"Reporting and You"

[Platypus]

As evidence that many online communities have become the online equivalent of North Korea, see the following pinned thread, posted by "Ran" (Elio Garcia), in the GENERAL section of Westeros.org's "Forum of Ice and Fire", on April 8, 2019:

> REPORTING AND YOU
>
> I've removed a couple of threads that apparently raged over the weekend due
> to the amount of toxicity at display in them. What I'm most shocked by is
> the fact that not a single report was made by anyone involved regarding the
> situation, as we might have been able to pull things back from the brink if
> users had told us about it earlier.
>
> The forum is very large with a lot of topics and posts, and without users
> helping moderators by reporting issues, this sort of thing will happen more
> often. So this is a general message to members of the board: use the report
> function more often if you see another user, or a group of users, going off
> the rail. It helps the community immensely.

It is, of course, impossible to know what offensive content is being referred to, because the content has removed. Hence, I have no idea whether Westeros.org was right to remove it.

However, without such specific information, there is no context to the message. It is a generalized call for forum users to police each other's thoughts and rat each other out, as if it were a civic duty. Elio ideas are not even mild. He is SHOCKED at people who do not hit the report button.

Maybe I'm far too old and far too liberal (in the old sense of the word). But this is, to me, a disturbing way of thinking.

[Butterbumps@Home]

perjantai 19. heinäkuuta 2019 23.48.29 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> As evidence that many online communities have become the online equivalent of
> North Korea, see the following pinned thread, posted by "Ran" (Elio Garcia),
> in the GENERAL section of Westeros.org's "Forum of Ice and Fire", on April 8,
> 2019:

Okay, "the online equivalent of North Korea" is a bit dramatic. But in general I agree, this is a bullshit attitude for discussion leaders to have and is part of the reason I've been rolling my eyes at moderated web boards for 20+ years.

> > REPORTING AND YOU
> >
> > I've removed a couple of threads that apparently raged over the weekend due
> > to the amount of toxicity at display in them. What I'm most shocked by is
> > the fact that not a single report was made by anyone involved regarding the
> > situation, as we might have been able to pull things back from the brink if
> > users had told us about it earlier.
> >
> > The forum is very large with a lot of topics and posts, and without users
> > helping moderators by reporting issues, this sort of thing will happen more
> > often. So this is a general message to members of the board: use the report
> > function more often if you see another user, or a group of users, going off
> > the rail. It helps the community immensely.

*snicker*

I have yet to see a post "toxic" enough to warrant a reporting of any kind.

Once, on Facebook, a guy was openly attempting to flash mob a group of racists to murder women and children of a certain ethnic group. That warranted an actual police report, not just a "community standards" report to the social media service in question.

Obviously the line is going to be different for everyone but I'd be very surprised if debate turned "toxic" enough to warrant this. I mean, if people were talking about tracking GRRM down and killing him, or making him finish the books by force, or something otherwise police-actionable as a threat, that would be one thing. By all means, report. That shouldn't be a question.

But it seems to me that if nobody else reported this "toxicity", then it was toxic only to the moderators with (from what you've said) a deep investment in shutting down certain lines of discussion, free thought and opinion.

Fuck that and fuck them.

> It is, of course, impossible to know what offensive content is being referred
> to, because the content has removed. Hence, I have no idea whether
> Westeros.org was right to remove it.

*nod* Fair to say.

> However, without such specific information, there is no context to the
> message. It is a generalized call for forum users to police each other's
> thoughts and rat each other out, as if it were a civic duty. Elio ideas are
> not even mild. He is SHOCKED at people who do not hit the report button.

Elio Garcia is a familiar name, either from this newsgroup or one of the Robert Jordan groups. I think it was this group, actually.

We had some arguments. I'm not at all surprise to find him sucking his thumb in a moderated safe space.

> Maybe I'm far too old and far too liberal (in the old sense of the word).
> But this is, to me, a disturbing way of thinking.

Agreed. I'm glad we are unmoderated. We disagree about things but manage to keep using our brains. And I trust that if I said something you deemed too awful, you would tell me directly (and vice versa), and reporting on official channels would be a clear last resort.

Still, I guess we don't know the specifics. It seems hinky to me but whatever.


B@w
--
I just wanted to say "hinky".

https://hatboy.blog/

[Butterbumps@Home]

perjantai 19. heinäkuuta 2019 23.48.29 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> As evidence that many online communities have become the online equivalent of
> North Korea, see the following pinned thread, posted by "Ran" (Elio Garcia),
> in the GENERAL section of Westeros.org's "Forum of Ice and Fire", on April 8,
> 2019:

Follow-up: Yeah, Elio M Garcia Jr. has been a semi-regular posting here, but I don't remember much about our debates off the top of my head.

