The Political Thread

[M.I.K.]

Either the non-political example in your analogy uses logic twice or they're a half-wit who's just bought a wardrobe for no reason.

[The Legendary Shark]

Probably both.

[Tjm86]

I must agree with Shark; the cause for "humanitarian" intervention may initially been honourable, before all of them fucking up those countries up.

In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan there was nothing 'humanitarian' about it at all.  The likes of Sarah Vine now trying to call out government failure to protect women's rights in Afghanistan rings hollow by comparison to the total silence over the years on this issue around the globe.  Both had political / military objectives and didn't take the humanitarian cost into account.

In both cases the forces were sent in without anything even remotely like a plan for how to deal with the post-invasion landscape.  The civilian death toll in both cases has been catastrophic.  The reputational cost for the US and UK on the global stage has been similarly disastrous.  What happens next is on the governments of both of those nations to a large extent.

Sorry for your mishaps, Tjm, terrorism is one of the greatest evils of today, forcing people to live in fear and constant threat.

I was fortunate in some respects, the issues were generally at arms length.  They did impact on our lives but it was so pervasive that you didn't think about it.  To be fair I'd never really considered it until my wife commented on my reaction to an unattended bag at a railway station one day.  Having clocked it I immediately found a member of staff to report it.  Just as he was looking at details the owner turned up.  I suppose you're right on one level; it's quite disturbing how it becomes completely naturalised to the point that you don't even think about it.

[Funt Solo]

The likes of Sarah Vine now trying to call out government failure to protect women's rights in Afghanistan rings hollow by comparison to the total silence over the years on this issue around the globe.

It may be the case that the political leaders who planned a military adventure in Afghanistan had no thought to women's rights - although I can't conclude that because I don't know enough about it - but it's simply not true to broaden that out into "total silence over the years on this issue around the globe".

That's simply not true. Various human rights organizations and news broadcasters have focused on that very issue - pre-Invasion, during and now post. Contrary to what you say: the media bringing that issue front and center is very important (not least to women, in Afghanistan).

I don't quite get the idea that because one was against military intervention in the first place, one cannot recognize any positives that stemmed from said: such as an increase in the rights of women. (Now, clearly, terribly at risk of being lost.)

---

And we segued into war discussing a meaning for "terrorism", because of the murder of several people by an Incel-believer. I thought this segment from the Independent was pretty level-headed (if brutish) in describing the situation:

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, previously said incels would be treated "more seriously" if there were more attacks.

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "The question is really whether or not the authorities want to treat the incel phenomenon as a terrorist risk. That would involve diverting resources or putting resources into it.

[milstar]

I must agree with Shark; the cause for "humanitarian" intervention may initially been honourable, before all of them fucking up those countries up.

In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan there was nothing 'humanitarian' about it at all.  The likes of Sarah Vine now trying to call out government failure to protect women's rights in Afghanistan rings hollow by comparison to the total silence over the years on this issue around the globe.  Both had political / military objectives and didn't take the humanitarian cost into account.

In both cases the forces were sent in without anything even remotely like a plan for how to deal with the post-invasion landscape.  The civilian death toll in both cases has been catastrophic.  The reputational cost for the US and UK on the global stage has been similarly disastrous.  What happens next is on the governments of both of those nations to a large extent.

I know. That's why I put quotations on humanitarian. Nothing ever was humanitarian. Just excuses.

[Tjm86]

The likes of Sarah Vine now trying to call out government failure to protect women's rights in Afghanistan  but it's simply not true to broaden that out into "total silence over the years on this issue around the globe".

That's simply not true. Various human rights organizations and news broadcasters have focused on that very issue - pre-Invasion, during and now post. Contrary to what you say: the media bringing that issue front and center is very important (not least to women, in Afghanistan).

Sorry no you're absolutely right about the general commentary here.  The likes of Malala have highlighted how much of an issue that has been even as the Taliban were being held at bay to a very small degree.

