

Two protesters burn Quran outside Iraqi embassy in Denmark

The incident is the latest in a string of Quran burnings in Sweden and Denmark that prompted outcry in the Middle East.

www.aljazeera.com

So on one hand, we have the Danish Patriots burning the Quran, and Hashd al-Shaabi burning the Swedish flag.

One of those rallies is much more militant than the other.

I don't know patriotism, even Danish patriotism, has got to do with burning books

As always, patriotism seems unrelated. But it's funny how people try to connect the 'burning something' to patriotism.

It's almost like someone is trying to get us to believe certain things that we shouldn't

 

[dreng3]

I don't know patriotism, even Danish patriotism, has got to do with burning books

As always, patriotism seems unrelated. But it's funny how people try to connect the 'burning something' to patriotism.

It's almost like someone is trying to get us to believe certain things that we shouldn't

The guy that started the entire book Quran burning thing in Denmark, a guy named Rasmus Paludan, would probably argue that he is a patriot (or at least he would before he got swedish citizenship so he could pull the same stuff in their country), that he loves his country, and that he is only doing it to expose how muslims are violent and out to destroy Denmark/Sweden.

He is, of course, more of a nationalist and racist with xenophobic tendencies and, according to many somewhat substantiated rumors, brain damage.

Nationalists love to hide behind the guise of patriotism.

 

[Trunkage]

The guy that started the entire book Quran burning thing in Denmark, a guy named Rasmus Paludan, would probably argue that he is a patriot (or at least he would before he got swedish citizenship so he could pull the same stuff in their country), that he loves his country, and that he is only doing it to expose how muslims are violent and out to destroy Denmark/Sweden.

He is, of course, more of a nationalist and racist with xenophobic tendencies and, according to many somewhat substantiated rumors, brain damage.

Nationalists love to hide behind the guise of patriotism.

The last line is true... but also has not really got anything to do with 'muslims being violent'. Just becuase someone is violent, that doesnt mean they are out to destroy the country.. That's what you call a propaganda. It's a standard line that conservatives say and means nothing because everything seems to be destroying the country

 

[dreng3]

The last line is true... but also has not really got anything to do with 'muslims being violent'. Just becuase someone is violent, that doesnt mean they are out to destroy the country.. That's what you call a propaganda. It's a standard line that conservatives say and means nothing because everything seems to be destroying the country

I agree with your statement in its entirety, I was just reiterating their/his common talking points.

 

[Hawki]

https://unherd.com/thepost/sweden-and-denmark-bow-to-pressure-over-quran-book-burnings/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/03/everyone-should-have-the-right-to-insult-islam/

(Posting these here for reference, now to respond to stuff)

 

[Hawki]

Lost a lot of what I wrote, so this will be shorter

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.

Yes, some things in public are illegal that wouldn't be illegal at home, for instance.

If you think burning religious texts in public should be illegal, that's fine, I don't.

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

That's very simplistic for two reasons.

1: If burning a book leads to an embassy being stormed, then I don't see that as sufficient cause to ban book burning. The reaction is far more disproportionate than the inciting incident.

2: It ignores the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which has long been pushing for any criticism of Islam as "hate speech." Curiously (or not so curiously), similar acts against similar religions aren't afforded such status. This thing doesn't occur in a vacuum.

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.

We're really going in circles here.

I'm not trying to strawman you, but it seems your view is "burning the embassy is a shitty thing to do, worse than the book burning, but the book action was also shitty, and therefore shouldn't have happened, and efforts should be made to stop it from happening again."

I completely disagree with the last part of that assessment for the reasons I've given. Basically, you think both actions were shitty, I think only the second action was.

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.

No, I don't follow that logic. I drew the line at assault. Burning a book isn't assault. Actions less severe than assault, however unpleasant, wouldn't/shouldn't be penalized.

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.

Again, you realize what that says about the holy book in question, right?

I've given an example of a book burning done in Canada, and however people might have felt about it, no violence stemmed from it. In contrast, one single book is burnt, and now we have embassy burnings.

Sometimes, you have to face down the bully. And I get that's easier said than done, but sometimes, it still has to occur (or at least, should be allowed to occur). For instance, after Charlie Hebdo, I'd be very wary of anyone caricaturing Muhammad, but that's solely on the basis of a fear for personal safety. The fault lies with those with the threats of violence, rather than people drawing cartoons.

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

Islam isn't Islamism, but it's foundational to it. But even then, I don't accept the notion that religions deserve special protections from critique/protest.

