Frog speedrun any%

We live in a society

Bottom text

So is he going to do anything material about it? Or is he giving that statement to the press and then immediately calling up Bibi to reassure him it’s just for show? I have a feeling I know the answer.

Yes.

Exactly. The surgeon general tweeted out, “STOP WEARING MASKS” and CNN was publishing articles with all the anti-masker claims, including that they don’t work and could increase your risk of getting it instead, and people just pretend like it never happened and the anti-maskers came out of thin air.

It wasn’t just an idiotic ploy to deliberately spread misinfo to trick people into leaving masks for doctors, it was also about the government trying to cover their own ass for having sold off their emergency stockpiles for fast cash.

Fahrenheit is the temperature brine feels.

“Gender is what’s in your pants” alright then my gender is death

As the only real leftist on this site, I will be travelling to each state just so I can commit voter fraud in each one and write in “Karl Stalin.”

Because no fighting was happening in Ukraine before the Russians entered the country, right? The war just fell out of a coconut tree?

I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup’ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don’t survive.

There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50’s. No doubt the line will be that “that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count,” but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you’d likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.

Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800’s, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we’re completely stonewalled.

Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).

Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.

What followed was the restoration of the shah’s power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king’s bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.

I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it’ll be too late to do anything about it, it’ll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that “they don’t do that anymore” dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don’t have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as “authoritarian” by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup’ed and replaced by a fascist.

That said, if people who haven’t harmed anyone are being imprisoned solely because of their beliefs, regardless of how poorly informed those beliefs are - which this New York Times article discusses - then it’s fair to criticize the state for those actions.

“Haven’t harmed anyone” - antivax conspiracy theories have led to the reemergence of all sorts of diseases, so that’s already one reason already. But moreover, allowing CIA-backed organizations to operate in a socialist country is a recipe for disaster, and there have been countless cases of leftist projects that were defeated after failing to take the necessary steps to stop the CIA from operating with impunity and installing a fascist. Look at Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran and the CIA coup in the 50’s if you want an example of what happens when you go against Western interests and refuse to crack down on foreign subversion because of your principles. Rule number 1 of good policy - you can’t do good policy if you’re not in power. If a policy results in fascists coming to power, then it’s not good policy.

I’m not fully convinced one way or the other, but the arguments were compelling enough for several major governments to speak out against it and pass laws in response.

“Several major governments” will speak out about any random bullshit that makes China look bad. They’re the ones who come up with it in the first place!

I’ve also been unable to find rebuttals to the specific evidence. As a contrast, the World Trade Center “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams so it must have been an inside job” conspiracy theories prompted government investigations and a ton of debunking articles that I can easily find via a web search.

Not exactly shocking that there’s more articles debunking a claim that makes the US government look bad than there are debunking a claim that makes the Chinese government look bad.

Inference involves making a conclusion by taking evidence and applying logic and reasoning. Not sure why you think that’s “made up.”

Now you’re just being a debatebro. Inference is a lower standard of evidence than hard proof. You obviously know this. Given the clear incentives people have to cast China in a bad light and to always assume the worst, and given a track record of made up bullshit in that regard, “inference” from these people is worth less than dogshit.

Let’s say I’m at work and my lunch goes missing. If I think that one of my coworkers is the type of person who might steal my lunch, then I might infer that they probably did that. But let’s say that any time anything goes wrong, or even when nothing goes wrong, I accuse that coworker of random bullshit that never turns out to be true. At what point do you start saying my so-called “inferences” about this person are just “made up?”

Tribunal:

What Tribunal? What organization was involved, why are they an authority on the topic? Let’s see, the full name of that Tribunal was:

“The Independent Tribunal Into Forced Organ Harvesting of Prisoners of Conscience in China,” known as the China Tribunal,[66] was initiated in 2018[67] by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China."

I wonder what the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China is going to determine about whether transplant abuse is happening in China? Say, who’s on this, anyway?

The China Tribunal was initiated by the charity ETAC, of which “a minority of its committee members are Falun Gong practitioners”.[3]

Who would’ve guessed?

One man, Wang Xiaohua, was imprisoned in a labor camp in Yunnan in 2001 when he and twenty other Falun Gong detainees

Another source that’s just “Falun Gong says this.”

Israeli authorities arrested several men involved in mediating transplants of Chinese prisoners’ organs for Israelis. One of the men had stated in an undercover interview that the organs came from “people who oppose the regime, those sentenced to death and from prisoners of the Falun Gong.”

Source is a book I don’t have access to.