B@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Butterbumps@Home]

maanantai 22. heinäkuuta 2019 11.22.39 UTC+3 Butterbumps@Home kirjoitti:

> > However, without such specific information, there is no context to the
> > message. It is a generalized call for forum users to police each other's
> > thoughts and rat each other out, as if it were a civic duty. Elio ideas are
> > not even mild. He is SHOCKED at people who do not hit the report button.
>
> Elio Garcia is a familiar name, either from this newsgroup or one of the
> Robert Jordan groups. I think it was this group, actually.
>
> We had some arguments. I'm not at all surprise to find him sucking his thumb
> in a moderated safe space.

Follow-up follow-up: I meant *surprised there.

And yeah, I remember him now, he wasn't in fact all that bad so I take back what I said about the thumb-sucking. He was (unsurprisingly enough) fairly content-based and made some solid comments on the books because he clearly rolls that way.

Didn't argue a heck of a lot but I can't say I'm shocked to see he's all about the moderation and limiting extraneous discusssions.

*shrug*


B@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Will in New Haven]

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 4:48:29 PM UTC-4, Platypus wrote:
> As evidence that many online communities have become the online equivalent of North Korea, see the following pinned thread, posted by "Ran" (Elio Garcia), in the GENERAL section of Westeros.org's "Forum of Ice and Fire", on April 8, 2019:
>
> > REPORTING AND YOU
> >
> > I've removed a couple of threads that apparently raged over the weekend due
> > to the amount of toxicity at display in them. What I'm most shocked by is
> > the fact that not a single report was made by anyone involved regarding the
> > situation, as we might have been able to pull things back from the brink if
> > users had told us about it earlier.
> >
> > The forum is very large with a lot of topics and posts, and without users
> > helping moderators by reporting issues, this sort of thing will happen more
> > often. So this is a general message to members of the board: use the report
> > function more often if you see another user, or a group of users, going off
> > the rail. It helps the community immensely.
>
> It is, of course, impossible to know what offensive content is being referred to, because the content has removed. Hence, I have no idea whether Westeros.org was right to remove it.

Well, I know that they weren't right to remove it. My standard is the Usenet standard: If you don't want to read it, stop reading.

--
Will in Florida

[Butterbumps@Home]

perjantai 26. heinäkuuta 2019 22.48.52 UTC+3 Will in New Haven kirjoitti:

> > It is, of course, impossible to know what offensive content is being
> > referred to, because the content has removed. Hence, I have no idea
> > whether Westeros.org was right to remove it.
>
> Well, I know that they weren't right to remove it. My standard is the Usenet
> standard: If you don't want to read it, stop reading.

If, for example, it was George RR Martin's home address and burglar alarm code and an open bounty on going in there, beating him up and making him write ten more pages of the next Song of Ice and Fire book, then they were right to remove it and "stop reading if you don't want to read it" does nothing to solve the issue because it's the ones who *want* to read it who are the problem.

I can think of less extreme examples but it should be pretty obvious that there isn't a single monolithic "post whatever you want without consequences" rule we can sign off on here.

*Still*, it's probably safe to assume this was considerably more innocuous than that and therefore we can *tsk* mildly at the censorship at work. Doesn't really affect us in any way.


B@w
--
For this is Usenet, bastion of free speech

https://hatboy.blog/

And this is Hatboy's Hatstand, theocratic dictatorship ruled by me.

[Platypus]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 4:22:39 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> perjantai 19. heinäkuuta 2019 23.48.29 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:
>
> > As evidence that many online communities have become the online equivalent of
> > North Korea, see the following pinned thread, posted by "Ran" (Elio Garcia),
> > in the GENERAL section of Westeros.org's "Forum of Ice and Fire", on April 8,
> > 2019:
>
> Okay, "the online equivalent of North Korea" is a bit dramatic.

Recently, I have come to the conclusion that "the online equivalent of Communist China" would be more on point. I have a suspicion that any views contrary to official positions on the Chinese State, are not welcome there.

I arrived at this suspicion while trying to discuss the COVID 19 virus in the "General Chatter" subforum, as "Platypus Rex". I received an indefinite suspension of posting privileges by "Ran" (Elio Garcia) for "spreading the poison of conspiracy theories" (in his email to me he said it was "not a ban" but it was effectively no different).