No, I meant that the likes of Sarah Vine have been pretty much silent about this issue, not just in Afghanistan but in a lot of places around the globe, not that there had been barely any commentary about the issue internationally.  My phraseology did not really help there.  Sorry.

I don't quite get the idea that because one was against military intervention in the first place, one cannot recognize any positives that stemmed from said: such as an increase in the rights of women. (Now, clearly, terribly at risk of being lost.)

Again a fair point.  To be sure we can say that a 'happy accident' of the intervention in Iraq was an improvement in some of these cases, albeit potentially short lived.  Again I think my real issue with some of those raising their voices is that it is more about jumping on the bandwagon than it is a genuine concern about the issue.  This to me is the real definition of 'woke': appearing to support a social, ethical or political issue for the sake of appearance.  The crass cynicism is offensive.

And we segued into war discussing a meaning for "terrorism", because of the murder of several people by an Incel-believer. I thought this segment from the Independent was pretty level-headed (if brutish) in describing the situation:

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, previously said incels would be treated "more seriously" if there were more attacks.

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "The question is really whether or not the authorities want to treat the incel phenomenon as a terrorist risk. That would involve diverting resources or putting resources into it.

Now there is an interesting point isn't it?  The issue of resources to monitor and evaluate any potential threat.  When you consider how overstretched the security services are at the moment with Russian passive-aggression, Chinese economic / industrial activity, a potentially renewed Islamic fundamentalist threat as well as the usual band of home-grown nutcases that fortunately never make the headlines because they are picked up in time, add this into the mix?

When you consider the profile of many of these INCEL supporters / adherents, the challenge is going to be massive.  There is also another dimension that is a little disturbing: the implications of this for monitoring activities.

I know that this is dangerously close to tin-foil-hattery but perhaps there is also a need to consider the civil-liberties dimension here.  If INCEL is classified as a terrorist 'organisation' / ideology and the security services are given the go-ahead for tracking and monitoring of this ...    Again I come back to the issue of their track record.

Dangerous Days indeed.

[Funt Solo]

I realized I must have been missing something and so I looked up Sarah Vine. Now I understand.

[The Legendary Shark]

Fnar...

[Tjm86]

Well, if she's good enough for Michael Gove .... 

[milstar]

Sorry no you're absolutely right about the general commentary here.  The likes of Malala have highlighted how much of an issue that has been even as the Taliban were being held at bay to a very small degree.

No, I meant that the likes of Sarah Vine have been pretty much silent about this issue, not just in Afghanistan but in a lot of places around the globe, not that there had been barely any commentary about the issue internationally.  My phraseology did not really help there.  Sorry.

Again a fair point.  To be sure we can say that a 'happy accident' of the intervention in Iraq was an improvement in some of these cases, albeit potentially short lived.  Again I think my real issue with some of those raising their voices is that it is more about jumping on the bandwagon than it is a genuine concern about the issue.  This to me is the real definition of 'woke': appearing to support a social, ethical or political issue for the sake of appearance.  The crass cynicism is offensive.

And we segued into war discussing a meaning for "terrorism", because of the murder of several people by an Incel-believer. I thought this segment from the Independent was pretty level-headed (if brutish) in describing the situation:

Now there is an interesting point isn't it?  The issue of resources to monitor and evaluate any potential threat.  When you consider how overstretched the security services are at the moment with Russian passive-aggression, Chinese economic / industrial activity, a potentially renewed Islamic fundamentalist threat as well as the usual band of home-grown nutcases that fortunately never make the headlines because they are picked up in time, add this into the mix?

When you consider the profile of many of these INCEL supporters / adherents, the challenge is going to be massive.  There is also another dimension that is a little disturbing: the implications of this for monitoring activities.

I know that this is dangerously close to tin-foil-hattery but perhaps there is also a need to consider the civil-liberties dimension here.  If INCEL is classified as a terrorist 'organisation' / ideology and the security services are given the go-ahead for tracking and monitoring of this ...    Again I come back to the issue of their track record.

Dangerous Days indeed.