Tibet

Tibet has historically been a part of China and is claimed by the ROC. It emerged briefly as an independent entity in the political instability in the early 20th century, along with countless little warlord states, and it never received international recognition. During the time when it was a de facto state, it was a backwards authoritarian theocracy with a caste system, serfdom, and a life expectancy of about 30. China ended these things and vastly improved the quality of life for the vast majority of Tibetans.

There are plenty of people in the US who would say that the changes in the South following the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery constituted a destruction of the Antebellum culture. “A civilization, Gone with the Wind,” to quote the movie. The South did undergo many changes including culturally, as much of its culture was tied to the institution of slavery. If it’s true that Southern culture was so tied to slavery that freeing the slaves destroyed that culture, then I say good riddance - and if freeing the serfs destroyed Tibetan culture then I’d say the same.

Organ harvesting

If you actually read that article, the evidence presented is laughable.

The authors qualified their report by noting the inherent difficulties in verifying the alleged crimes: no independent organizations are allowed to investigate conditions in China, eyewitness evidence is difficult to obtain, and official information about both organ transplantation and executions is often withheld or is contradictory. The initial report however received a mixed reception. In the US, a Congressional Research Service report by Thomas Lum stated that the Kilgour–Matas report relied largely on logical inference, without bringing forth new or independently obtained testimony; the credibility of much of the key evidence was said to be questionable.

In other words, nobody’s actually collected any real evidence and it’s all just speculation and inference. It’s made up. Many of the people pushing the narrative have incentive to lie about China.

FLG

Falun Gong is a far-right political group funded by the CIA with made-up religious trappings so they can cry oppression when they aren’t allowed to spread lies and bigotry with impunity. Just from the Wikipedia page on them, they oppose gay rights, feminism, and modern medicine and science and espouse QAnon and antivax conspiracy theories - this is the main source of “organ harvesting” claims btw. China Uncensored is directly affiliated with Falun Gong.

I wouldn’t necessarily describe the TV Tropes page as white supremacist but that’s the context for that stuff, and the page is definitely missing some disclaimers and context.

My brother is a veteran, and when he came back he started “self-medicating” with meth to treat his PTSD. He was constantly on the verge of crisis and making violent threats (carefully phrased to not be actionable). At the time, I was working at an Amazon warehouse, at times doing 60 hours weeks, and at the time I was on Facebook and if I got off work and wanted to check it, he’d see I was online and if I left him on read it would be a whole thing. I described it as being a 911 operator on call 24/7. I basically wrote him off as dead to me, but my parents wouldn’t and that was the worst part. I remember visiting and we tried to go out for dinner but then he texted my mom with another crisis and now she’s in tears again, like always. It was constant. And he’d accuse them of all sorts of stuff, my mom still had one of those phones you had to press the button multiple times to get a letter and if she had a typo he’d accuse her of doing it on purpose. All he did all day was be alone with his thoughts, going through the same cycles, shooting up meth and absorbing whatever crazy right-wing bullshit he was listening to.

My parents are pretty well off and they were there for him. They tried to check him into all sorts of mental hospitals and rehab, but he’d check himself out early. There was an incident early on where he checked himself into the VA and they tried to cut him off Xanax cold turkey, which is potentially life-threatening, and he responded violently. This put a flag on his record which made it difficult to get him treatment later, and he was also careful to phrase his threats ambiguously enough to not be institutionalized.

It was pretty clear to me that this was only going to end one way, and at one point I thought about going up there and killing him myself, before he could hurt an innocent person. But the cops kept a watch on his house until it happened and he took a gun and led them on a car chase to somebody’s house, pulled a gun on them, and got shot in the arm. When I heard it happened, I didn’t know if he’d live or die and didn’t care, I was just relieved that it had finally happened and that nobody else got hurt. He went to jail for a bit and that got him off the meth so he’s doing better now.

What really gets me about it though is how easy we got off, though. Compared to the people on the other side of the war, the people actually living in Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, countless civilians. The children terrified of sunny days because that’s when the drones fly. How many times over do you have to multiply the pain and suffering I felt when I saw my mother’s face in tears to get even an inkling of the suffering inflicted on those people?

And it’s all just out of sight, out of mind. We went to war and people hardly even noticed, everybody just went about their lives as normal like it wasn’t even happening. People don’t even give a shit about veterans killing themselves on the daily in VA parking lots and waiting rooms because they can’t get care, they sure as shit don’t care about brown people on the other side of the world that the news treats as subhuman. And now, Bush gets rehabilitated on Ellen and the libs expect me to vote for Biden. It’s absurd how little people care about all the people they murdered.