What immediately prompted this "not-a-ban" was my opinion that China was understating its Coronavirus numbers, and my opinion that the World Health Organization in general, and Dr. Bruce Aylward in particular, was kissing China's ass. Anyone who checks the profile of "Platypus Rex" can see the posts that prompted my "not-a-ban".

The forum also seems to be overrun by the equivalent of 50-cent army trolls, who harass and abuse, with mod encouragement, anyone who expresses views contrary to those of Communist China. Earlier, one such lynch mob had formed against me for suggesting that the virus might have an airborne component, and for arguing that the airborne/droplet distinction was a fuzzy one, which was contrary to the Chinese position at the time (the Diamond Princess situation was still underway). I suspected I was about to receive the banhammer then ... but then China came out and admitted that the virus was indeed capable of airborne spread in at least some circumstances. So I was temporarily saved.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 29. maaliskuuta 2020 13.29.26 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> > Okay, "the online equivalent of North Korea" is a bit dramatic.
>
> Recently, I have come to the conclusion that "the online equivalent of
> Communist China" would be more on point. I have a suspicion that any
> views contrary to official positions on the Chinese State, are not welcome
> there.

Hmm.

> I arrived at this suspicion while trying to discuss the COVID 19 virus in
> the "General Chatter" subforum, as "Platypus Rex". I received an
> indefinite suspension of posting privileges by "Ran" (Elio Garcia) for
> "spreading the poison of conspiracy theories" (in his email to me he said
> it was "not a ban" but it was effectively no different).
>
> What immediately prompted this "not-a-ban" was my opinion that China was
> understating its Coronavirus numbers,

I wouldn't be surprised, but then it's definitely not the only country to be doing that.

> and my opinion that the World Health Organization in general, and Dr.
> Bruce Aylward in particular, was kissing China's ass.

I have an instinctive reaction to accusations like this, mostly because they're misused for the purposes of anti-Chinese bigotry.

I mean, what constitutes "kissing China's ass"? The WHO met with Chinese officials (as they should) and recited China's position (as they had little recourse but to do) while hedging on the subject of communicability, fatality rates, and spread (because that's how science works, it's not warm and fuzzy). Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Could China have been less shit? Definitely. Lots of places could have been less shit.

What matters, to me, is your takeaway from this "theory" of yours. What should we discuss / do / have done instead? What's your conclusion?

> Anyone who checks the profile of "Platypus Rex" can see the posts that
> prompted my "not-a-ban".

Yeah I'm not that invested. You can let me know here if you feel like it. It's just that I've seen a lot of stupid these past few months, so try to be not-stupid?

> The forum also seems to be overrun by the equivalent of 50-cent army
> trolls, who harass and abuse, with mod encouragement, anyone who expresses
> views contrary to those of Communist China. Earlier, one such lynch mob
> had formed against me for suggesting that the virus might have an airborne
> component, and for arguing that the airborne/droplet distinction was a
> fuzzy one, which was contrary to the Chinese position at the time (the
> Diamond Princess situation was still underway). I suspected I was about
> to receive the banhammer then ... but then China came out and admitted
> that the virus was indeed capable of airborne spread in at least some
> circumstances. So I was temporarily saved.

Right. Well, no banhammers here.


- C@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> > What immediately prompted this "not-a-ban" was my opinion that China was
> > understating its Coronavirus numbers,
>
> I wouldn't be surprised, but then it's definitely not the only country to be doing that.

Well sure. Even Western countries, with semi-free presses, may be underestimating their numbers to a greater or lesser extent. It is possible that the UK's numbers are not precisely comparable to Sweden's numbers. But there can be no comparison between these countries and authoritarian dictatorships that maintain strict control of information, such as Iran or China.

At the time I was not-a-banned (btw, I am still not-a banned), China was the nation that primarily mattered. The question was whether we should underestimate the virus by taking the Chinese information at face value, or pay attention to the myriad indications that the situation was far worse than the Chinese government was willing to admit.

> > and my opinion that the World Health Organization in general, and Dr.
> > Bruce Aylward in particular, was kissing China's ass.
>
> I have an instinctive reaction to accusations like this, mostly because they're misused for the purposes of anti-Chinese bigotry.

There is no natural instinct that compels people to call each other bigots merely because they do not trust the dictatorial regimes of powerful foreign nations. You did not get this from your instincts.

Where, then does it come from? Recently, the Epoch Times was accused of promoting anti-Chinese racism, by no-less than the Canadian Broadcast Corporation. The CBC ran a smear piece on them, which at the very least, heavily hinted at such a charge. But the Epoch Times is run by Chinese people, by Falun Gong members. Yes, they have an ax to grind; yes, their youtube ads are annoying; no, I do not want to join their religion; nor do I want to go see their "Shen Yun" dance show like they keep nagging me to do. But no, they are not anti-Chinese racists. They are (for perfectly understandable reasons) opposed to the Chinese Communist Party.

