"Slacktivism" and "Je Suis Charlie"

[__Big_D__]

Ironic to say this in a freedom of speech thread.

Besides I think you are on the fundies side on some big issues, since woman should not vote and all that.

Oh and je suis stands "I am" not "we are". The French are picky with that verb conjugation shit.

Lol.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Did you read my post or just the part you quoted?

The first paragraph of the wikipedia page for that book says it discusses a coup where the Prime minister was overthrown by Islamists, and described the US's role as supporting. Anyway books are poor sources as they are not peer reviewed even to the pathetic degree wikipedia is.

You claimed that the CIA radicalized Afghanistan, no?

Insisting that metaphorical language (which is by definition just broad analogies) is the truth does not move the argument forward.

Would you prefer to go back to the Iraq war? Do you actually think a history professor who summarizes the war as being a response to 911 is accurately describing history to his students? Versus say a claim that it happened as a result of an incorrect claim about wmd's?

You can stick to your view that the US was just supporting the coup, but I disagree. It was organised by Kermit Roosevelt Jr under the name 'Operation Ajax' after the British convinced the US to carry out the coup. The idea that the US just played a supporting role is historically incorrect.

"You claimed that the CIA radicalized Afghanistan, no?"
Yes. Everything else you just made assumptions about.

"Would you prefer to go back to the Iraq war?"
I wouldn't want to go back to any war. Although the middle east certainly seemed to be more stable before the Iraq war.

"Do you actually think a history professor who summarizes the war as being a response to 911 is accurately describing history to his students? Versus say a claim that it happened as a result of an incorrect claim about wmd's?"
I have no idea about this history professor.. I posted a link in a previous post showing many prominent US politicians including the president making links to 9/11 attacks and Iraq. But yes we all know the official reason was WMD. If the 9/11 attacks never happened would the Iraq war still have happened? Would the public and other countries be as quick to back the decision to go to war? We can discuss this for the next 100 years but we won't get anywhere. The only people who really know why the US wanted to invade Iraq aren't going to give us their insights into this.

But anyway, this is going way off topic for this thread!

 

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Well, wearing that poppy usually means you have actually paid for the poppy, which does help the veterans. We call it Remembrance Day here in Canada and to get a poppy you usually must pay a quarter, though people often give much more. I usually put around $100 in to get mine.

Here in the US they (used) to hand them out for free. My mistake re: the Canadian tradition.

 

[James Keith]

You can stick to your view that the US was just supporting the coup, but I disagree. It was organised by Kermit Roosevelt Jr under the name 'Operation Ajax' after the British convinced the US to carry out the coup. The idea that the US just played a supporting role is historically incorrect.

"You claimed that the CIA radicalized Afghanistan, no?"
Yes. Everything else you just made assumptions about.

"Would you prefer to go back to the Iraq war?"
I wouldn't want to go back to any war. Although the middle east certainly seemed to be more stable before the Iraq war.

"Do you actually think a history professor who summarizes the war as being a response to 911 is accurately describing history to his students? Versus say a claim that it happened as a result of an incorrect claim about wmd's?"
I have no idea about this history professor.. I posted a link in a previous post showing many prominent US politicians including the president making links to 9/11 attacks and Iraq. But yes we all know the official reason was WMD. If the 9/11 attacks never happened would the Iraq war still have happened? Would the public and other countries be as quick to back the decision to go to war? We can discuss this for the next 100 years but we won't get anywhere. The only people who really know why the US wanted to invade Iraq aren't going to give us their insights into this.

But anyway, this is going way off topic for this thread!

My view? That was the view of the wikipedia entry for your book.

You also claimed the CIA overthrew governments. Rather than just sweeping accusations of assumptions as to what you believe, how about listing one?

And if Bush isn't the one who can answer your questions about Iraq then who is?

 

[Shoemaker]

Dude has to be a little impressed with himself. Those hipsters got him better branding than he ever could have by himself. Too bad they were a few years too late.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

My view? That was the view of the wikipedia entry for your book.

You also claimed the CIA overthrew governments. Rather than just sweeping accusations of assumptions as to what you believe, how about listing one?

And if Bush isn't the one who can answer your questions about Iraq then who is?

I don't need to use wikipedia, I read the book. However if you must use wikipedia, looking at the entry for the book it states: "The Dwight D. Eisenhower administration agreed with the Churchill government to restore the pro-western Shah to power. In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 arranged a coup in Tehran".
'Arranging a coup' is a a bit different than just 'supporting a coup'.

"You also claimed the CIA overthrew governments"
I only mentioned Iran. But it's hardly news that the CIA has been involved in overthrowing governments and propping up dictatorships around the world.

