Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,168
420
88
Country
US
I'm just not sure why you seem to believe only one party can hold responsibility. If you take an action that you know will lead to an outcome, then you hold some responsibility for causing that outcome, regardless of whether there are additional steps or additional parties in between.
So where would you draw the line? If a given sort of protest is likely to lead to a given set of criminal actions causing harm to others or their property, how bad doe the latter need to be before you would want to limit, restrict or ban outright the protest? Homicide? Arson? Looting? Something else?

What's the mildest form of predictable consequence from a protest that should lead to restriction on it, does that change if it's people in line with the protest doing it or merely the opposition, etc?

If you want to argue for that then I guess we're repealing gay marriage because some god botherers are offended by it still.
If I'm grasping their view correctly then if it was common for protests supporting abortion rights to lead to a group of fundies shooting up an abortion clinic somewhere else then it should be illegal to protest for abortion rights. Except I don't think they'd support that view, because I suspect the Quran burner being a right winger and the religion offended being mostly non-white are carrying more of the weight in his expressed views than he's willing to admit.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,062
6,364
118
Country
United Kingdom
So where would you draw the line? If a given sort of protest is likely to lead to a given set of criminal actions causing harm to others or their property, how bad doe the latter need to be before you would want to limit, restrict or ban outright the protest? Homicide? Arson? Looting? Something else?

What's the mildest form of predictable consequence from a protest that should lead to restriction on it, does that change if it's people in line with the protest doing it or merely the opposition, etc?
I don't know where exactly I'd draw the lines, but the severity of the negative outcome is only one factor. Others would be the likelihood/ predictability of that outcome resulting from it, and the harm to liberty/free expression of banning it. Its a balancing act.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,036
3,032
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
View attachment 9403

There's my thread.

It might be because I have the Ecosia program installed in Google Chrome.

Fine. I'll take you at your word that you chose the Nazi one by happenstance as opposed to, say, Farenheit 451, which would be far more neutral in this case. I'll accept that your statement that the link at the end wasn't meant as a trump card, despite the fact that in most such debates, the trump card comes last, because a speech's greatest emphasis is usually at its end. I'll accept the notion that by linking an image to Nazis, you were in no way trying to insert them into the conversation. I'll even grant you the outright fact that if you do a word search, yes, I did say "Nazi" first in response to said image, so perhaps not every image is worth a thousand words.

Now, I find all of that highly skeptical, you italicized "really," you linked it to the image, you asked me whether defending book burning is a hill worth dying on in the context of said image, but sure. I'll take you at your word that all of that is coincidence.
Fahrenheit 451 is more neutral? It's critiquing the US culture wars. And when I mean wars here, I mean US conservatives also trying to burn anything they don't like (which is sometimes other conservatives). While the burning of book hasn't happened for a while, many books are banned. It's specifically aimed at people like Reagan, McCarthy and Trump. And that story goes crazier with the book burning than what the Nazis did

Perhaps a more neutral place would be Apartheid South Africa and all their book burning as I'm pretty sure we don't have many South Africans
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
View attachment 9403

There's my thread.

It might be because I have the Ecosia program installed in Google Chrome.

Fine. I'll take you at your word that you chose the Nazi one by happenstance as opposed to, say, Farenheit 451, which would be far more neutral in this case. I'll accept that your statement that the link at the end wasn't meant as a trump card, despite the fact that in most such debates, the trump card comes last, because a speech's greatest emphasis is usually at its end. I'll accept the notion that by linking an image to Nazis, you were in no way trying to insert them into the conversation. I'll even grant you the outright fact that if you do a word search, yes, I did say "Nazi" first in response to said image, so perhaps not every image is worth a thousand words.

Now, I find all of that highly skeptical, you italicized "really," you linked it to the image, you asked me whether defending book burning is a hill worth dying on in the context of said image, but sure. I'll take you at your word that all of that is coincidence.
...Gee, how very magnanimous of you to make a show of how you're still champing at the bit to call me a liar but simply don't have the wherewithal to prove it, even as you continue to make passive aggressive swipes at me.

More accurately, you ascribed significantly more meaning to my usage of the image and extrapolated from that an argument that I never made. Ie, you started with the premise that I must have gone out of my way to find an image relating to the Nazis, that this should not be a natural point of reference for me, that therefore I must have turned my nose up at what you believe should have been more readily available 'more neutral' examples, and thus concluded that my intended meaning could only have been "these people are literally Nazis because they're burning books", else I would not have used that image. In actuality, my meaning was "this echoes something very unfortunate that we generally recognize as as an action that on its own merit is not to be replicated" and used an easily recognizable and universally condemned example to illustrate that point that book burning is an otherwise despised practice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, book burning is pretty universally condemned as a bad thing on its own merit and, like it or not, the Nazis are probably the single most famous and recognizable example (with the "bibliocaust" - as Time termed it - of May 10, 1933 being especially notorious and striking in its preserved imagery). They certainly weren't the first, and they sadly weren't the last, but they're arguably the most easily recognized example of the act in history. Fuck's sake, the alternative you chastise me for not using is Farenheit 451, which was partially inspired by those same burnings. Heck, the man himself referenced them in the introduction (1967 edition): "I ate, drank, and slept books...It followed then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly, please forgive me, as his killing a human, for in the long sum of history they are one and the same flesh. Mind or body, put to the oven, it is a sinful practice, and I carried that with me."

