Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
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?
This simply isn't true. Rapid tests right now can allow you to show a positive result after exposure but before symptom onset. They have been around for a long time.

Why is infecting people with the flu OK? I've always stayed home when contagious because what's the point of getting others sick?
Nice strawman, true to form!

Infecting people with the flu isn't OK. But the recommended isolation period for influenza is ~half as long as for Covid. It's clearly important to know which one you've got, for myriad reasons.

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.
"Scientists shouldn't bother to gain what data they can, and should use more guesswork". After you've previously denigrated scientists for having inaccurate predictions.

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.
I'm implying you don't know the difference between science and policy, because you initially asked me, "If the science showed X, then why did we pursue Y policy?"

If you know the difference between science and policy, then that question is inane.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
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's been a troubled state since day 1, that cycle began long ago. You can attribute that to Western imperialism (partition of India)...
Just, so long as we ignore the US aided anti-PDPA rebels before the Soviets invaded with the specific intent of provoking Soviet invasion, and the Soviets prior to Taraki's ouster and death withheld aid to the PDPA on the basis of its human rights record. What changed the Soviets' mind was Amin's peaceful overtures towards Pakistan and offer to recognize the Durand Line, not out of attempts to align to the US as the Soviets feared but rather self-interest.

...just as you can attribute that to Islamism.
Just, so long as we ignore that every other pan-Arab, pan-Islamic, and anti-colonialist ideology was systemically destroyed by Western imperial powers over the course of a century, usually by aiding, funding, and training Islamist movements against them. All the way from post-Ottoman Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism, to Nasserism and Ba'athism in the Cold War.

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.
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.

How does any of that negate Hamas's actions and goals in the present day?
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.

I actually agree that the Ughyr situation is more serious than Quran burning, but that's not a good card to play.
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. 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.

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.

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.
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Yes, everybody else is really showing their true colours by... uhrm, not chiming in about the Uyghur genocide in this argument between you and Hawki about a book burning in Iraq and Danish government policy about it. You sure got us.

On a side note, I remember when Seanchaidh was arguing at length that we had no evidence of genocide/ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs in China and it was just re-education as the gov claimed. T'was those you like to call the 'Usual Suspects' arguing against him, and you were mostly absent.

Of course, it's pretty facile to blame someone for not being involved in a conversation, but if you really want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,496
3,698
118
Yes, everybody else is really showing their true colours by... uhrm, not chiming in about the Uyghur genocide in this argument between you and Hawki about a book burning in Iraq and Danish government policy about it. You sure got us.

On a side note, I remember when Seanchaidh was arguing at length that we had no evidence of genocide/ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs in China and it was just re-education as the gov claimed. T'was those you like to call the 'Usual Suspects' arguing against him, and you were mostly absent.

Of course, it's pretty facile to blame someone for not being involved in a conversation, but if you really want to.
I also recall said Usual Suspects all jumping into a conversation about why Africa is turning away from the IMF to say "but the Uyghurs!", so certainly, said people can jump into a conversation about it... if it's a conversation about money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
I also recall said Usual Suspects all jumping into a conversation about why Africa is turning away from the IMF to say "but the Uyghurs!", so certainly, said people can jump into a conversation about it... if it's a conversation about money.
As i recall, there was a conversation about African governments relying more on China for investment than the IMF in recent times. And a few people pointed to this in an effort to whitewash their record of abuse.

In much the same way that other people will point to foreign aid from Western nations to deflect from abuses committed by them.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,496
3,698
118
As i recall, there was a conversation about African governments relying more on China for investment than the IMF in recent times. And a few people pointed to this in an effort to whitewash their record of abuse.

In much the same way that other people will point to foreign aid from Western nations to deflect from abuses committed by them.
I don't remember that, I do remember that trying to point out any instance of western imperialism against Africa was met with "but Uyghurs" even if someone wanted to talk just about Africa and their situation since that's all that was relevant.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't remember that, I do remember that trying to point out any instance of western imperialism against Africa was met with "but Uyghurs" even if someone wanted to talk just about Africa and their situation since that's all that was relevant.
OK. Not really sure what the point or relevance of all this is.

Eac insinuated that the fact people weren't talking about the Uyghurs in this thread cast them in a bad light. It was relevant to respond that in the past, when the conversation actually was about the Uyghurs and someone was denying the genocide, the people he's accusing were quite vocal and he was quiet. Its... not relevant to any of that to reply, 'ah but some people used deflections in that conversation'.
 
Last edited:

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,496
3,698
118
OK. Not really sure what the point of this all is. Why get annoyed now about some deflections people used on the forum many months ago?
To point out Eac is right in this instance.

EDIT: The previous conversation wasn't about the Uyghurs until people made it about that. The previous conversation was about China getting an economic foothold in Africa.
 
Last edited:

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,656
841
118
Country
Sweden
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.
You thought the response from the governments of Sweden and Denmark was funny?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
To point out Eac is right in this instance.
So you think it reflects badly on people that they weren't talking about the Uyghurs in this conversation about an Iraqi citizen burning a book and the Danish government passing a law. Because that's what's being disputed here.

You also weren't talking about the Uyghurs. Does it reflect badly on you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,496
3,698
118
So you think it reflects badly on people that they weren't talking about the Uyghurs in this conversation about an Iraqi citizen burning a book and the Danish government passing a law. Because that's what's being disputed here.