And Bush could mostly likely answer the question about the real reasons for going to war with Iraq, but lets not play dumb, we all know that what politicians say to the public is not always the same as what goes on behind closed doors. There was no real threat from Iraq and the weapons inspectors could have carried on working in Iraq (even Hans Blix said he wanted to continuing with the inspections), but the US almost seemed desperate to start a war.

 

[Plissken]

A point I wanted to make a while ago:
They wouldn't be saying I am Westboro had the Westboro trolls been slain (a group that similarly trolls without an ounce of taste but does not deserve any more than a collective punch in the gut). Some lives are more sacred to the internet bunch than others, and slacktivists feed on emotion and what makes them feel better about themselves (hence the Kony campaign and others fueled by emotion without reading up on the subject matter).
Westboro mocks/trolls gays and various other Americans and so they'd gain no sympathy despite the hypothetical situation being similar, meanwhile Charlie Hebdo mocked/trolled religious figures (who are not considered hip or sacred, even the mocking of Jews in the publication [which has been whitewashed and rarely reported] hasn't been a problem due to the increased criticism of Israel). and mocking/trolling of government authority figures (ones which most of these slacktivists do not know of and have no political attachment to).
I have no problem with people fighting for free speech or sympathizing with those killed, but these types (and unfortunately the general public as well) jump from what has unfortunately become fad tragedy to fad tragedy and forget the lives effected and there's a definite picking and choosing of what they are "effected" by. They've already forgotten the vast number of people effected by ebola in Africa because there have been no more cases here where they live.

 

[Shoemaker]

A point I wanted to make a while ago:
They wouldn't be saying I am Westboro had the Westboro trolls been slain (a group that similarly trolls without an ounce of taste but does not deserve any more than a collective punch in the gut). Some lives are more sacred to the internet bunch than others, and slacktivists feed on emotion and what makes them feel better about themselves (hence the Kony campaign and others fueled by emotion without reading up on the subject matter).
Westboro mocks/trolls gays and various other Americans and so they'd gain no sympathy despite the hypothetical situation being similar, meanwhile Charlie Hebdo mocked/trolled religious figures (who are not considered hip or sacred, even the mocking of Jews in the publication [which has been whitewashed and rarely reported] hasn't been a problem due to the increased criticism of Israel). and mocking/trolling of government authority figures (ones which most of these slacktivists do not know of and have no political attachment to).
I have no problem with people fighting for free speech or sympathizing with those killed, but these types (and unfortunately the general public as well) jump from what has unfortunately become fad tragedy to fad tragedy and forget the lives effected and there's a definite picking and choosing of what they are "effected" by. They've already forgotten the vast number of people effected by ebola in Africa because there have been no more cases here where they live.

Good post. I could actually see myself blaming the victim in that situation. Which would be wrong.

 

[James Keith]

A point I wanted to make a while ago:
They wouldn't be saying I am Westboro had the Westboro trolls been slain (a group that similarly trolls without an ounce of taste but does not deserve any more than a collective punch in the gut). Some lives are more sacred to the internet bunch than others, and slacktivists feed on emotion and what makes them feel better about themselves (hence the Kony campaign and others fueled by emotion without reading up on the subject matter).
Westboro mocks/trolls gays and various other Americans and so they'd gain no sympathy despite the hypothetical situation being similar, meanwhile Charlie Hebdo mocked/trolled religious figures (who are not considered hip or sacred, even the mocking of Jews in the publication [which has been whitewashed and rarely reported] hasn't been a problem due to the increased criticism of Israel). and mocking/trolling of government authority figures (ones which most of these slacktivists do not know of and have no political attachment to).

Note that most people who are disgusted at westboro aren't actually gay, so would be impartial as they aren't muslim either. but I get you point it's about violating taboos. However it's not our fault muslims are so hypersensitive they see satirists as worse than we see the pinnacle of western trolls. Maybe if the muslim world stopped outlawing and murdering critics they'd grow thicker skins.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

A point I wanted to make a while ago:
They wouldn't be saying I am Westboro had the Westboro trolls been slain (a group that similarly trolls without an ounce of taste but does not deserve any more than a collective punch in the gut). Some lives are more sacred to the internet bunch than others, and slacktivists feed on emotion and what makes them feel better about themselves (hence the Kony campaign and others fueled by emotion without reading up on the subject matter).
Westboro mocks/trolls gays and various other Americans and so they'd gain no sympathy despite the hypothetical situation being similar, meanwhile Charlie Hebdo mocked/trolled religious figures (who are not considered hip or sacred, even the mocking of Jews in the publication [which has been whitewashed and rarely reported] hasn't been a problem due to the increased criticism of Israel). and mocking/trolling of government authority figures (ones which most of these slacktivists do not know of and have no political attachment to).
I have no problem with people fighting for free speech or sympathizing with those killed, but these types (and unfortunately the general public as well) jump from what has unfortunately become fad tragedy to fad tragedy and forget the lives effected and there's a definite picking and choosing of what they are "effected" by. They've already forgotten the vast number of people effected by ebola in Africa because there have been no more cases here where they live.