I suppose time will tell whether that trend will grow to the point of being really significant. I don’t really trust the state as it stands to regulate speech in my interests. I do still believe in deplatforming hate speech when possible, and I don’t really see the marketplace of ideas as being reliable due to certain ideas having stronger signals, either from monetary backing or grabbing attention. As things stand though, I don’t really have a better answer than just personally using the fediverse over big social media sites.

Is the tendency for devisive content to be promoted a quirk of certain social media platforms, or is something more inherent? I’d argue that people are more likely to click on something if it presents a message of, “You are under attack!!” as opposed to say, “Firefighter rescues kitten from tree!” because the former invokes more and more powerful emotions. Brains are designed to seek out and pay attention to threats, and I think even something like a print newspaper is going to be subject to that incentive, at least to a degree.

The other question I have is:

What we need to do is take away the power social media companies have to influence the types and quantity of information we receive.

Do you mean through state regulation, or just consumer choice?

I agree with you in part, but:

Societies which stifle dissent, especially using the power of the state, grow weaker because they aren’t able to effectively adapt to change. Remember it is not too long ago that advocating for gay marriage would have been seen as morally deviant and repugnant. But strong speech protections allow us as a society to have that discussion and come to the correct conclusion which is that it’s fine to be gay, that love is love, and that gay people deserve equal protection under the law.

Free speech is also allowing a massive, astroturfed campaign to spread transphobia. The people with the most money have the loudest voices, and printing sensationalist bigotry to provoke fear, anger, and hate gets the clicks which makes more money.

What makes it especially terrifying, and I’m speaking from personal experience, is that you don’t know who’s on the other side of the screen. Most people in the target audience will just get a little pissy and keep clicking headlines (and voting to take away rights), but there’s also people who are unstable, whether due to drugs or psychological issues or simply being too deep into the narrative. When you have for example far-right media outlets saying trans people are pedophiles, and more mainstream sources validating that perspective in not so many words, and that’s being broadcast to some meth head watching hours on end every day, then I’m not really a fan of that speech being free.

Just last weekend, for instance, some queer friends and I were threatened by an unstable person with a metal pipe just walking down the street, idk how much the media plays into that but I also had a family member who did what I described above, shooting up meth and watching shit like OAN all day every day. And even regular people who watch too much cable news, and it doesn’t even matter that much what they watch, if you try to reason with them, no matter how much sense you make or what facts you have on your side, it’s one conversation vs all the time they’ve spent watching the news - I like to compare it to trying to win an argument when the other side gets to say 100 words (or more) every time you say 1. In this way, good ideas don’t always win in the marketplace of ideas.

But yeah I agree with your overall point, sanctioning someone for interviewing a world leader is some bullshit, fuck Tucker Carlson but it’s always important to understand rival geopolitical powers.

Weird that the headline is in raw numbers.

The precise question, translated literally from the Chinese, was the following: “There is an opinion that the transgenic technology from the US may be bioterrorism to China. If you are a patriot, you should oppose GM food. What do you think about this?”

While 13.8 percent of respondents selected “Agree, patriot should oppose GM food,” 54.4 percent selected “Disagree, debate on GM food should base on science” and 31.8 percent selected “I have no idea about that.”

Compare these numbers to a Pew survey of Americans:

About half of U.S. adults (51%) think GMOs are worse for people’s health than foods with no genetically modified ingredients, while 41% say GM foods have a neutral effect on health. Just 7% say they are better for health than other foods

The framing in the Chinese survey sounds pretty biased too, rather than just “What is your opinion on GM foods?” it presents a reason why one would be opposed to GM food (but not a reason one might support it), and frames opposing GM as a supposedly more patriotic answer. Despite this framing, Chinese people disagreed with the idea 54% to 14%.

Extrapolating from a survey and then putting it in absolute numbers is suspect, because there’s a lot of people in China and surveys usually have a floor. If a survey only gets 1% of Chinese people saying something, the headline could read “14 million Chinese people believe [thing].”

I don’t really have information on Chinese perspectives on GMOs, the scientific consensus is that it can be done safely but I think there’s some validity to being suspicious of capitalists fucking stuff up with it.

Telegraph journalist “eats their own shit for breakfast.”

CNN journalist said to bathe in the blood of infants.

CNBC journalist reportedly only moves by scrunching themself up like a worm, can walk but refuses to.