That Canadian taxpayer dollars are being used to finance a smear piece against the Falun Gong as anti-Chinese racists, just goes to show you that the problem of Chinese soft-power influence worldwide goes far beyond Elio Garcia censoring posts on Westeros.org. I don't know if Elio does this because he wants to appease CCP activist trolls who have infested his website; or because he wants to ensure his website is not banned in China; or because CCP propaganda has so infested the Western media and internet that Elio actually believes this is the right thing to do. But in any event, the problem goes far beyond Elio.

> I mean, what constitutes "kissing China's ass"?

A fair question. I'll try to answer. It might have been better had you not thrown out the word "bigot" before you asked. My answer will go by memory, and if you want precise quotes or sources, ask followup questions and I'll do my best.

The first time it occurred to me that the WHO was kissing China's ass (or, if you prefer, being diplomatic) was when (and this is a loose paraphrase from memory) they said, in effect, that they were not worried about the effect of the Wuhan outbreak on China because China had the situation under control, but there was only cause for concern because of its potential effect on less developed nations.

Then there were the times they praised China for its "transparency", virtually in the middle of its massive coverups, massive censorship, punishment of whistleblowers, exclusion of independent outside observers, and arrests of citizen journalists.

How about their unmitigated praise of China's virus response, presumably including those that involved human rights abuses. Are they fans of welding citizens in their homes, and rounding up sick people into mass quarantine camps, where they receive little or no treatment? Or is their official position that no such things ever happened?

Their unmitigated praise of China's response presumably extends to the massive lockdowns and travel restrictions WITHIN China. But not to any measures that China itself opposes, like restrictions on travel OUT OF China to other countries. China opposed this, so the WHO opposed it too. Can you name one situation where the WHO's response did not follow the (shifting) line of the Chinese Communist Party?

The CCP refused to use the word "airborne", and its line was "droplet only". The WHO followed this line. Then in February some CCP official declared the virus to have an "airborne" component. The next day, the WHO director gives a speech declaring the virus to be "airborne". Then the CCP punishes the official who said it was "airborne". Then the WHO director's speech is suppressed, and the WHO stops talking about "airborne", and mainstream media avoids the topic. Now that Western nations are no longer reliant on the CCP and the WHO and mainstream for data, it is now universally understood by national CDCs that the virus is capable of some degree of airborne spread.

China downplayed the disease, so the WHO downplayed the disease too. The WHO did not declare it a pandemic until this was obvious to everyone already.

How about the time when Dr. Bruce Aylward was given a guided tour of select facilities by the CCP authorities, and came back saying that if he had coronavirus he'd want to be treated in China.

How about how the WHO refuses to list Taiwan as a separate entity in its coronavirus statistics, for the obvious purpose of appeasing China.

And the icing on the cake was the video where a Hong Kong reporter tried to interview Dr. Bruce Aylward and tried to ask him about Taiwan. This so-obviously showed Dr. Bruce to be in China's ideological pocket that the WHO removed Dr. Bruce's name from their website to protect against the damage to their image.

If you care, watch the video and tell me if you still trust Dr. Bruce as an uncompromised and unbiased source of coronavirus information. This link currently works, and it's only a minute long, so it won't take much of your time. And this is the same man whose endorsement of the Chinese coronavirus statistics allegedly proved they were accurate, according to Elio. This is the same man who you have to trust, according to Elio, otherwise you are a "conspiracy theorist", who deserves to be banned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE

> The WHO met with Chinese officials (as they should) and recited China's position (as they had little recourse but to do) while hedging on the subject of communicability, fatality rates, and spread (because that's how science works, it's not warm and fuzzy).

At the very least, they could have avoided praising China's transparency at the time that China was censoring its own doctors and citizens and denying access to outside experts and observers.

> Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Could China have been less shit? Definitely. Lots of places could have been less shit.

The conversation was not about "lots of places". We were talking about the virus and how big a threat that it posed. That means, at the time, that we were talking primarily about China, as China was the nation that so far had the most experience with the disease. Elio believed the Chinese numbers were accurate, I believed they were vastly inaccurate, and that Chinese authorities was underselling the threat of the virus for political reasons. It was not about bashing China, it was about whether something really bad was coming our way, which we ought to prepare for. Elio cited the WHO's praise of China, after their little guided tour, as proof that the Chinese numbers were accurate. I said the WHO had been kissing China's ass, and he not-a-banned me.