This is true. There'd be no tears for Fred Phelps if he was murdered by a gay activist group.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Ironic to say this in a freedom of speech thread.

Besides I think you are on the fundies side on some big issues, since woman should not vote and all that.

I also tend to favour the drinking of water with Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong. Because I have some points of agreement with radical Islam does not mean I favour Islam. My opposition towards Islam is rooted in their violence and the fact that they are aliens to our lands. I want to preserve the peoples of Europe.

Oh and je suis stands "I am" not "we are". The French are picky with that verb conjugation shit.

Thanks on the French correction.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

A point I wanted to make a while ago:
They wouldn't be saying I am Westboro had the Westboro trolls been slain (a group that similarly trolls without an ounce of taste but does not deserve any more than a collective punch in the gut). Some lives are more sacred to the internet bunch than others, and slacktivists feed on emotion and what makes them feel better about themselves (hence the Kony campaign and others fueled by emotion without reading up on the subject matter).
Westboro mocks/trolls gays and various other Americans and so they'd gain no sympathy despite the hypothetical situation being similar, meanwhile Charlie Hebdo mocked/trolled religious figures (who are not considered hip or sacred, even the mocking of Jews in the publication [which has been whitewashed and rarely reported] hasn't been a problem due to the increased criticism of Israel). and mocking/trolling of government authority figures (ones which most of these slacktivists do not know of and have no political attachment to).
I have no problem with people fighting for free speech or sympathizing with those killed, but these types (and unfortunately the general public as well) jump from what has unfortunately become fad tragedy to fad tragedy and forget the lives effected and there's a definite picking and choosing of what they are "effected" by. They've already forgotten the vast number of people effected by ebola in Africa because there have been no more cases here where they live.

To me there's a big difference between satire / poking fun at religion to what the Westbro Church does (e.g. shouting abuse at funeral services and other events and directly harassing people). Maybe the humor in these cartoons goes too far, but its not a patch on what Westbro does.

 

[TeTe]

I see this a lot with the goal warming activists.

Are you working from home? Or at least taking public transit or riding a bike to work? Are you recycling everything you possibly can? Are you shutting off lights when you aren't using them? Are you turning down your heat when you aren't home? Are you planting trees? Are you having less children? Etc etc?

Or are you just a pseudo scientist arguing with deniers on the internet all day about what needs to be done?

Too be fair I don't do some of those things I mentioned but I'm not an alarmist either.

 

[James Keith]

I don't need to use wikipedia, I read the book. However if you must use wikipedia, looking at the entry for the book it states: "The Dwight D. Eisenhower administration agreed with the Churchill government to restore the pro-western Shah to power. In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 arranged a coup in Tehran".
'Arranging a coup' is a a bit different than just 'supporting a coup'.

"You also claimed the CIA overthrew governments"
I only mentioned Iran. But it's hardly news that the CIA has been involved in overthrowing governments and propping up dictatorships around the world.

And Bush could mostly likely answer the question about the real reasons for going to war with Iraq, but lets not play dumb, we all know that what politicians say to the public is not always the same as what goes on behind closed doors. There was no real threat from Iraq and the weapons inspectors could have carried on working in Iraq (even Hans Blix said he wanted to continuing with the inspections), but the US almost seemed desperate to start a war.

Is it the only book you read? Because it looks pretty one-sided. I notice that the more biased a book on history is, one way or another, the more successful it is. A book written soon after 911 is probably intending to view things a certain way from the beginning.

The coup that was "arranged" by the CIA, to whatever degree you wish to credit them, actually failed to succeed. A popular uprising overthrew the govt some time after.

From the way you sidestepped my question about historians I take it you would claim to hold a "deeper" understanding of these topics than the mainstream account, no? And that your book for example provides such depth. The problem is such theories can work various ways. For example Iran nationalized the oil fields and this in some large degree motivated the US. Is the deeper meaning that the US is all about controlling others' oil? Or is it that the US in those days strongly opposed communism of which nationalization is a fundamental component? Depends what you want it to be it seems. These days everyone talks about oil and no one talks about the international revolution/empire designs of the USSR.