I'd say that not every incel is a potential terrorist. How many of them are ranting online, actually a very few of them actually dare to do something about it. But I agree there needs to be some policing over, in order to monitor places where people tend to radicalize themselves (this ofcourse doesn't just apply to incel movement). The question is inevitable: freedom or safety?

Btw, I agree with the woke part A bunch of hypocrites who rant behind their computers in Beverly Hills. It's not about altruism, it's about selfishness. That's why I don't understand people who support modern day feminism. I mean, the movement should be all about equality, which is commendable; those people  who claim they are feminist, in society today, do so under the guise of hate, racism, and egalitarian sexist ideology in order to promote their own selfish desires which forgoes the rest of human kind's needs.

[Tjm86]

No that's true.  Just like every environmentalist is not necessarily a terrorist, nor is every muslim, or every Irishman for that matter.  So often the farthest many get is joining the keyboard warrior regiment.

In some respects I would argue that this is where the likes of Facebook and Twitter have caused such damage.  By denying any responsibility for what is posted on their platforms they have allowed free reign to the sort of commentary that provides an opening for extremism.

Contrast it with this place for instance.  I know that some feel that the moderation is quite extreme but you have to be honest, as places on the Internet go it is actually quite pleasant.  Yes the discussion can become quite heated as strongly held views are challenged and it can become personal but by and large the discussions we have are quite civil.  Then again quite a bit of that is self-moderation.  Disengagement tends to happen long before things get out of hand.

As for the selfishness of many movements.  I suppose to some extent that is necessary to draw attention to injustices.  The difference in the case of INCEL is that the 'injustices' that they are laying claim to are potentially questionable. 

By contrast, feminists can point to legitimate exploitation and discrimination due to sex / gendered identity.  The real issue now is the collision with trans rights but that is a whole other can of worms that arguably we really don't want to open.

This does seem to speak to what feels like your point here, that in order to defend your own group's rights you have to attack that of another group.  This taps into the scarcity message that is used to limit opportunities and does seem to be being deployed to powerful effect in preventing marginalised groups from collaborating and mobilising effectively.  Elements of this can be seen in some of the extreme positions propounded by INCEL such as dog-pilling (if that is to be believed).

Perhaps we need to heed the words of that great philosopher, Waldo 'D.R' Dobbs ... "Hey man! Why can't everybody just, y'know, be FRIENDS and everything?"

[Funt Solo]

This is a good example of why I think use of the term "woke" during an argument is a cheap distraction, and simply a cover for an ad hominem* (or ad Eminem, as the spell-checker would have it) attack.

It doesn't really matter if Sarah Vine is the one making the argument, or whether she's making a cynical attempt to generate Daily Mail sales: did her argument make sense?

Or, to put it another way: are women in Afghanistan in more danger, and have fewer freedoms, than they did a couple of weeks ago, prior to the Taliban takeover? (Sarah Vine's veracity, I think we can see, fades into the distance in asking this question. In fact, it's a distraction from the main thrust of the topic.)

We can go further, if we wish, and sink ourselves into the muddy bathwater of milstar's follow-up, where he neatly stone-steps from the mere use of the word "woke" to all feminists being Nazis. (Well, he didn't say "Nazis" - he just said that any modern feminist was a racist, selfish, hate-filled sexist.) Why? Keyboards, apparently. Or Beverly Hills? Something something maybe-trolling something.

Summary: calling someone "woke" doesn't win you the argument. It just attempts to dismiss the validity of your opponent.

*Although last time I pointed this out on the board I was told that ad hominem attacks are okay if your opponent is a big enough arsehole. Irony lives!

[Tjm86]

The term 'woke', like it's forerunners such as SJW, is most definitely an attempt to shut down debate.  Just as 'marxist', 'capitalist' or 'counter-revolutionary reactionary' are in other circles.  It seems almost as if ethical positions have become increasingly weaponised.