Note Trump had also guilty of kissing China's ass, and repeating Chinese propaganda. Trump has changed his tune a bit since Elio not-a-banned me, but I did not get my ideas from Trump. I presume Trump was kissing Xi's ass in order to protect his precious Chinese Trade Deal. One thing they had earlier raked Trump over the coals for, on Westeros.org, was for saying the virus would clear up by April, in the summer months. I more-or-less agreed with them that this was nonsense, but wondered then, as I do now, why everyone on Westeros.org, and everyone on the mainstream media, was avoiding mention of the fact that Trump was merely repeating a CCP talking point. And it's not like it was hard to miss; Trump stated outright, in the statements criticized, that it was something Xi told him.

And of course, President Xi's brave prediction DID come true, IF you believe the official Chinese statistics. The virus DID (supposedly) largely clear up by April, in Mainland China, with any new infections after that being blamed on foreigners, and particularly on Africans. Scapegoating has always been a tried and true propaganda ploy in the arsenal of dictatorial regimes.

At the time of my not-a-ban, Italy's death numbers were only just starting to catch up with those of China. Now Italy's numbers are 10 times what then was being reported for Hubei province, despite an equivalent population. Other nations of equivalent size have equivalent numbers. Even China started to believe this lie was just a little too big a difference even for fools to swallow, and so one day decided to up their Hubei province numbers by about 50%, from roughly 3000 to roughly 4500. These were not new cases, but (ostensibly) a retrospective re-evaluation of the statistics.

> What matters, to me, is your takeaway from this "theory" of yours. What should we discuss / do / have done instead? What's your conclusion?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

One of my beliefs is that authoritarian regimes are bad at responding to fast-moving crises like epidemics. However bad Italy's death numbers may be, China's must be vastly worse per capita, both inside and outside Hubei province. There was, after all, no active coverup in Italy's case, and no systematic silencing of whistle-blowers, and it's not like Italy did not have some warning. What authoritarian regimes are good at, is controlling information. China's coronavirus death numbers must be off by a factor of about 15-20, and more likely, by much more. At the time, I would have said (had I been asked rather than banned) that the numbers might plausibly be off by a factor of 10. I wonder if I would have been not-a-banned for saying the numbers were off by only 50%, which the Chinese officials have since "admitted" in order to make their numbers look marginally more plausible.

This mattered more at the time, when discussing the virus. It was relevant to what I expected to happen when the virus reached the shores of Western nations. It does not seem that I was wrong, in retrospect, but maybe a communist would argue that I only got lucky in my guess, and what the differential death rates really prove is the vast superiority of the Chinese Communist system, and authoritarian systems generally, in responding to epidemics, and that we should all become communists therefore, so that, in future, we can have death numbers as low as China when the next epidemic hits.

> Yeah I'm not that invested. You can let me know here if you feel like it. It's just that I've seen a lot of stupid these past few months, so try to be not-stupid?

Again, I'm not sure I understand the remark. Feel free to tell me if you think something I have said is stupid. After all, like you say, no-one can censor me (except maybe google) if I choose to argue back. I will try to back up anything you challenge. Just don't assume that what I say is baseless merely because it was not widely reported on mainstream media outlets.

[Platypus]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:

> I wouldn't be surprised, but then it's definitely not the only country to be doing that.

Just adding to what I said before. The "everyone is doing it" response, even to the extent it is accurate, would be a poor excuse for censoring people for saying that China is doing it too. On Westeros.org, people did not get censored (banned) for saying Trump was covering up coronavirus numbers, and nobody, including me, was calling for that. But I was (secretly) censored for saying China was doing it. How is it possible to have any kind of honest discussion when moderators are secretly putting their fingers on the scale like this?

And again, the difference between what a leader semi-free quasi democracy can get away, and what a communist dictatorship can get away with, in terms of what they can cover up, is night and day. Trump has an entire mainstream media lined up against him, and can't get away with squat.

But here's another example of the "everyone is doing it" ploy. Just before I was "not a banned", I mentioned the W.H.O.'s refusal to acknowledge Taiwan as an example of the W.H.O. "kissing China's ass". After my not-a-ban, both Elio and Adam Whitehead (another moderator) chimed in with the argument that the W.H.O. is not the only one who refuses to acknowledge Taiwan to appease mainland China, and that various nations (including the U.S.A.) have withheld formal recognition. (Not quite the same thing, but never mind for now).

So effectively, Elio admitted I was telling the truth just after he not-a-banned me. He was punishing me for telling the truth. He and Werthead's attitude was, not only that everyone WAS kissing China's ass, but they approve of kissing China's ass, and I should be doing it too.