Your complaint that we can never trust that we get the inside truth is pretty much the same as my point about social science lacking proof of causation.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Is it the only book you read? Because it looks pretty one-sided. I notice that the more biased a book on history is, one way or another, the more successful it is. A book written soon after 911 is probably intending to view things a certain way from the beginning.

The coup that was "arranged" by the CIA, to whatever degree you wish to credit them, actually failed to succeed. A popular uprising overthrew the govt some time after.

From the way you sidestepped my question about historians I take it you would claim to hold a "deeper" understanding of these topics than the mainstream account, no? And that your book for example provides such depth. The problem is such theories can work various ways. For example Iran nationalized the oil fields and this in some large degree motivated the US. Is the deeper meaning that the US is all about controlling others' oil? Or is it that the US in those days strongly opposed communism of which nationalization is a fundamental component? Depends what you want it to be it seems. These days everyone talks about oil and no one talks about the international revolution/empire designs of the USSR.

Your complaint that we can never trust that we get the inside truth is pretty much the same as my point about social science lacking proof of causation.

No, this one book is not the only source of information pointing to the US playing a pivital role in organizing a coup in Iran. Honestly I didn't even realize this was a contentious point until today!

How did I side-sweep your pointless question about some hypothetical historian? I answered it quite clearly, not that it has any relevance to anything.

"For example Iran nationalized the oil fields and this in some large degree motivated the US. Or is it that the US in those days strongly opposed communism of which nationalization is a fundamental component? "
It was the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which motivated the British to put pressure on the US to organize a coup. The US were more concerned by the communist takeover in Iran (from what I remember, that is what Kermit Roosevelt Jr gave as the reason for the coup).

And I never said we can 'never trust' governments, only that what we hear from politicians is not always the full truth. There is a difference. The idea that the public should put unconditional trust in politicians is naive to say the least, if that is what you are implying.

 

[James Keith]

No, this one book is not the only source of information pointing to the US playing a pivital role in organizing a coup in Iran. Honestly I didn't even realize this was a contentious point until today!

How did I side-sweep your pointless question about some hypothetical historian? I answered it quite clearly, not that it has any relevance to anything.

"For example Iran nationalized the oil fields and this in some large degree motivated the US. Or is it that the US in those days strongly opposed communism of which nationalization is a fundamental component? "
It was the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which motivated the British to put pressure on the US to organize a coup. The US were more concerned by the communist takeover in Iran (from what I remember, that is what Kermit Roosevelt Jr gave as the reason for the coup).

And I never said we can 'never trust' governments, only that what we hear from politicians is not always the full truth. There is a difference. The idea that the public should put unconditional trust in politicians is naive to say the least, if that is what you are implying.

Yes there are always two sides to a story. The royalists strongly disputed the version where they are simply CIA puppets.

Your argument about whether we can 'never trust' or are naive to always trust or whatever seems like an unnecessary dichotomy. Presume I'm talking about the particular narrow topics where we don't trust them...

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Yes there are always two sides to a story. The royalists strongly disputed the version where they are simply CIA puppets.

Your argument about whether we can 'never trust' or are naive to always trust or whatever seems like an unnecessary dichotomy. Presume I'm talking about the particular narrow topics where we don't trust them...

I can't imagine the shah would come out and publicly say he was aided by the CIA. What good would that have done him? This hardly gives any weight to your argument that the CIA didn't play a major role in the coup and his return to power.

I'm not sure where you are going with this side-topic on 'trusting governments'. In regards to Iraq (which I presume this is about), if you want to trust the US government in thinking they truly thought there was a real threat from Iraq and that could only be dealt with by an invasion then that's up to you. I have my own views, you have yours.

 

[mesomorph]

This is true. There'd be no tears for Fred Phelps if he was murdered by a gay activist group.

There wouldn't be tears for him, but I'm sure most people would condemn it anyway.

Also, there's a little difference between printing a cartoon and going to funerals to stir shit up.

 

[Gervinho]

To me there's a big difference between satire / poking fun at religion to what the Westbro Church does (e.g. shouting abuse at funeral services and other events and directly harassing people). Maybe the humor in these cartoons goes too far, but its not a patch on what Westbro does.

Satire and poking fun is something you can easily hide behind when you want to spread hate. Its like a bully saying hey why so serious, I was just joking. These people have clear ideas and are spreading their ideas through cartoons. But you can never accuse them of spreading hate because they will always say hey we are just joking. Its a bit like Stewart when he talks about politics. When he gets called out, he goes back to hey Im just a comedian...relax