 

[Hawki]

That's rather the bigger point to this tangent: talk and action are two different phenomena. One can talk all they like; it's what they do which matters.

Well, yes, I agree, talk is easier than action, but that's true of everything. It's one thing to condemn Israel (or any nation-state), it's another to carry out action.

If Hamas had never been funded and empowered by the Israeli government to serve its own ends, it would never have been in the position to do the shit it's doing now. Which is, lest we get lost in the weeds, resisting apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Again, not sure how that negates any of what I said.

The sins you charge Israel with are Hamas's mission statement. I can be against Israel's treatment of Palestinians, while also being against Hamas's aims and actions.

It isn't an either/or scenario.

In this case, fuck the Uyghurs. And for that matter, fuck Taiwan, fuck Nepal, fuck Tibet, fuck Myanmar, fuck the Hmong, fuck Korea (north and south) and Koreans, and fuck the South China Sea in particular.

What the hell are you even talking about? Are you suggesting that I'm not talking about X, I don't care about X? Because if so, that's card you could play against any individual, because no-one has the time or energy to talk about every single ill in the world.

I'm talking about China threatening the value of the US dollar and what are clearly long-term plays to undermine the dollar as global reserve currency, through establishing global commodities and currency trades independent of the dollar. That's what I meant by stuffing economic southern pockets full of yuan.

And? What does that have to do with anything? Countries act in self-interest. I'd expect the same of China, same as the US, same as everyone. It's not some kind of moral sin to be less dependent on the dollar, any more than it is to be less dependent on, well, any currency.

The only thing that's kept the US economically viable since the end of Bretton Woods was global reserve currency status, and a threat to it is a direct threat to US economic and political security far greater than any idiot with an airplane or bomb vest. That's what will bring us closer to WWIII than any individual ethno-religious group, whatever invisible sky wizards they claim exist, and whatever books or icons they trash to make some stupid-ass political point nobody in their right mind should care about.

Possibly true, but if you care so much about it, why not create a thread? Because de-dollarization isn't a "woke" topic.

One could make the argument the odd quiet from The Usual Suspects™ when this is usually casus belli for Total Hashtag Warfare™, is in itself noteworthy. It's almost as if for many fauxgressives, consumerism and ideology is in direct conflict, and they show their true colors choosing the former over the latter.

I'm sorry, I have no idea who the heck you're talking about.

If you want to talk about the Ughyrs or de-dollarization, do it in the appropriate thread.

 

[Hawki]

You thought the response from the governments of Sweden and Denmark was funny?

Funny as in "notable," "strange," "peculiar," etc.

Not funny as in laugh-out-loud. That can be the case, but not always.

 

[Hawki]

No, I just think it's hypocritical to breathlessly inject the Uyghur genocide into a completely unrelated economic issue and then stand mum later on with thorny social issues.

This really doesn't hold up.

If I'm talking about A, and people ask why I'm not talkiing about B to Z, that isn't really an argument, that's just deflection or whataboutism. If I'm in the Ukraine thread, I'm talking about the Russia-Ukraine War. If I'm in an Iraq War thread, I'm talking about the Iraq War. If I'm talking about Israel/Palestine, I'm in the Israel/Palestine thread, and so on.

Do you know what my number one fear is in the world? Climate change. Do I talk much about it? No, because I doubt that I could say much that people wouldn't already agree with me on. I've certainly had points of disagreement, I MIGHT be in a better position than others to talk about it since I did env. management at uni (though ended up in libraries, long story), but apart from that? I don't have much to say. "Woke world" is a thread where I can post a link and move on...or so I thought, but we're past that now. And if you look at my post history, you'd probably find most of my posts in movie/TV/book threads.

 

[Hawki]

Actually my point was to accentuate how Muslims in particular are in the "hot seat", because they predominantly live in regions rich in oil and (usually rare-earth) minerals. I was challenged on the proposition on account of China being the current source of much of it.

So, I pointed out Xinjiang province is where China is getting much of those natural resources, most notably oil, natural gas, and polysilicon. And, that Uyghurs are the majority population of Xinjiang, and just so happen to be subject to ethnic cleansing right now.

Okay, but they're not being cleansed to get at those resources. China owns the teritory regardless. It's cultural assimilation in response to seperatism.

(And before you say anything, no, I'm not justifying China's actions, more that China's actions are better understood in a cultural context than an economic one.)