Hell, the simple fact of the matter is that, as an American, the Nazis are my point of reference for book burnings. Were we guilty of book burnings ourselves in the throes of McCarthyism? Much to our enduring shame, yes. And the parallel is not lost on us, not then and not now. Actual quote from a contemporary memo in the State Department about the blacklists: "We cannot screen [for "Pro-Communist" books] without looking like a fool or a Nazi". Per the American Library Association: "The memory of fascism is keen in Europe and Europeans know that book burning marked the beginning of fascism in Italy and Germany". Per the New York Times in reference to the book burnings at Drake, North Dakota in 1973, " Book burning! Shades of Adolf Hitler and Fahrenheit 451!" Per Vonnegut: "Books are sacred to free men for very good reasons...Wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them". I don't know what it's like in Australia, but over here the Nazi's book burnings are the most familiar example and inevitable point of comparison, even before accounting for their increased familiarity through pop-culture. Moreover, they're what we'd expect to be a common point of reference on discussions and especially on an international board like this. Pretty much everyone knows about the book burnings under the Nazis. Not everyone would recognize the book burnings under Pinochet. They're the familiar example that we point to as an easily recognized intellectually repressive regime. We don't point to book burnings as bad because the Nazis did them, we highlight the book burnings the Nazis did as one of their their numerous atrocities, not dissimilar to how we point to ISIS destroying historical and cultural artifacts like the city of Nimrud as one of their atrocities.

Simply put, the reason that you find all of that highly skeptical is that you're still warping both my original point - such as it was - and my defense of it into something unrecognizable. I make an aside that burning books is a bad look and not a tactic worth defending, you infer that my intention is Reductio ad Hitlerum and therefore that the linked picture of a Nazi book burning must constitute an intended ringer that could adequately be expressed as "you know who else burnt books? Nazis" with the further assumption that I must be such a shit debater that I'd consider that a trump card. Or, as you put it a few posts prior, that my "entire moral paradigm seems to be that anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis, regardless of any actual context". That is not an argument I ever made, it's a fiction you conjured up because my choice of image upset you.

Similarly, my defense of my choice of image is not that it was pure coincidence, but rather that you have misunderstood my intention, exaggerated its scope beyond reason, and repeatedly insinuated that I must have posted with irrational malice and gone out of my way to do so. As I called you out on before when I asked you to leave the matter: "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". You characterizing my defense as claiming coincidence is more of the same; it's yet another strawman. I'm not claiming coincidence, I'm claiming that it was a top of my head connection that didn't - despite your insinuations - require deliberately ignoring more easily available alternatives, much less for the motives you assume must have led me to those actions you erroneously imagine I must have taken. I've repeatedly tried to explain my intent, but you won't hear it, instead insisting that I must be insinuating that book burners are being Nazis despite my repeated protests that my position was nothing of the sort.

You have done precious little else in these exchanges other than to try and paint me as one shade or another of irrational and necessarily wrong based on positions you assumed I must hold without ever so much as taking a step back to make sure you understood my point.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
...Gee, how very magnanimous of you to make a show of how you're still champing at the bit to call me a liar but simply don't have the wherewithal to prove it, even as you continue to make passive aggressive swipes at me.
I've already stated that I have to take you at your word. I have no means of proving anything because I don't know your own mind. What's hilarious is that you're fine with making insinuations about my motivations, but you get testy when you're subject to the same scrutiny.

More accurately, you ascribed significantly more meaning to my usage of the image and extrapolated from that an argument that I never made. Ie, you started with the premise that I must have gone out of my way to find an image relating to the Nazis, that this should not be a natural point of reference for me, that therefore I must have turned my nose up at what you believe should have been more readily available 'more neutral' examples, and thus concluded that my intended meaning could only have been "these people are literally Nazis because they're burning books", else I would not have used that image. In actuality, my meaning was "this echoes something very unfortunate that we generally recognize as as an action that on its own merit is not to be replicated" and used an easily recognizable and universally condemned example to illustrate that point that book burning is an otherwise despised practice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, book burning is pretty universally condemned as a bad thing on its own merit and, like it or not, the Nazis are probably the single most famous and recognizable example (with the "bibliocaust" - as Time termed it - of May 10, 1933 being especially notorious and striking in its preserved imagery). They certainly weren't the first, and they sadly weren't the last, but they're arguably the most easily recognized example of the act in history. Fuck's sake, the alternative you chastise me for not using is Farenheit 451, which was partially inspired by those same burnings. Heck, the man himself referenced them in the introduction (1967 edition): "I ate, drank, and slept books...It followed then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly, please forgive me, as his killing a human, for in the long sum of history they are one and the same flesh. Mind or body, put to the oven, it is a sinful practice, and I carried that with me."

Hell, the simple fact of the matter is that, as an American, the Nazis are my point of reference for book burnings. Were we guilty of book burnings ourselves in the throes of McCarthyism? Much to our enduring shame, yes. And the parallel is not lost on us, not then and not now. Actual quote from a contemporary memo in the State Department about the blacklists: "We cannot screen [for "Pro-Communist" books] without looking like a fool or a Nazi". Per the American Library Association: "The memory of fascism is keen in Europe and Europeans know that book burning marked the beginning of fascism in Italy and Germany". Per the New York Times in reference to the book burnings at Drake, North Dakota in 1973, " Book burning! Shades of Adolf Hitler and Fahrenheit 451!" Per Vonnegut: "Books are sacred to free men for very good reasons...Wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them". I don't know what it's like in Australia, but over here the Nazi's book burnings are the most familiar example and inevitable point of comparison, even before accounting for their increased familiarity through pop-culture. Moreover, they're what we'd expect to be a common point of reference on discussions and especially on an international board like this. Pretty much everyone knows about the book burnings under the Nazis. Not everyone would recognize the book burnings under Pinochet. They're the familiar example that we point to as an easily recognized intellectually repressive regime. We don't point to book burnings as bad because the Nazis did them, we highlight the book burnings the Nazis did as one of their their numerous atrocities, not dissimilar to how we point to ISIS destroying historical and cultural artifacts like the city of Nimrud as one of their atrocities.