And I'd like you to keep in mind, before you raise the "anti-Chinese bigotry" canard again, that the Taiwanese are also Chinese. I guess that was obvious even to Elio, which I suppose is why he chose to not-a-banned me for pretext of the "poison" or "conspiracy theory", and not for the pretext of anti-Chinese racism.

[Platypus]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:

> I mean, what constitutes "kissing China's ass"?

Here's another answer to your question, by the Associated Press:
https://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

For posterity, and in case the link stops working, the article is
The Associated Press, CHINA DELAYED RELEASING CORONAVIRUS INFO, FRUSTRATING WHO, June 3, 2020.

In sum, the AP reports that WHO while publicly praising China's transparency, were privately frustrated by China's lack of transparency.

Their motives, whether good or bad, are irrelevant. Bottom line is, they made public statements about China that did not reflect the actual state of affairs.

[Butterbumps@Home]

keskiviikko 20. toukokuuta 2020 23.58.43 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> Well sure. Even Western countries, with semi-free presses, may be
> underestimating their numbers to a greater or lesser extent.

Seems hard to imagine they're *not*. Unless you test 100% of the population, the actual confirmed cases are certain to be higher than the ones counted, right?

> It is possible that the UK's numbers are not precisely comparable to
> Sweden's numbers. But there can be no comparison between these countries
> and authoritarian dictatorships that maintain strict control of
> information, such as Iran or China.

Seems like all the totalitarian states run by right-wing strongman governments (or wannabe strongman in the case of the US) are tanking this thing. But like you say, the difference is in the information that's getting out.

> > I have an instinctive reaction to accusations like this, mostly because
> > they're misused for the purposes of anti-Chinese bigotry.
>
> There is no natural instinct that compels people to call each other bigots
> merely because they do not trust the dictatorial regimes of powerful
> foreign nations. You did not get this from your instincts.

I didn't say "natural". Call it a knee-jerk reaction if you like.

I have no problem with criticising totalitarian regimes. I do have a problem with this sort of criticism - not from you, but from a lot of sources, because it's clearly nothing to do with criticising a cruel and brutal government, and everything to do with painting a place and its people as being "to blame" - and that reflects back not on the brutal government, but on the innocent civilians who happen to be from that country.

I accept, and repeat, that it's not you. But this sort of talk can also be used to serve agendas I am *strongly* opposed to. So I do need to be really clear on the place you're coming from, ideologically.

I wish all places of discourse could communicate in the same way.

> The first time it occurred to me that the WHO was kissing China's ass (or,
> if you prefer, being diplomatic) was when (and this is a loose paraphrase
> from memory) they said, in effect, that they were not worried about the
> effect of the Wuhan outbreak on China because China had the situation
> under control, but there was only cause for concern because of its
> potential effect on less developed nations.

At the time, this may well have been true. The WHO is hindered by the necessity of adhering to the facts as they know them, and based on previous pandemic situations this was how things looked.

All in all though, there was way too much of this politically-motivated muzzling of information, and it severely undermined the WHO at a critical time.

> Then there were the times they praised China for its "transparency",
> virtually in the middle of its massive coverups, massive censorship,
> punishment of whistleblowers, exclusion of independent outside observers,
> and arrests of citizen journalists.

Yeah, that's some bullshit. I'd still be inclined to continue listening to the WHO, though. Rather than withdraw from the organisation. I'm glad I live in a country that still does.

> But not to any measures that China itself opposes, like restrictions on
> travel OUT OF China to other countries. China opposed this, so the WHO
> opposed it too. Can you name one situation where the WHO's response did
> not follow the (shifting) line of the Chinese Communist Party?

I don't remember the WHO saying international travel was fine. Certainly not once lockdowns went into effect. Like I said, before that, it was no worse than any other flu pandemic. We travelled internationally in the height of SARS. Recommendations have to change as the information does.

> Now that Western nations are no longer reliant on the CCP and the WHO and
> mainstream for data, it is now universally understood by national CDCs
> that the virus is capable of some degree of airborne spread.

I don't know about you but I'm still getting my most trustworthy information from the mainstream and Finland's government recommendations are still coming from the WHO, among other sources. Like you say, now the thing is global, we have plenty of sources to cross-check with.

> China downplayed the disease, so the WHO downplayed the disease too. The
> WHO did not declare it a pandemic until this was obvious to everyone
> already.

That's kind of when it makes sense to do so? They're not going to cause a panic by making shit up. I find it hard to fault their caution here, although admittedly a bit more hysteria may have been useful in hindsight.