 

[Hawki]

I'm not "advocating" for anything much at all here. I'm merely pointing out that if "protests" start becoming excessively problematic, they will be clamped down on because society / government will not suffer excessive disruption.

...and?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think that really depends on what type of protest is, along with its goals. One man protesting against Iraq/Islam isn't really much of a kufuffle (or shouldn't be).

I also think a distinction needs to be drawn between a protest against policy (high taxes, fossil fuel use, etc.) and a "protest" by bad actors, such as the intent of marginalising, aggravating and intimidating other sectors of the community. This has always been a favourite tactic of the far right: 100 years ago they would march in military-style uniform through areas where Jews, immigrants and others they deemed undesirable tended to live. They still do shit like that today.

Again, the man who did the protest wasn't far right, and the intimidation came from the people reacting to the protest.

Yes, bad faith actors can do exactly what you say - they have, in this particular case, but they came after the protest, not before, and it excuses the worse faith actors who reacted to said protest.

Someone who champions free speech should have a broad and practical understanding of what this means, and I think this includes comprehending the consequences of free speech used irresponsibly, because the most likely result of excessive, irresponsible free speech is the curtailing of free speech. In this sense, burning Qurans to make facile, self-absorbed points about free speech or to antagonise Muslim minorities threatens the burning of Qurans to protest the religious oppression of Christians in Iraq.

Again, the protest of minority treatment in Iraq came BEFORE the Patriot Front got involved, not AFTER.

The right to protest is incredibly valuable: we should not waste it. And when we see those who would waste it, let's not applaud them or offer them succour and apologies.

I really don't agree.

Sure, I think protests can be counter-productive to a cause (look at Just Stop Oil for instance), but who's wasting it? Arguably the man who originally protested, in that it's resulted in the OIC's goals becoming more likely to be fulfilled, but really, the only alternative is to not protest at all, or at least, protest that doesn't involve burning the Quran. Which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but again, it's giving religion special treatment that it doesn't deserve, not to mention when said religion has a nasty habit of reacting violently against people who blaspheme against it.

 

[Ag3ma]

Again, the man who did the protest wasn't far right

Fucking hell! Read the fucking articles that you cited properly: they're not so bothered about that one guy, they're bothered about the far right (and maybe Russia-connected) agigators who are piggybacking off it to burn Qurans explicitly to piss off Muslims.

The fact you refuse to engage with that just makes you look disingenuous. And then...

not to mention when said religion has a nasty habit of reacting violently against people who blaspheme against it.

... there we go.

 

[Hawki]

Fucking hell! Read the fucking articles that you cited properly: they're not so bothered about that one guy, they're bothered about the far right (and maybe Russia-connected) agigators who are piggybacking off it to burn Qurans explicitly to piss off Muslims.

The fact you refuse to engage with that just makes you look disingenuous. And then...

I've explicitly stated that the far right piggybacked off the initial burning. I never denied this. The reactions, however, came before the piggybacking, not after. I've cited the embassy burnings, I've posted links of the protests, I've posted information on the OIC, all you've done is sidestep it.

... there we go.

Am I wrong?

 

[Silvanus]

Lost a lot of what I wrote, so this will be shorter

Yes, some things in public are illegal that wouldn't be illegal at home, for instance.

If you think burning religious texts in public should be illegal, that's fine, I don't.

The question was: do you now acknowledge that there is a substantial difference between making something illegal, and barring it from public displays. Earlier you said you didn't, but now you're implying you do.

That's very simplistic for two reasons.

1: If burning a book leads to an embassy being stormed, then I don't see that as sufficient cause to ban book burning. The reaction is far more disproportionate than the inciting incident.

2: It ignores the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which has long been pushing for any criticism of Islam as "hate speech." Curiously (or not so curiously), similar acts against similar religions aren't afforded such status. This thing doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Whether the reaction is disproportionate is irrelevant. What matters is that a reasonable person can foresee its extremely likely. If you do something knowing it will probably lead to something terrible happening, which wouldn't have happened it you hadn't done it, then you hold some responsibility.

We're really going in circles here.

I'm not trying to strawman you, but it seems your view is "burning the embassy is a shitty thing to do, worse than the book burning, but the book action was also shitty, and therefore shouldn't have happened, and efforts should be made to stop it from happening again."

I completely disagree with the last part of that assessment for the reasons I've given. Basically, you think both actions were shitty, I think only the second action was.

If you don't think it was shitty to take action that resulted in violence, then you're willing to tolerate the violence occurring. I'm not.

