Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I would have to ask you to be very clear to differentiate between holding and opinion and acting upon it. It's perfectly legal to believe that jews are vermin; it is not legal to go out and hunt them down.

No disagreement here.  I think that's where Bauglir and I were miscommunicating.  He meant the right to act (I think).  I meant the right to think.  And speak, though that's in a strange limbo between action and thought that depends on context.

Furthermore, it is surprisingly easy to find people who give wildly different answers for what is an objective truth.

I deliberately left out Phmcw's use of "objective truth" because I didn't feel like tackling that one.  It's a debate all by itself.  What is truth?  What is real?  Isn't my navel fascinating?

Again, Earthquake says it beter than I can, damn him/her/it/they.............ummmm what should be the correct pronoun here? 

[Earthquake Damage]

ummmm what should be the correct pronoun here? 

My Liege will suffice. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I actually hear semi-regular accusations that Gandhi was a racist, but I've never bothered to investigate said claims.

I've never heard such a thing.  Even were it true, the man's legacy speaks for itself.

So I decided to see where these accusations were coming from. This is quite disheartining.

[Phmcw]

objective BS

I still think you're misapplying the word "objective" here.

No I'm not. You can prove that black and white people are not really different, you can prove that racism is bullshit and spreading racial hatred harmful. It's not different of the other way to harming someone like sexual harassment and such.
Objectively, we know that white people are not superiors, we decided that it's harmful to discriminate someone on the basis of his color, sex or religion, and decide to forbid it. A wise move I'd say, and I would strongly oppose any change to that law.
Meawhile we decide that if someone use the cover of religion to make people commit crime such as torture, murder, incite them to have sex with children, ... then he should be stopped. What is the problem exactly. I find it disturbing to arrest and imprison someone over the possession of pot (a drug proved to be mostly harmless) , but to let neo-nazy propaganda undisturbed.
Likewise, by that logic, using the same standards, will you ever forbid a chemical substance?

[ed boy]

objective BS

I still think you're misapplying the word "objective" here.

No I'm not. You can prove that black and white people are not really different, you can prove that racism is bullshit and spreading racial hatred harmful. It's not different of the other way to harming someone like sexual harassment and such.
Objectively, we know that white people are not superiors, we decided that it's harmful to discriminate someone on the basis of his color, sex or religion, and decide to forbid it. A wise move I'd say, and I would strongly oppose any change to that law.
Meawhile we decide that if someone use the cover of religion to make people commit crime such as torture, murder, incite them to have sex with children, ... then he should be stopped. What is the problem exactly. I find it disturbing to arrest and imprison someone over the possession of pot (a drug proved to be mostly harmless) , but to let neo-nazy propaganda undisturbed.
Likewise, by that logic, using the same standards, will you ever forbid a chemical substance?

I'm going to ask you not to use that word.
These things have not been proved. Data has been collected, and the hypotheses have been shown to be within certain limits of the sample. It's quite easy for someone to manipulate their data sets to get results supporting the view they want.

[olemars]

You can prove that this thread is completely derailed.

[Zrk2]

You can prove that this thread is completely derailed.

Very much so. What happened here? When I left people were just linking to how the no fly zone was working out. Now we debate racism?

[Bauglir]

It's my fault, I apologize. Let's get back to figuring out what's up with Libya. As if I have any control over where this thread goes.

[Puzzlemaker]

Seems things have stalled, which is the worst possible thing that can happen.  Airstrikes might pick up the pace a bit, to try and end the civil war as soon as possible.

The war may very well end when the revolutionaries get organized.  Right now that seems to be the biggest problem.

[RedKing]

As an attempt to re-rail the thread, one of the things I've been struck by with the "EpicLibyanTumblr" page that was linked to, is how many black Libyans you see. There was a contravening narrative early on in the rebellion, that this was purely an Arab youth movement, and that they were persecuting all black Libyans by association with the sub-Saharan African mercenaries that Qaddafi was using against them. Nice to see that that doesn't seem so much to be the case. Nor is a "youth" movement. Yes, young Arab men in their twenties do seem to comprise the bulk of the forces, but looking at those photots, you see elderly men and women and children all involved as well, even if not so much on the front lines.