You also weren't talking about the Uyghurs. Does it reflect badly on you?
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Then tell Eac, who was the one who injected it into this conversation. He brought it up.

I can only apologise for failing to comment on the Uyghurs between 12:55 today (when he first brought the Uyghurs up) and 16:57 (when he said that it was "odd" how quiet the "Usual Suspects" were being on the topic). I didn't notice that the topic had changed so dramatically to include them in those 4 hours. I'm certainly at fault for failing to spring into action and tackle the thorny social issues during that time. I've been busy with moving home, but that's no excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
Yes, everybody else is really showing their true colours by... uhrm, not chiming in about the Uyghur genocide in this argument between you and Hawki about a book burning in Iraq and Danish government policy about it. You sure got us.
I meant the Breadtube and Breadtube-adjacent neoliberals-posing-as-progressives social media sphere, and mainstream media outlets. Lest we forget that for some reason, between the years 2017-2021, the whole Uyghur genocide thing was a right-wing conspiracy theory/whataboutism/sinophobia meant to distract us from the shenanigans of certain people in the White House. It didn't help the only people at the time who wouldn't shut up about it were exactly the kind of shithead who'd use the issue for that purpose, but bad people having a point for once doesn't mean the point itself isn't valid.

But if you want to make it about forum vendettas about threads in which I didn't post or at times I wasn't even visiting the forums regularly, be my guest.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
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.
Then it's sort of odd you're siding with Eac, because 90% of the contents posts are generalised rants about the state of the world as he see it almost completely untethered to the dialogue being conducted. It's like to trying to have a conversation with a guy on a soapbox shouting to a crowd of listeners: you can talk to him but he's not really talking to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,496
3,698
118
Then it's sort of odd you're siding with Eac, because 90% of the contents posts are generalised rants about the state of the world as he see it almost completely untethered to the dialogue being conducted. It's like to trying to have a conversation with a guy on a soapbox shouting to a crowd of listeners: you can talk to him but he's not really talking to you.
To an extent I agree, but I read his posts as having a lot of context to a given situation and showing nuance that is lost in a given topic.

Conveyed in a yelly and abrasive way.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
I meant the Breadtube and Breadtube-adjacent neoliberals-posing-as-progressives social media sphere, and mainstream media outlets. Lest we forget that for some reason, between the years 2017-2021, the whole Uyghur genocide thing was a right-wing conspiracy theory/whataboutism/sinophobia meant to distract us from the shenanigans of certain people in the White House. It didn't help the only people at the time who wouldn't shut up about it were exactly the kind of shithead who'd use the issue for that purpose, but bad people having a point for once doesn't mean the point itself isn't valid.
Ahh. I haven't had much exposure to that POV, thankfully, but it sounds like bollocks. I'll chalk them up alongside the tankies who dismissed any sign of ethnic cleansing as just State Dept propaganda, as twats with zero genuine concern apart from how the incident can be weaponised.

But if you want to make it about forum vendettas about threads in which I didn't post or at times I wasn't even visiting the forums regularly, be my guest.
If that wasn't your intention, apologies, though I could've sworn you've used 'the usual suspects' to refer to an amorphous group of forumites in the past.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
Then it's sort of odd you're siding with Eac, because 90% of the contents posts are generalised rants about the state of the world as he see it almost completely untethered to the dialogue being conducted. It's like to trying to have a conversation with a guy on a soapbox shouting to a crowd of listeners: you can talk to him but he's not really talking to you.
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.

Ahh. I haven't had much exposure to that POV, thankfully, but it sounds like bollocks. I'll chalk them up alongside the tankies who dismissed any sign of ethnic cleansing as just State Dept propaganda, as twats with zero genuine concern apart from how the incident can be weaponised.
You're better off for having not. They and their opinions are generally absolute dogshit. The problem is they tend to have undue influence in quasi-leftist and neoliberal spheres due to the size of their platforms and can't really be ignored for that reason, because they dress up neoliberal positions in superficially progressive and identarian theatrics. They also tend to pied piper viewers into comfortably impotent positions, or accept otherwise unacceptable policy arguments.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,176
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
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.

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.
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.

This is naive or dishonest, as above.
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.

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?
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?

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.
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.

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...".
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:


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.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
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:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Casual Shinji

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,057
3,042
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I meant the Breadtube and Breadtube-adjacent neoliberals-posing-as-progressives social media sphere, and mainstream media outlets. Lest we forget that for some reason, between the years 2017-2021, the whole Uyghur genocide thing was a right-wing conspiracy theory/whataboutism/sinophobia meant to distract us from the shenanigans of certain people in the White House. It didn't help the only people at the time who wouldn't shut up about it were exactly the kind of shithead who'd use the issue for that purpose, but bad people having a point for once doesn't mean the point itself isn't valid.

But if you want to make it about forum vendettas about threads in which I didn't post or at times I wasn't even visiting the forums regularly, be my guest.
What is this nonsense?

Bread tube definitely critised China. Many times. They also were debunking some of the made up things the right wing was saying. That doesn't mean they like what China is doing

It's like when someone debunks Phoenixmgs' nonsense about Covid. Just because you debunk something, does not mean you believe everything Fauci said.

Arguments aren't on/off switch. Or connected. They can be seperate. You can disagree with China AND right-wing conspiracy. You can disagree with Fauci AND right-wing conspiracies.

Many conspiracies were made up. They are making up these conspiracies to make you act a certain way. Just because you are wrong, does not make China right. It doesn't work like that