pull down to refresh
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 14h \ parent \ on: South Africa's Court Denies Bid To Have 'Kill The Boer' Declared Hate Speech Politics_And_Law
Fair question.
Not defending the song, for sure. It is in very bad taste.
But the way this is being politicized in the US at this point feels a bit exaggerated.
The songs I sang included calls for rape, murder, etc. No one singing them was actually thinking of raping or murdering anyone. In our minds, it was just some folklore. I'm not sure I'd still sing them now.
All this to say I can imagine a world where that song does not equate an actual call for violence in the mind of the people singing it. I do not know the story; I only know what I read from your link and the link I shared, so this may be a completely different context.
“When Trump spoke about farmers being murdered in 2018, AfriForum was keen to dissociate itself from the idea that there was a white genocide,” said Simpson. “They are very aware that they are being accused of all sorts of disinformation, so they have to paint within the lines. Trump and Musk, however, have no such limitations.”
For Musk and Trump, though, the equation is simpler, suggested Grootes. “South Africa is the embodiment of DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion],” he said. “Of course, Trump hates us.”
Just adding this last quote for additional context. The true story is probably that for some people, the song is a call for violence, while for others, it isn't. No way for me to know the proportion.
From here:
And the facts bear this view out: there has never been anything close to an attempted genocide of white South Africans.
Trump and his supporters often claim that white South African farmers are being murdered in their thousands – but statistics provided by AfriForum and the Transvaal Agricultural Union (both groups sympathetic to white farmers) show that about 60 farmers, across all races, are killed every year. This is a country that sees 19,000 murders annually.
Anecdotal evidence points to the same conclusion.
Grootes was one of “about five whites” in the audience the very first time Malema sang the song in public in 2010: “When he sang it, I didn’t notice. It wasn’t in English, and no one around me thought it was a huge event at the time … as a whitey, with an Afrikaans-sounding surname, I did not feel threatened, harassed, scared … I didn’t get the feeling that the people around me were being incited to shoot me.”
Both Malema and AfriForum – the Afrikaner rights group which recently sent a delegation to the Trump White House to seek his support against South African government policies – have used the song as a rallying point for their (diametrically opposed) agendas.
That puts the more moderate ANC in a difficult situation. “Ramaphosa wouldn’t sing the song himself,” said Simpson. “But he hasn’t denounced it either, and his silence means something.”
This song is, of course, in very bad taste. I've sung many songs in very bad taste. Yet, they were just songs.
Makes sense. I also read they are working on allowing it to work for other wallets than Bitkeys, so indeed, might not be an evil ploy. But for now, it's what keeps me from activating the inheritance feature.
Dad's high cholesterol diagnosis recently has cut short my son's discovery of the occasional Macdonald's fun. His lifestyle has become transitively more healthy to make sure his dad is still around when he can make his own dietary choices~~
Here, take some sats to pay for your and @ekzyis future lawyer fees~~
Jk, i hope the pendulum will swing back by that time.
Don't know about best, but will nominate Interstellar for worst ending. After such a good movie, they really fucked that one up.
So they beneficiary needs their own Bitkey. That's a smart way to onboard more people and/or sell more devices. Even to people who might not use it for years until their benefactors die.
Two words: Anthropic Principle.
But I'm an atheist, so that's another strong bias at play.
Victor J. Stenger supposedly said in The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning on page 219 (can't check if it's true): “Rather than being fine-tuned for life, the universe is almost completely hostile to life.”
EDIT: pretty strong claims in the abstract for Stenger's book:
A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this "fine-tuning" of the universe suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? In his in-depth and highly accessible discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, the author looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.
Very true. Sunk cost is incredibly strong.
Better to share a meal with the person one disagrees with: #925986
In the end, we think quite alike. People on both sides are not that different. Not good of me to think in terms of sides when i think of it.
Ok, thanks for clarifying the ScienceTM thing. I did not catch that sarcastic nuance.
Yeah, change usually happens with a next generation taking over. Few people are capable of change themselves. Not only in the context of science.
I need to explain to someone why I think Saylor is a fiat maximalist. Can you link me to the article you wrote here once giving your thoughts about Saylor. I can't find it. Your article was pretty convincing to me.
I've given to several Bitcoin projects doing "charity" (to be fair, I don't like to call it that way, more like "projects to empower people") over Geyser. It's charity in the sense that I don't expect a return on my money and I feel like there is a chance the money might be doing some good, for someone else. Also, with the lightning payments, only very little money gets lost in overhead and most arrives directly to the person needing it. Those projects also often allow one to investigate how the money will be managed by checking social media activity of the person setting up the project, and thus, it doesn't feel like dumping money into a black hole.
I think for it to follow option 1 or 2 will mostly depend on if the bull market takes off again or not. If it does, option 1 will be quite likely. If it doesn't, then Gamestop will have lost its window of opportunity and option 2 is most likely. Good news only matters in a bull market. Bad news only matters in a bear market.
The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.
I went to check the original article in Science.
The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall, posts peer reviews alongside published articles, and pays reviewers for their work. But other researchers have criticized the journal’s exclusivity and lack of quality control. Only members of a newly formed body, the Academy of Public Health, can submit articles, and all submitted articles are published. Skeptics worry the publication will be used to sow doubt about scientific consensus on matters such as vaccine efficacy and safety.
(emphasis mine)
My reading of the statement does not have a denigrating tone, quite the opposite, unlike what the writer in Brownstone tries to imply. The use of "eschews" implies that paywalls, not posting peer reviews and paying peer reviewers are outdated practices. The writer in Science implies that this is a positive thing to eschew. The negative things the writer highlights, by the use of the word but, are the exclusive access to submit articles to the journal and the lack of quality control. Not the lack of paywall.
It's a pity. What could have been a good critique of the flaws in the original Science article becomes much weaker when a quick check of the original article shows that the Brownstone writer cherry-picked his quotes to further his personal agenda.
Same critique could probably be made on the author of the original Science article. Indeed, it seems, from the quoted paragraph above, that the writer is reporting on what other researchers have said. Without giving a source for who these "other researchers are". By doing so, he also furthers his personal agenda and caters to what the average reader of Science expects.
If only people on both sides could adhere to proper principles of communication, acknowledging reason and good intention on both sides, we'd go much further on this topic. I understand that traditional media has done much damage in the past, hence pushing people on the other side to use similar tactics,...
Yes, The ScienceTM strikes again. These ”scientists” don’t seem to understand how science works
By seeing Science as a monolith, one does not help the narrative. So many scientists are actively trying to change the system, acknowledging the deep flaws, etc. Many journals, even traditional ones, are moving towards a more open peer review system (I often get offered the choice to decide if I want my peer review to be published along the article). Some journals may do it out of response to a more general movement, but still, they are doing it. Also because many of the members forming those journals share the same views you do.
Ok, rant over. I was initially gonna just thank you for sharing this interesting article. I think the Brownstone did it with good intention, and it is good to keep highlighting the flaws in traditional journals. But I wish he'd have done without such blatant narrative building.
In Korea, only location matters. People don't buy to maximise quality of life, they buy to speculate on housing price. A nearby subway station? Add 10%. Competitive top schools nearby? Add another 10%. Etc. Flip and repeat.
It's awful and only few people actually benefit.
Don't see this changing any time soon.