Simply put, the reason that you find all of that highly skeptical is that you're still warping both my original point - such as it was - and my defense of it into something unrecognizable. I make an aside that burning books is a bad look and not a tactic worth defending, you infer that my intention is Reductio ad Hitlerum and therefore that the linked picture of a Nazi book burning must constitute an intended ringer that could adequately be expressed as "you know who else burnt books? Nazis" with the further assumption that I must be such a shit debater that I'd consider that a trump card. Or, as you put it a few posts prior, that my "entire moral paradigm seems to be that anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis, regardless of any actual context". That is not an argument I ever made, it's a fiction you conjured up because my choice of image upset you.

Similarly, my defense of my choice of image is not that it was pure coincidence, but rather that you have misunderstood my intention, exaggerated its scope beyond reason, and repeatedly insinuated that I must have posted with irrational malice and gone out of my way to do so. As I called you out on before when I asked you to leave the matter: "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". You characterizing my defense as claiming coincidence is more of the same; it's yet another strawman. I'm not claiming coincidence, I'm claiming that it was a top of my head connection that didn't - despite your insinuations - require deliberately ignoring more easily available alternatives, much less for the motives you assume must have led me to those actions you erroneously imagine I must have taken. I've repeatedly tried to explain my intent, but you won't hear it, instead insisting that I must be insinuating that book burners are being Nazis despite my repeated protests that my position was nothing of the sort.

You have done precious little else in these exchanges other than to try and paint me as one shade or another of irrational and necessarily wrong based on positions you assumed I must hold without ever so much as taking a step back to make sure you understood my point.
It's outright bizzare reading your post. One moment you said that the Nazi book burning was coincidental, just to illustrate book burning is bad, now you're giving an entire lecture on Nazi actions. So which is it? Are Nazis relevant or not? I've already stated that I'll take it at your word that the image was a coincidence, now you're still putting Nazis in the conversation.

Fine. I'll make this as simple as possible.

-Did the Nazis burn books? Yes.

-Are Nazi book burnings in the popular imagination? Yes.

-Did the fact that Nazis burnt books have any bearing on the man burning the Quran? No.

-Did the fact that Nazis, or anti-communists, or Pinochet, or whoever burn books have any bearing on the situation? No.

The only way that could be claimed is to throw any context out the window, in part because all of those events you cited were done by state actors. The bibliocaust, as Time calls it, happened after the Nazis took power, not before, and even if it did, you'd be comparing an entire party to one individual. If anyone has to be compared to Nazis, it would be the people storming the embassy.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I've already stated that I have to take you at your word. I have no means of proving anything because I don't know your own mind. What's hilarious is that you're fine with making insinuations about my motivations, but you get testy when you're subject to the same scrutiny.
Don't treat me like an idiot, Hawki. You quite clearly make the pretense of saying something as a rhetorical build up to the reason that you don't actually believe it.

Fine. I'll take you at your word that you chose the Nazi one by happenstance as opposed to, say, Farenheit 451, which would be far more neutral in this case. I'll accept that your statement that the link at the end wasn't meant as a trump card, despite the fact that in most such debates, the trump card comes last, because a speech's greatest emphasis is usually at its end. I'll accept the notion that by linking an image to Nazis, you were in no way trying to insert them into the conversation. I'll even grant you the outright fact that if you do a word search, yes, I did say "Nazi" first in response to said image, so perhaps not every image is worth a thousand words.
That reeks of sarcasm, and you know it.

It's outright bizzare reading your post. One moment you said that the Nazi book burning was coincidental, just to illustrate book burning is bad, now you're giving an entire lecture on Nazi actions. So which is it? Are Nazis relevant or not? I've already stated that I'll take it at your word that the image was a coincidence, now you're still putting Nazis in the conversation.
Again, I did not say it was coincidental, nor did I give you a lecture on Nazi actions. I explained why it was a readily familiar example. And you would know that if you had actually taken the time to read it rather than simply skimming for any instance of the word "Nazi" and then assuming you already knew the contents of my post.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Don't treat me like an idiot, Hawki. You quite clearly make the pretense of saying something as a rhetorical build up to the reason that you don't actually believe it.
What? I believe everything I said in that. Farenheit 451 is a more neutral image than Nazis.

FFS, have you even read Farenheit 451?

nor did I give you a lecture on Nazi actions.
YOU. JUST. DID.


I explained why it was a readily familiar example. And you would know that if you had actually taken the time to read it rather than simply skimming for any instance of the word "Nazi" and then assuming you already knew the contents of my post.
I read your post multiple times. It's a collection of historical facts that have no relevance to the subject at hand.


Here's an example of book burning. What relevance does it have to the topic? Nothing. Hence why I don't pluck out book burnings from history when they're not relevant.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
What? I believe everything I said in that. Farenheit 451 is a more neutral image than Nazis.

FFS, have you even read Farenheit 451?
Your invocation of Fahrenheit 451 is not the point I'm contesting. It's how the underlined section is clearly written to undermine the text that it follows.

Here, let me lay it out for you.

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll take you at your word that you chose the Nazi one by happenstance"
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "as opposed to, say, Farenheit 451, which would be far more neutral in this case".