No, I don't follow that logic. I drew the line at assault. Burning a book isn't assault. Actions less severe than assault, however unpleasant, wouldn't/shouldn't be penalized.

OK, you've again missed the point. Where you draw the line is not relevant to this specific point.

You said to me that because I'm fine with protests, it necessarily should follow that I should also be fine with another specific action that takes place AT a protest.

The entire purpose of my bringing up assault was to show that that assumption is bogus. Being fine with protests does not necessitate being fine with whatever specific actions the protesters might do.

Again, you realize what that says about the holy book in question, right?

I've given an example of a book burning done in Canada, and however people might have felt about it, no violence stemmed from it. In contrast, one single book is burnt, and now we have embassy burnings.

Sometimes, you have to face down the bully. And I get that's easier said than done, but sometimes, it still has to occur (or at least, should be allowed to occur). For instance, after Charlie Hebdo, I'd be very wary of anyone caricaturing Muhammad, but that's solely on the basis of a fear for personal safety. The fault lies with those with the threats of violence, rather than people drawing cartoons.

"Facing down the bully" has quite different moral implications when other people pay the price.

And "facing down the bully" loses its moral standing anyway when it involves bullying unrelated people who aren't bullies to begin with-- as this book-burning did.

 

[Gordon_4]

Whether the reaction is disproportionate is irrelevant. What matters is that a reasonable person can foresee its extremely likely. If you do something knowing it will probably lead to something terrible happening, which wouldn't have happened it you hadn't done it, then you hold some responsibility.

It actually kind of does since there is a legal concept of a proportional response. Burning a Holy Book - ANY Holy Book - is at the level of ‘dick move’. Yes it’s deliberately inflammatory - it’s kind of supposed to be - but unless you then hurled it at someone is essentially just an angry person burning their own money.

To respond to this with an assault on diplomatic property is grossly disproportionate in response. And beyond being illegal it just proves the book burner right, and I ask again: why the fuck do they want to that?

If you don't think it was shitty to take action that resulted in violence, then you're willing to tolerate the violence occurring. I'm not.

The point being is that it’s an action that should not result in violence at all ever. And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.

 

[Silvanus]

It actually kind of does since there is a legal concept of a proportional response. Burning a Holy Book - ANY Holy Book - is at the level of ‘dick move’. Yes it’s deliberately inflammatory - it’s kind of supposed to be - but unless you then hurled it at someone is essentially just an angry person burning their own money.

To respond to this with an assault on diplomatic property is grossly disproportionate in response. And beyond being illegal it just proves the book burner right, and I ask again: why the fuck do they want to that?

This is all well and good when considering how to prosecute the retaliator, but not very useful as a prevention strategy.

The point being is that it’s an action that should not result in violence at all ever. And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.

Nothing *should* result in violence, but that ain't the situation with which legislators have to deal. They have to deal with a situation in which violence does occur, and much of it is foreseeable and preventable, and they have a responsibility to minimise it.

 

[Hawki]

The question was: do you now acknowledge that there is a substantial difference between making something illegal, and barring it from public displays. Earlier you said you didn't, but now you're implying you do.

Well, this may be splitting hairs, yes, but I'd say there's a difference, I don't know if it's a "substantial" one. For instance, you brought up nudity. Nudity may be illegal in public but legal at home, but nudity isn't really hurting anyone.

Whether the reaction is disproportionate is irrelevant. What matters is that a reasonable person can foresee its extremely likely. If you do something knowing it will probably lead to something terrible happening, which wouldn't have happened it you hadn't done it, then you hold some responsibility.

Well first, I would argue that the proportion of reaction IS relevant. It's certainly relevant in law. If people broke into my house, and I ended up murdering them after they'd surrendered, I'd likely be charged for my actions because they would be disproportionate to the crime.

Second, again, consider the context at hand. If your criteria is to not undertake certain actions because they might result in certain outcomes, that's fine in of itself, but consider the implications - that the threat of violence is sufficient to dissuade protest from being made. I know, realpolitik and all that, but again, by those standards, any number of actions, protest or otherwise, would never occur because the threat of violence is too great. The responsibility for violence usually lies with the people inflicting it.

f you don't think it was shitty to take action that resulted in violence, then you're willing to tolerate the violence occurring. I'm not.

Okay, then we're at a crossroads. I don't think it's shitty to burn religious texts (or anything, really) at protests, I think the shittiness lies with the people inflicting violence.

OK, you've again missed the point. Where you draw the line is not relevant to this specific point.