I would completely agree with you point about the thrust of Vine's argument.  What are the likely implications for women's rights in Afghanistan under a new Taliban regime?  Arguably Vine is manifesting the stopped-clock syndrome here but at least we can concede the validity of her point.

This is a major problem these days.  People are more inclined to force their point than to try and understand the nuances of the argument being presented.  Ultimately it reduces to shouting insults at each other.

As you quite accurately observed earlier, Funt, a happy accident of the allied invasion of Afghanistan was to challenge the treatment of women and educational opportunities.  It doesn't matter whether the thought had crossed Blair or Bush's minds when they sent in troops.  The simple fact of the matter is that the effect for them was profound. 

Should we dismiss Vine's call to arms in support of this as a continuing state of affairs?  Nope, I'm with you on that one.  Not sure how much we can do about it but at the very least keep up pressure on politicians I suppose. 

[milstar]

No that's true.  Just like every environmentalist is not necessarily a terrorist, nor is every muslim, or every Irishman for that matter.  So often the farthest many get is joining the keyboard warrior regiment.

In some respects I would argue that this is where the likes of Facebook and Twitter have caused such damage.  By denying any responsibility for what is posted on their platforms they have allowed free reign to the sort of commentary that provides an opening for extremism.

Contrast it with this place for instance.  I know that some feel that the moderation is quite extreme but you have to be honest, as places on the Internet go it is actually quite pleasant.  Yes the discussion can become quite heated as strongly held views are challenged and it can become personal but by and large the discussions we have are quite civil.  Then again quite a bit of that is self-moderation.  Disengagement tends to happen long before things get out of hand.

As for the selfishness of many movements.  I suppose to some extent that is necessary to draw attention to injustices.  The difference in the case of INCEL is that the 'injustices' that they are laying claim to are potentially questionable. 

By contrast, feminists can point to legitimate exploitation and discrimination due to sex / gendered identity.  The real issue now is the collision with trans rights but that is a whole other can of worms that arguably we really don't want to open.

This does seem to speak to what feels like your point here, that in order to defend your own group's rights you have to attack that of another group.  This taps into the scarcity message that is used to limit opportunities and does seem to be being deployed to powerful effect in preventing marginalised groups from collaborating and mobilising effectively.  Elements of this can be seen in some of the extreme positions propounded by INCEL such as dog-pilling (if that is to be believed).

Perhaps we need to heed the words of that great philosopher, Waldo 'D.R' Dobbs ... "Hey man! Why can't everybody just, y'know, be FRIENDS and everything?"

Ah...to start with your last sentence. wasn't those words by Rodney King lol? Hm...history doesn't seem very kind of utopian ideas. I think everyone want it, but it's just impossible.

Sadly, seems that platforms like Fakebook and Twatter are the major leader in global thought. I mean, people today pay more attention to some celebrity tweet or post. Who gives a damn about what people on some forum like this may say? And it's obviously not good when you have that situation. To me, both are toxic spaces (I actually have FB account, which I frequent once in a six months). Actually, I think...whatsname...4chan? Even worse. A fertile ground for incels. Who, and I feel a bit for them, if they were ostracized in life, not that I approve some nefarious actions, but at least I feel a bit of empathy if they had horrible life experiences, unlike those who never talked to a woman. And online is full of ranting people. But, everything has its boundaries and I like I said, I can feel a bit for them, before it turns into a mental illness. Problem with feminism is that arguably often goes into real shady areas, where the plight for against discrimination replaced plight for misandry (which is a legitimate, but not something I am fond of).
Like the basket case below:


I could use the term Nazi, but why should I? Honestly, we live in society where if you disagree with someone on random hot-topics, you're labeled as Nazi. Woke is just euphemism for that and it often succeeds (but not those who try to be a bit objective and see what both sides have to offer) at discrediting the other speaker.

I think we live in Bioshock universe. Right in between polar (extreme) opposites.

[Tiplodocus]

They seem quite funny; seems to me they are exaggerating for comic effect to make a serious point. Plus again, genuine inequality vs. perceived slights.