"I'll say I believe you, despite believing that you'd have used a different example if that was true"

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll accept that your statement that the link at the end wasn't meant as a trump card"
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "despite the fact that in most such debates, the trump card comes last, because a speech's greatest emphasis is usually at its end"

"I'll say that I accept your position, despite believing that the structure gives me every reason to believe otherwise"

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll accept the notion that by linking an image to Nazis, you were in no way trying to insert them into the conversation. I'll even grant you the outright fact that if you do a word search, yes, I did say "Nazi" first in response to said image
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "so perhaps not every image is worth a thousand words"

"I'll say that I accept [my characterization of] your stated position, but I'll insist that if that is true then that would for some inexplicable reason make it an exception to adage"

It's the same pattern: "I'll say I believe this, despite believing that these reasons tell me that I clearly shouldn't"

I'm not calling foul on your invocation of Fahrenheit 451. What I'm calling foul on is that you're clearly employing false concessions a rhetorical lead-in to calling bullshit on the things you're pretending to concede.


YOU. JUST. DID.




I read your post multiple times. It's a collection of historical facts that have no relevance to the subject at hand.
You most certainly did not, else you would have known that was not a lecture on Nazi actions or a collection of historical facts, but rather a series of quotes showcasing a history of how other book burnings drew the same parallel over the decades. And that was used as a lead-in to explaining that "I don't know what it's like in Australia, but over here [in the States] the Nazi's book burnings are the most familiar example and inevitable point of comparison, even before accounting for their increased familiarity through pop-culture", explaining in turn why it was a natural comparison for me to make that did not require the motives you ascribed to me.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Your invocation of Fahrenheit 451 is not the point I'm contesting. It's how the underlined section is clearly written to undermine the text that it follows.

Here, let me lay it out for you.

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll take you at your word that you chose the Nazi one by happenstance"
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "as opposed to, say, Farenheit 451, which would be far more neutral in this case".

"I'll say I believe you, despite believing that you'd have used a different example if that was true"

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll accept that your statement that the link at the end wasn't meant as a trump card"
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "despite the fact that in most such debates, the trump card comes last, because a speech's greatest emphasis is usually at its end"

"I'll say that I accept your position, despite believing that the structure gives me every reason to believe otherwise"

Sarcastic Lead-In: "I'll accept the notion that by linking an image to Nazis, you were in no way trying to insert them into the conversation. I'll even grant you the outright fact that if you do a word search, yes, I did say "Nazi" first in response to said image
Reason You Don't Actually Believe It: "so perhaps not every image is worth a thousand words"

"I'll say that I accept [my characterization of] your stated position, but I'll insist that if that is true then that would for some inexplicable reason make it an exception to adage"

It's the same pattern: "I'll say I believe this, despite believing that these reasons tell me that I clearly shouldn't"

I'm not calling foul on your invocation of Fahrenheit 451. What I'm calling foul on is that you're clearly employing false concessions a rhetorical lead-in to calling bullshit on the things you're pretending to concede.
Oh God, are you still chewing on that bone?

Yes, thank you, for taking the time to point out the obvious and analyzing speech patterns. Very insightful. As I've already said, I can't prove it either way, because I have no way of reading your thoughts.

Look, what do you want? I'm happy to say I fully believe you, though that'll be a lie. If you want me to change my thoughts, that's an impossibility.

You most certainly did not, else you would have known that was not a lecture on Nazi actions or a collection of historical facts,
So I don't believe what you said, and you don't believe what I said. Wonderful.

but rather a series of quotes showcasing a history of how other book burnings drew the same parallel over the decades.
None of which have parallels to the actual book burning that occurred aside from the fact that books were burnt.

Saying books were burnt says very little by itself without the context.

And that was used as a lead-in to explaining that "I don't know what it's like in Australia, but over here [in the States] the Nazi's book burnings are the most familiar example and inevitable point of comparison, even before accounting for their increased familiarity through pop-culture", explaining in turn why it was a natural comparison for me to make that did not require the motives you ascribed to me.
You're perfectly willing to accuse me of ascribing motivations to you, while in the same paragraph, ascribing motivations to me.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Oh God, are you still chewing on that bone?

Yes, thank you, for taking the time to point out the obvious and analyzing speech patterns. Very insightful. As I've already said, I can't prove it either way, because I have no way of reading your thoughts.

Look, what do you want? I'm happy to say I fully believe you, though that'll be a lie. If you want me to change my thoughts, that's an impossibility.
Simply put: If you're offering an olive branch, offer an olive branch rather than pretending to do so as a pretext to make further snide insinuations that you then feign ignorance of making until their brazenness is laid too bare to deny and prompts you to switch to condescension over calling it out.

There's a profound difference between "This is going nowhere, and I think we both said things that we'll come to regret in time, so can we just call a truce?" and "I doubt a dolt like you is smart enough to know what a fool you're making of yourself, so why don't I just lie and say this was a draw? That should make you happy, right?" The former is an attempt to deescalate and end things relatively amicably. The latter makes a half-assed pretension of the former, but is really just another salvo that hardly even makes a token effort of hiding under the pretext of a white flag. So too is it with what I was responding to there. You fired another salvo under a token pretext of being conciliatory.

Never mind that I laid that out speech pattern as a direct response to you confusing my being irked at that rhetoric as me contesting your citation of Fahrenheit 451, functionally requiring that I further clarify the point lest I leave the misunderstanding hanging...which you just proceeded to mock me for doing.

So I don't believe what you said, and you don't believe what I said. Wonderful.
Rather, I called you out on the factual wrongness of what you said about my post.


None of which have parallels to the actual book burning that occurred aside from the fact that books were burnt.

Saying books were burnt says very little by itself without the context.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO! It's an explanation of a potential cultural difference that may have led to this spat between us in the first place. It's an attempt to deescalate by providing context about my perspectives and why certain examples are familiar to me that, in light of the assumptions you made about me and why I cited one such example, I reasoned were not shared by you.