> How about how the WHO refuses to list Taiwan as a separate entity in its
> coronavirus statistics, for the obvious purpose of appeasing China.

Can't really comment on that. That feels like a greater-good pill the WHO have to swallow (like so many other groups do, and I know you don't like that argument but I'm not using it as a justification) in order to get the most traction for their work. I wish it wasn't the case.

> And the icing on the cake was the video where a Hong Kong reporter tried
> to interview Dr. Bruce Aylward and tried to ask him about Taiwan. This
> so-obviously showed Dr. Bruce to be in China's ideological pocket that the
> WHO removed Dr. Bruce's name from their website to protect against the
> damage to their image.
>
> If you care, watch the video and tell me if you still trust Dr. Bruce as
> an uncompromised and unbiased source of coronavirus information. This
> link currently works, and it's only a minute long, so it won't take much
> of your time. And this is the same man whose endorsement of the Chinese
> coronavirus statistics allegedly proved they were accurate, according to
> Elio. This is the same man who you have to trust, according to Elio,
> otherwise you are a "conspiracy theorist", who deserves to be banned:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE

Yeah, that's shonky alright. It sucks that an international cooperative body that should be our best hope in coordinating against a pandemic is tied up in this political bullshit. Humans are great.

> Elio believed the Chinese numbers were accurate, I believed they were
> vastly inaccurate, and that Chinese authorities was underselling the
> threat of the virus for political reasons.

Just as well we all learned our lesson from this.

> It was not about bashing China, it was about whether something really bad
> was coming our way, which we ought to prepare for.

Sure, absolutely. It was a fuck-up of disastrous proportions. I believe that it wasn't about bashing China for you, that's very clear. It should have been clear to Elio as well. Sadly he decided to not-ban you instead of having a conversation.

I can sort of understand the damage-control aspect of limiting that kind of talk, when it comes to the bottom line of what this is going to mean socially and interpersonally. It's too dangerous a weapon to let it go unchecked, considering the idiots out there and the panic that's still going on. But "unchecked" doesn't need to mean "censored". Ideally, a clarifying conversation like this would do.

> Elio cited the WHO's praise of China, after their little guided tour, as
> proof that the Chinese numbers were accurate. I said the WHO had been
> kissing China's ass, and he not-a-banned me.

*shrug*

I think there are better ways to talk about it. And I think you have too much history on westeros.org for either side of the converstion there to operate in good faith. Just the impression I've gotten.

> Note Trump had also guilty of kissing China's ass, and repeating Chinese
> propaganda. Trump has changed his tune a bit since Elio not-a-banned me,
> but I did not get my ideas from Trump. I presume Trump was kissing Xi's
> ass in order to protect his precious Chinese Trade Deal.

Of course. There's a lot of shit going down with China all over the world right now, and it's only partially about the pandemic.

> One thing they had earlier raked Trump over the coals for, on
> Westeros.org, was for saying the virus would clear up by April, in the
> summer months. I more-or-less agreed with them that this was nonsense,
> but wondered then, as I do now, why everyone on Westeros.org, and everyone
> on the mainstream media, was avoiding mention of the fact that Trump was
> merely repeating a CCP talking point. And it's not like it was hard to
> miss; Trump stated outright, in the statements criticized, that it was
> something Xi told him.

Trump doesn't have the control over his moronic populace that Xi does. But if you want to say their control over people is the same, but control over information is different, I guess we'll have to wait and see how bad this gets - in China and in the US.

> And of course, President Xi's brave prediction DID come true, IF you
> believe the official Chinese statistics. The virus DID (supposedly)
> largely clear up by April, in Mainland China, with any new infections
> after that being blamed on foreigners, and particularly on Africans.

So how bad do you think it is in China right now? As bad as the US (per million)?

We're doing okay over here, but we have another huge data shadow on our eastern border. Russia may be a zombie apocalypse right now and Putin would just go on beating gays and putting Jehova's Witnesses in camps and saying everything is fine.

> Scapegoating has always been a tried and true propaganda ploy in the
> arsenal of dictatorial regimes.

Which is exactly what I was trying to head off for the sake of my Chinese friends. It wasn't aimed specifically at you, so much as at the idea - it was a weird reversal of ad hominem. Which, you know, shouldn't be weird but we are what we are I guess.

> > What matters, to me, is your takeaway from this "theory" of yours. What
> > should we discuss / do / have done instead? What's your conclusion?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question.

Your comments, and your conclusion, is functionally identical to Chinese scapegoating that will turn people against "dirty" Chinese civilians all over the western world. How do you responsibly prevent that, while holding regimes accountable?