You said to me that because I'm fine with protests, it necessarily should follow that I should also be fine with another specific action that takes place AT a protest.

The entire purpose of my bringing up assault was to show that that assumption is bogus. Being fine with protests does not necessitate being fine with whatever specific actions the protesters might do.

To the last part...well, yeah, I agree, being fine with protest doesn't mean being fine with absolutely any action taking place at said protest, that's probably true for most people. For instance, Just Stop Oil (for me) is a case of "good cause, bad tactics."

But as to what actions we may approve of, again, we're at a crossroads if I'm reading you right. You have a problem with this specific action (burning of the Quran), I don't. You think it was a shitty action, I don't. If that's the case, then I don't see either of us convincing the other.

"Facing down the bully" has quite different moral implications when other people pay the price.

That's highly debatable.

Bob bullies Ben. Ben stands up to Bob. Bob takes out his frustrations on Betty. That doesn't make Ben at fault, that makes Bob even more of an asshole.

But more importantly, in this specific situation...the moral implications? Okay, what ARE the moral implications of burning a book that leads to a group of protesters burning down an embassy in response. You're technically correct in that the Swedish government paid the price for the protest against the Iraqi government, but the ones morally at fault are the ones doing the rioting. Far as where I'm standing, the moral implications are clear - the people doing the rioting are at fault.

And "facing down the bully" loses its moral standing anyway when it involves bullying unrelated people who aren't bullies to begin with-- as this book-burning did.

News just in, protesting in front of an embassy is "bullyng" people.

Sorry, no. Just no. Again, crossroads. Peaceful protest isn't bullying, book burning isn't bullying, hurting people's religious sensitivies isn't bullying. It certainly can be, but not inherently.

If burning the Quran is "bulleying" in your view, well, fine, that's your view. It isn't mine. Also, bear in mind that Charlie Hebdo was a case where people doing the "bullying" DID pay the price.

 

[McElroy]

Nothing *should* result in violence, but that ain't the situation with which legislators have to deal. They have to deal with a situation in which violence does occur, and much of it is foreseeable and preventable, and they have a responsibility to minimise it.

Right wing populists agree and propose the most straightforward way to start dealing with it. Less immigration from those countries. The point of the book burning stunts is to show that there is a culture and attitude of violence that shouldn't be brought over.

Anyway I'm glad the thread is funnier again. I think the FIFA Women's World Cup having Aboriginal and Maori names next to the anglo ones at stadiums is a bit of harmless woke fun

 

[Casual Shinji]

Right wing populists agree and propose the most straightforward way to start dealing with it. Less immigration from those countries. The point of the book burning stunts is to show that there is a culture and attitude of violence that shouldn't be brought over.

Brought over? The vast majority that are targeted by these book burnings are people who were born and raised in Sweden and Denmark.

It actually kind of does since there is a legal concept of a proportional response. Burning a Holy Book - ANY Holy Book - is at the level of ‘dick move’. Yes it’s deliberately inflammatory - it’s kind of supposed to be - but unless you then hurled it at someone is essentially just an angry person burning their own money.

To respond to this with an assault on diplomatic property is grossly disproportionate in response. And beyond being illegal it just proves the book burner right, and I ask again: why the fuck do they want to that?

The point being is that it’s an action that should not result in violence at all ever. And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.

Has all this happened in the same country though? Have embassies and property in Sweden or Denmark been vandalized or set on fire as retaliation? Because so far this has only occured in Iraq. Not that that means it wasn't bad, but people in those countries generally have very few means of making themselves heard. Again, not that this isn't terrible, but the people there only really get attention from the West when they pull out the flamethrower.

There have been a lot of these Qu'ran burnings in european countries since the start of the 2000's, yet despite this being to prove who muslims are violent and have a violent culture, the actual muslim communities in these european countries have stayed largely silent, not doing anything - not burning Bibles in public or set fire to the churches, nothing.

 

[Hawki]

Anyway I'm glad the thread is funnier again. I think the FIFA Women's World Cup having Aboriginal and Maori names next to the anglo ones at stadiums is a bit of harmless woke fun

As someone who lives in Oz and has family in NZ, trust me, none of that is new. New Zealand is pretty bi-lingual in that you'll often have English and Maori names side by side. This is relatively true in Oz (though not to the same extent) as well. For instance, the ABC will often report along the lines of "coming from [city] on [group] Country." For for instance, Sydney is on "Garigal Country."

Is that "woke?" Not really, IMO - not in any serious way.