You're perfectly willing to accuse me of ascribing motivations to you, while in the same paragraph, ascribing motivations to me.
...I'm increasingly uncertain that you know what that phrase means. To ascribe motivation is to speculate on the rationale employed in undertaking an action. And yes, I am not innocent of that, as I have accused you of lashing out because my image made you self-conscious, which is indeed ascribing motive to you.

It is not, however, something that is present in that paragraph you quote, nor is that paragraph a complaint that you ascribed motive at all. Rather, that paragraph first showcases a rather egregious factual error on your part that strongly implies that you didn't do more than skim the post in question and instead are making assumptions about its content that bear little-to-no resemblance to its actual content. It then goes on to state quite simply that the motivations you had been ascribing to me were incorrect and that my prior post had been to better explain my perspective and rectify that error.

What I'm trying to do is deescalate and end this tangent, ideally in a way that doesn't result in either of us bringing it back in by taking potshots at the other when talking to other users. But you are making that very difficult.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So you're happy to lie?
It's not exactly a lie if you preface that it's a lie beforehand.

Simply put: If you're offering an olive branch, offer an olive branch rather than using it as a pretext to make further snide insinuations that you then feign ignorance of until the brazenness of your insincerity is laid too bare to deny and prompts you to switch to condescension over calling it out.

There's a profound difference between "This is going nowhere, and I think we both said things that we'll come to regret in time, so can we just call a truce?" and "I doubt a dolt like you is smart enough to know what a fool you're making of yourself, so why don't I just lie and say this was a draw? That should make you happy, right?" The former is an attempt to deescalate and end things relatively amicably. The latter makes a half-assed pretension of the former, but is really just another salvo that hardly even makes a token effort of hiding under the pretext of a white flag. So too is it with what I was responding to here. Don't use an olive branch to offer further insult.
It's kind of telling that you criticize me of making snide insinuations in your first paragraph, then go on to make snide insinuations of your own in the second.

I'm really not interested in hashing things out further.

Never mind that I laid that out as such as a direct response to you confusing my being irked at that rhetoric as me contesting your citation of Fahrenheit 451, functionally requiring that I further clarify the point lest I leave the misunderstanding hanging...which you just proceeded to mock me for doing.
Again, you're doing everything yourself that you're accusing me of.

I say I read what you posted. You said I didn't.

Rather, I called you out on the factual wrongness of what you said about my post.
And I went over your post yet again and once again, you're describing the actions of the Nazis. Not exclusively, but largely.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO!
It's an explanation of a potential cultural difference that may have led to this spat between us in the first place. It's an attempt to deescalate by providing context about my perspectives and why certain examples are familiar to me that, in light of the assumptions you made about me and why I cited one such example, I reasoned were not shared by you.
First, I can assure you that whatever cultural differences exist between Australia and the United States, an understanding of the Nazis/WWII isn't one of them. Heck, I'd actually wager that most Australians would at least know the basics of McCarthyism - certainly I covered it in modern history.

Second, that's not the reason for the spat. I'd be happy to have let it go, but since that hasn't happened, here's the reason, as far as I can tell:

You posted a link to Nazis. I assumed that you were referring to Nazis directly. You've stated that it wasn't, that it's a point about book burning in general.

Fine. I'll accept that's the case.

...I'm increasingly uncertain that you know what that phrase means. To ascribe motivation is to speculate on the rationale employed in undertaking an action. And yes, I am not innocent of that, as I have accused you of lashing out because my image made you self-conscious, which is indeed ascribing motive to you.
Really? An image of Nazis makes me "self-conscious."

I mean, wow. Just, wow.

It is not, however, something that is present in that paragraph you quote, nor is that paragraph a complaint that you ascribed motive at all. Rather, that paragraph first showcases a rather egregious factual error on your part that strongly implies that you didn't do more than skim the post in question and instead are making assumptions about its content that bear little-to-no resemblance to its actual content. It then goes on to state quite simply that the motivations you had been ascribing to me were incorrect and that my prior post had been to better explain my perspective and rectify that error.

What I'm trying to do is deescalate and end this tangent, ideally in a way that doesn't result in either of us bringing it back in by taking potshots at the other when talking to other users. But you are making that very difficult.
Fine. Since you keep harping on it, I'm going to reply to your post piece by piece:

More accurately, you ascribed significantly more meaning to my usage of the image and extrapolated from that an argument that I never made. Ie, you started with the premise that I must have gone out of my way to find an image relating to the Nazis, that this should not be a natural point of reference for me, that therefore I must have turned my nose up at what you believe should have been more readily available 'more neutral' examples, and thus concluded that my intended meaning could only have been "these people are literally Nazis because they're burning books", else I would not have used that image. In actuality, my meaning was "this echoes something very unfortunate that we generally recognize as as an action that on its own merit is not to be replicated" and used an easily recognizable and universally condemned example to illustrate that point that book burning is an otherwise despised practice.
I'm honing in on this, because I disagree with the point more than anything else. I don't find this a credible train of thought, because I don't buy the idea that book burning echoes the Nazis (or any other group) ipso facto. It really depends on the context and intentions.

Not to put too fine a point on it, book burning is pretty universally condemned as a bad thing on its own merit
I agree in the abstract, but book burnings rarely occur in the abstract. Not the Quran burning, not the Nazi burnings, not anything.

and, like it or not, the Nazis are probably the single most famous and recognizable example (with the "bibliocaust" - as Time termed it - of May 10, 1933 being especially notorious and striking in its preserved imagery). They certainly weren't the first, and they sadly weren't the last, but they're arguably the most easily recognized example of the act in history.
That's likely true, but again, context.

For instance, I've already mentioned the Canadian book burning debacle, and as much as I despise it, it's silly to compare the burners to Nazis, image or otherwise. If I post an image of Nazis in response, my view is that I'm implicitly implying a link.