[nenjin]

I don't think the West, the media in specifically but culturally as well, has made the connection between Africans and Islam. We know they exist, but I think we don't see them as unified ethnic group distinct from Arabs under Islam.

Which is kind of ridiculous, because there's been a substantial black Muslim population in Africa for centuries, and in modern terms they've been prominent for decades, both the peaceful groups and the terrorist-oriented ones. Osama was recruiting in central Africa long before he was in Afghanistan.

To me it seems like there's this line in understanding of African political issues, that runs horizontally through country. North of the line, it's all about Muslims and the population of Africa that mixes with the Middle East. South of the line, it's all about the tribal genocide, guerrillas and collapsing nations. Religion goes basically un-mentioned.

[Siquo]

It's my fault, I apologize. Let's get back to figuring out what's up with Libya. As if I have any control over where this thread goes.

If you can moderate a religion thread without it getting locked by T1/3T, you have Control, my man.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I don't think the West, the media in specifically but culturally as well, has made the connection between Africans and Islam. We know they exist, but I think we don't see them as unified ethnic group distinct from Arabs under Islam.

Which is kind of ridiculous, because there's been a substantial black Muslim population in Africa for centuries, and in modern terms they've been prominent for decades, both the peaceful groups and the terrorist-oriented ones. Osama was recruiting in central Africa long before he was in Afghanistan.

To me it seems like there's this line in understanding of African political issues, that runs horizontally through country. North of the line, it's all about Muslims and the population of Africa that mixes with the Middle East. South of the line, it's all about the tribal genocide, guerrillas and collapsing nations. Religion goes basically un-mentioned.

Well said.  I have always wondered about the silent rule of "hands off".  Why does no one (well, no on eof importance in world affaifs it seems to me) rally for helping Africa.  France is active in the Ivory Coast, but that is purely economical.  There are movie stars trying to tell us about the problem, but how can we choose Darfur over Somalia over The Congo over........which crisis can i support personally without the commercialized guilt on TV about the others I didnt.  The major powers of the world seem determined to act as if Africa doesnt exist.  Fears of colonialism?  Racism?  Exploitation?  Genocide?  Africans are still being taken as slaves by some groups, but no one is speaking out about it, not even African Americans (I once did an article in school about Jesse Jackson having dinner with a certian Sheik and was served by african slaves.)  What is with this whole silence about Africa.  I have some ideas, but they are just that.

[RedKing]

To re-rail a bit, US involvement in the military side of Libyan operations formally ends in....about 50 minutes (2200 GMT). It'll be a NATO operation after that point, with US involvement limited to surveillance and C3. We'll still be flying AWACS and doing some inflight refueling operations, but for the most part, we're done. It's for the Brits and French to do the actual combat work now.

[Puzzlemaker]

The main problem is they are separated from the rest of the world.  Most countries with problems have neighbors that have money.  Those neighbors push to have those problems fixed, so it doesn't spill over.  Out of sight, out of mind... and Africa is mostly out of sight.


Another huge problem is Scope.  For Africa, such a large area has problems.  It's a really, really big place, making it hard to help out.  Where do you start?  Many places lack basic infrastructure, how do you fix that?  The task is quite daunting.

Another problem is disease and other natural dangers.  There are so many dangerous diseases/animals there that doing any other work is made that much harder.  Malaria and AIDS spring to mind especially.

Then there is political problems; Countries often support groups that give them the best deals for raw resources, even if they aren't supported by the majority of the people or would cause a large amount of chaos.  This is best seen in the Congo, but I think it happens in other places too.


On topic, about Libya:  Well, since we are part of NATO, wouldn't we have potential combat operations too?