Fuck's sake, the alternative you chastise me for not using is Farenheit 451, which was partially inspired by those same burnings. Heck, the man himself referenced them in the introduction (1967 edition): "I ate, drank, and slept books...It followed then that when Hitler burned a book I felt it as keenly, please forgive me, as his killing a human, for in the long sum of history they are one and the same flesh. Mind or body, put to the oven, it is a sinful practice, and I carried that with me."
Farenheit 451 is a less charged example. You're asking me to look at an image of Nazi book burnings and not make any connection to the context of Nazi book burnings.

Not that the world of Farenheit 451 really applies to the Quran burning either, but it's less charged.

Hell, the simple fact of the matter is that, as an American, the Nazis are my point of reference for book burnings. Were we guilty of book burnings ourselves in the throes of McCarthyism? Much to our enduring shame, yes. And the parallel is not lost on us, not then and not now. Actual quote from a contemporary memo in the State Department about the blacklists: "We cannot screen [for "Pro-Communist" books] without looking like a fool or a Nazi". Per the American Library Association: "The memory of fascism is keen in Europe and Europeans know that book burning marked the beginning of fascism in Italy and Germany". Per the New York Times in reference to the book burnings at Drake, North Dakota in 1973, " Book burning! Shades of Adolf Hitler and Fahrenheit 451!" Per Vonnegut: "Books are sacred to free men for very good reasons...Wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them".
Yes, that's all true, how is any of it relevant to the Quran burning? A protest against Islam/Islamism/Iraq isn't facism, or communism, or censorship.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but over here the Nazi's book burnings are the most familiar example and inevitable point of comparison, even before accounting for their increased familiarity through pop-culture. Moreover, they're what we'd expect to be a common point of reference on discussions and especially on an international board like this.
If you mean a common frame of reference on discussions on book burning, then no, I don't agree. The reason is that the Nazis burnt books for specific reasons/under specific ideology, which is true of numerous book burnings. If I'm going to start making comparisons to Nazis, I'd want valid reasons to do so.

Pretty much everyone knows about the book burnings under the Nazis. Not everyone would recognize the book burnings under Pinochet. They're the familiar example that we point to as an easily recognized intellectually repressive regime. We don't point to book burnings as bad because the Nazis did them, we highlight the book burnings the Nazis did as one of their their numerous atrocities, not dissimilar to how we point to ISIS destroying historical and cultural artifacts like the city of Nimrud as one of their atrocities.
Yes, true, again, the Nazis comitted attrocities, their book burnings were one of those attrocities, I. KNOW. And because I know, that's why it's silly (in my mind) to use a Nazi book burning image in reference to the Quran burning, because they're not equivalent in intention or scale.

As for ISIS, yes, ISIS destroyed historical artifacts. I fully agree, that's an attrocity. If a far-right nutter destroyed a Quran from the 7th century, this may surprise you, but I'd also call that an attrocity. Whatever my thoughts on Islam, or religion in general, I would never advocate for the wholesale destruction of religious artifacts. The Quran in question, however, is not a religious artifact, it's one of millions of books in print, used in an act of protest by an individual who owned said Quran. It is not remotely applicable to compare that to ISIS destroying holy sites or Nazis burning books.

Simply put, the reason that you find all of that highly skeptical is that you're still warping both my original point - such as it was - and my defense of it into something unrecognizable. I make an aside that burning books is a bad look and not a tactic worth defending, you infer that my intention is Reductio ad Hitlerum and therefore that the linked picture of a Nazi book burning must constitute an intended ringer that could adequately be expressed as "you know who else burnt books? Nazis" with the further assumption that I must be such a shit debater that I'd consider that a trump card. Or, as you put it a few posts prior, that my "entire moral paradigm seems to be that anyone who burns a book must be like the Nazis, regardless of any actual context". That is not an argument I ever made, it's a fiction you conjured up because my choice of image upset you.

Similarly, my defense of my choice of image is not that it was pure coincidence, but rather that you have misunderstood my intention, exaggerated its scope beyond reason, and repeatedly insinuated that I must have posted with irrational malice and gone out of my way to do so. As I called you out on before when I asked you to leave the matter: "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". You characterizing my defense as claiming coincidence is more of the same; it's yet another strawman. I'm not claiming coincidence, I'm claiming that it was a top of my head connection that didn't - despite your insinuations - require deliberately ignoring more easily available alternatives, much less for the motives you assume must have led me to those actions you erroneously imagine I must have taken. I've repeatedly tried to explain my intent, but you won't hear it, instead insisting that I must be insinuating that book burners are being Nazis despite my repeated protests that my position was nothing of the sort.

You have done precious little else in these exchanges other than to try and paint me as one shade or another of irrational and necessarily wrong based on positions you assumed I must hold without ever so much as taking a step back to make sure you understood my point.
I'm going to respond to this as simply as possible:

-I disagree that book burning is inherently bad in of itself, it really depends on the context and intentions.

-I'm not upset that the Nazi image was used. I'm not even upset that you've claimed that Nazis are a moment of "self-reflection" for me (after Saelune and Revnak, I'm past caring). You can infer my emotions all you want.

-If the Nazis burning books is your top-of-the-head connection to anyone else burning books, fine. For me, they're not. Say "book burning" to me, and there's no specific image that comes to mind, because book burning has been done across time and cultures. Remember that Chinese link? We learnt about that as part of maths class way, WAY before we covered the Nazis for instance (or at least, a similar example in Chinese history, I can't remember all the details).
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,219
1,072
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Really? An image of Nazis makes me "self-conscious."

I mean, wow. Just, wow.
Self-conscious in that you presumed that my use of the image meant that I was calling the book burners Nazis and you are sympathetic to those book burnings. As such, I attributed your fixation on that as you feeling slighted, because if I had been calling those book burners Nazis (and again, I was not), that sympathy would in turn mean that by transitive property I must have been calling you a Nazi sympathizer. Hence, "self-conscious", which is loosely corroborated by your continued efforts to play "who's the real nazi", suggesting a much deeper emotional investment in that perceived characterization than if you had left it at simply questioning the applicability.

Never mind that you've been consistently making bizarre interpretations of my posts, up to and including taking potshots at my efforts to clarify how my intention differed from your interpretation, because you insist on instead treating that as me doubling down and trying to further the same argument that I was trying to explain that I wasn't making.

Case in point, in this very post:

Yes, that's all true, how is any of it relevant to the Quran burning? A protest against Islam/Islamism/Iraq isn't facism, or communism, or censorship.
You're still trying to interpret what I posted as me saying that burning a Quran constitutes Naziism rather than my elaboration of how "As an American, the Nazis are my point of reference for book burnings" to explain why I didn't give my choice of image a second thought. I'm not trying to pitch those quotes as relevant to Quran burning. I'm using those quotes to explain the cultural background I grew up in.

If you mean a common frame of reference on discussions on book burning, then no, I don't agree. The reason is that the Nazis burnt books for specific reasons/under specific ideology, which is true of numerous book burnings. If I'm going to start making comparisons to Nazis, I'd want valid reasons to do so.
...You don't have to agree. That's me talking about an assumption that I initially made before this all started. It's once again me trying to clarify why something happened rather than trying to push an argument.

Yes, true, again, the Nazis comitted attrocities, their book burnings were one of those attrocities, I. KNOW. And because I know, that's why it's silly (in my mind) to use a Nazi book burning image in reference to the Quran burning, because they're not equivalent in intention or scale.

As for ISIS, yes, ISIS destroyed historical artifacts. I fully agree, that's an attrocity. If a far-right nutter destroyed a Quran from the 7th century, this may surprise you, but I'd also call that an attrocity. Whatever my thoughts on Islam, or religion in general, I would never advocate for the wholesale destruction of religious artifacts. The Quran in question, however, is not a religious artifact, it's one of millions of books in print, used in an act of protest by an individual who owned said Quran. It is not remotely applicable to compare that to ISIS destroying holy sites or Nazis burning books.
...Ok, first of all, I feel obliged to point out that "it's one of millions of books in print, used in an act of protest" applies just as well to the example you're contesting. The books they burned were largely not sole or original copies. They were largely popular and widely circulated books like A Farewell to Arms, All Quiet on the Western Front (a bestseller at the time), the Time Machine, and How I Became a Socialist (Helen Keller). And they were burned as an act of protest against the people and the views they expressed, such as a 'literary betrayal of the soldiers of the world war' in All Quiet on the Western Front. So that is a very poor choice of things to quibble over.

Second, that is once again not the point. The point is that whereas your argument largely boils down to you assuming that I must have been trying for some kind of guilt by association fallacy to the effect of something akin to "you know who else burned books, the Nazis!", it's closer to the opposite. Rather than it being "bad because the Nazis did it", the Nazis doing it was one of the many reasons that the Nazis were bad.

-If the Nazis burning books is your top-of-the-head connection to anyone else burning books, fine. For me, they're not. Say "book burning" to me, and there's no specific image that comes to mind, because book burning has been done across time and cultures. Remember that Chinese link? We learnt about that as part of maths class way, WAY before we covered the Nazis for instance (or at least, a similar example in Chinese history, I can't remember all the details).
And that's fine. What I'm asking is that you stop trying to pick a fight with me over it and taking potshots at me for it. Recall, this spat was revived because you couldn't resist taking another shot at me with "It's on the same level as the nonsense Asita pulled with "you know who else burnt books? Nazis!" As if that's meant to be some kind of trump card." and I asked you to stop doing that and defended myself as not having made that argument.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,608
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.



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.



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?



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.
And your proof that lockdowns did any of that? That's what I've been asking for forever yet nothing but crickets.

Remdesivir was in use well before a trial showed it did anything beneficial. Yet IVM was demonized and had the same exact level of evidence while also being a known drug with a known safety profile that remdesivir didn't have.

There was a solid chuck of time when remdesivir had no data supporting its use and was being used, which you said didn't happen.

What arguments was he making that were way off that nobody with ID knowledge would justify? You just say things without giving an proof of any of it happening.


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.



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.



"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'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.
The CDC literally says not to test yourself with a rapid test unless you have symptoms.

To me, covid and the flu have about the same length. I don't even feel like looking up whatever the current covid recommendations are as they constantly change, I know it used to be 10 days and that was ridiculously too long. If you don't know when you're no longer contagious with something, that's kinda on you. I can tell with any cold when I reach that point where my body has "won the war" and then just draining everything left over out. I don't go out and do stuff until I reach that point with any cold. How is this some strawman, I'm literally just describing what I do when I get sick with anything, I couldn't care less if it's a head cold or flu or covid or whatever.

Nothing against gathering data. But when gathering that data requires massive resources that can go to other things that are far more beneficial, it makes no sense to gather that data. It's just like to find out how many people watched the Super Bowl, you don't need to literally ask everyone, you ask a sample of people. You know like how they did covid antibody surveys to find out how much covid infections there actually were, far more effective than some massive testing program that missed at least 90% of cases. How much more did you want to dedicate to testing? There was already a massive amount that went towards that and still only found 10% of cases.

Again, why did infectious disease experts and public health experts recommend things that weren't based in any kind of science, which lead to presidents, governors, mayors enacting policies that made no scientific sense?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,608
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Color me completely shocked when anti-police rhetoric (BLM) rhetoric leads to crime going up. Let's make people think cops are bad and not needed because that's making things better!!! Then, you're completely shocked when nobody wants to be a cop anymore resulting in the not nearly enough cops and it takes at best 45mins for a cop to come when you need them.

"Failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police, our District Attorney's unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes, and the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric have created a heyday for Oakland criminals," said the statement from branch president Cynthia Adams and The Rev. Bob Jackson of Acts Full Gospel Church. "If there are no consequences for committing crime in Oakland, crime will continue to soar."

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,062
6,364
118
Country
United Kingdom
The CDC literally says not to test yourself with a rapid test unless you have symptoms.
So? That's guidance.

To me, covid and the flu have about the same length.
OK. But in reality they don't, and the isolation periods are different. And several of the symptoms are shared with the common cold, which doesn't require isolation at all in a lot of cases.

Nothing against gathering data. But when gathering that data requires massive resources that can go to other things that are far more beneficial, it makes no sense to gather that data.
Hmmmm. Gathering data isn't the sole reason for testing, so this is irrelevant. Besides, this is something you seem to say about any proposed measure. If every measure isn't worth the money, you presumably just think the government shouldn't bother to invest in public health.

Again, why did infectious disease experts and public health experts recommend things that weren't based in any kind of science, which lead to presidents, governors, mayors enacting policies that made no scientific sense?
They didn't.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
Yes, but all this is just generalised description of the situation, and doesn't tie it back to (what seemed to be) your original position. Earlier you implied that efforts to censor the Nazis were counterproductive and ended up helping them, and that seemed to be part of an argument that we should not censor or crack down on extremists.
Yes, and there's no contradiction there. Censorship is not an effective means to combat extremism or the rise of extremism. It has never worked, because extremists weaponize the very act to play victim and thereby spread their message further. What does, is as I stated by anteing into this sub-thread, solving for the sociopolitical conditions that trigger the rise of extremism.



So what lessons are you trying to transpose to today? That because efforts to crack down on Hitler failed, authorities should have indulged him even more/ should indulge extremists today?
That's a false dichotomy and you're entirely aware of it. And, speaking to the broader point, this is EXACTLY the problem -- you seem to believe that any position short of supporting censorship of a viewpoint, is endorsement.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
And your proof that lockdowns did any of that? That's what I've been asking for forever yet nothing but crickets.
So you ARE arguing lockdown had no benefits at all, despite your prior denial that you weren't arguing that? Make your mind up.

Remdesivir was in use well before a trial showed it did anything beneficial... There was a solid chuck of time when remdesivir had no data supporting its use and was being used, which you said didn't happen.
Remdesivir was given an emergency authorisation in the USA in May 2020 based on preliminary clinical trial data (although the clinical trials were not fully published until months later). Under the circumstances, this was not unreasonable. Likewise, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many other things were also used for treatment of covid, based on little more than rainbows and unicorns.

What arguments was he making that were way off that nobody with ID knowledge would justify?
Er, you mean like him claiming no kids without pre-existing conditions died of covid, despite published reports of kids without pre-existing conditions dying of covid in both the medical / scientific literature and mainstream media?

You just say things without giving an proof of any of it happening.
I have already provided a source setting out the case in considerable detail. So did you not trouble yourself to read it, or do you have a memory that would flatter a goldfish?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,062
6,364
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, and there's no contradiction there. Censorship is not an effective means to combat extremism or the rise of extremism. It has never worked, because extremists weaponize the very act to play victim and thereby spread their message further. What does, is as I stated by anteing into this sub-thread, solving for the sociopolitical conditions that trigger the rise of extremism.
OK, but in that case, the Nazis are a terrible example to invoke since they were endlessly indulged and handled with kid-gloves by the authorities. The weak, half-assed 'censorship' came after they had already tried to seize power by force, and we all seem to agree that the government should have taken /stronger/ measures at that point.

That's a false dichotomy and you're entirely aware of it. And, speaking to the broader point, this is EXACTLY the problem -- you seem to believe that any position short of supporting censorship of a viewpoint, is endorsement.
No, because indulgence is not endorsement. It can be strategic (albeit wrongheaded). A belief that we should let inciters do whatever they want is not endorsement, but I'd call it indulgence.
 
Last edited:

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,919
864
118
Country
United States

TLDR: Korean fans of Genshin attacked/disliked Genshin's video about a Genshin French character because they created a femboy, and there were now more male characters in Sumeru. Which I don't care about since A that's what makes Genshin good because of the diversity of characters. And it's funny my favorite characters in the game which I mainly are XQ, and Kazuha. But the thing that ticked me off was Western (American) liberals going around with a holy than thou morality policing on that video arguing Korean men were incels. ***** get out of here, most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, have no healthcare, and have work hours as crazy as the Japanese. You know what's worse than an incel. Having no healthcare, living in a country that thinks a billionaire wannabe (Obama) was a good president when he likely lead to hundreds of millions of climate deaths via climate inaction in the future unless we fucking terraform the planet(liberals). I am not even going to mention Iraq, Afgastainstan, Brexit, Coal in Australia and fucking Alberta oil sands, and NZ real estate barons that will one-day rival hong kong real estate barons. Why don't these so-called liberals who only virtue signal about LGTBQ rights distract us from having a real conversation on economic issues like healthcare, and taxes on the rich. Or even just climate change which will kill hundreds of millions of brown people who they purport to care about.

So before the personal attacks come from angry liberals. One I did vote for Shillary, and Biden, two I make much more than the average wage in my country, and state with my side hustles, and a job, three I do support the Ukrainians, four I have healthcare, I used to rent, but now I am the sole breadwinner, five I don't have any kids, and six I have had a girlfriend but I broke up with her.