Because "it's people's responsibility to read what I say and take the right lesson from it" is fine when it's you and me. But that's not what's happening in the world.

> One of my beliefs is that authoritarian regimes are bad at responding to
> fast-moving crises like epidemics.

Absolutely. Even most capitalist nations, dependent on enforced poverty and a captive workforce, can't continue making massive profits for their oligarch class through the necessary safety actions.

But I'm just repeating you.

> This mattered more at the time, when discussing the virus. It was
> relevant to what I expected to happen when the virus reached the shores of
> Western nations. It does not seem that I was wrong, in retrospect, but
> maybe a communist would argue that I only got lucky in my guess, and what
> the differential death rates really prove is the vast superiority of the
> Chinese Communist system, and authoritarian systems generally, in
> responding to epidemics, and that we should all become communists
> therefore, so that, in future, we can have death numbers as low as China
> when the next epidemic hits.

I'm definitely a communist by US standards, but I agree that it's far more likely that authoritarian regimes controlled the information rather than the virus / people. We know this, really, from seeing how "fuzzier" authoritarian governments failed to do fuck all, and in fact made things worse in the service of their corrupt overlords, but also failed to keep it a secret.

> > Yeah I'm not that invested. You can let me know here if you feel like
> > it. It's just that I've seen a lot of stupid these past few months, so
> > try to be not-stupid?
>
> Again, I'm not sure I understand the remark. Feel free to tell me if you
> think something I have said is stupid.

No, I phrased that badly. It was a more general hope for cases where you (for example) are voicing criticisms of dishonest and agenda-driven government agencies. Do it in such a way, responsibly, as to avoid the risks that accompany the (functionally indistinguishable) nationalist scapegoating.

None of it does much good now anyway. Who cares which country was "to blame"? It's here, now, on all our doorsteps. Now we need to trust the medics again. This is not a case of "fool me twice, shame on me."

> On Westeros.org, people did not get censored (banned) for saying Trump was
> covering up coronavirus numbers, and nobody, including me, was calling for
> that. But I was (secretly) censored for saying China was doing it. How
> is it possible to have any kind of honest discussion when moderators are
> secretly putting their fingers on the scale like this?

This is a you-and-westeros problem, it's not my problem. I get the frustration of being moderated out of a community and then having no recourse to talk about it though.

> And again, the difference between what a leader semi-free quasi democracy
> can get away, and what a communist dictatorship can get away with, in
> terms of what they can cover up, is night and day. Trump has an entire
> mainstream media lined up against him, and can't get away with squat.

Agreed. Except, you know, he does get away with it. Everyone just knows about it.



B@h
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 9:07:01 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> keskiviikko 20. toukokuuta 2020 23.58.43 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:
> > Well sure.  Even Western countries, with semi-free presses, may be
> > underestimating their numbers to a greater or lesser extent. >
> Seems hard to imagine they're *not*. Unless you test 100% of the population, the actual confirmed cases are certain to be higher than the ones counted, right?

Hence, I said "under-estimating" not "under-reporting".  And just because no data is ever perfect, it does not follow that there is no difference between honesty and dishonesty.

And even when there is dishonesty, there is a difference between what a western liberal democracy can get away with, and what an oppressive authoritarian regime can get away with.

Even among liberal democracies, there is likely a difference in what a single centralized government can get away with and what a decentralized federation of 50 states can get away with.  And no nation on the planet has stronger free speech traditions and safeguards than the United States.

This would be especially true in that particular age of the world when an enormous chunk of the media establishment, corporate establishment, and Washington establishment is united in its desire to bring down a sitting President.

> > It is possible that the UK's numbers are not precisely comparable to
> > Sweden's numbers.  But there can be no comparison between these countries
> > and authoritarian dictatorships that maintain strict control of
> > information, such as Iran or China.  
>
> Seems like all the totalitarian states run by right-wing strongman governments (or wannabe strongman in the case of the US) are tanking this thing. But like you say, the difference is in the information that's getting out.

Why single out "right wing"? Seems to me this applies to all strongman governments. Such as China.
 
Also I don't think the USA is hard-hit compared to China.  Nor even compared to Sweden.

New York State is hard-hit even compared to US generally, and New York City (where I work) even worse.  I've extensively visited a relative in a hospital here during the crisis. And I'm glad I live here and not in China. 

> > > I have an instinctive reaction to accusations like this, mostly because
> > > they're misused for the purposes of anti-Chinese bigotry.
> >
> > There is no natural instinct that compels people to call each other bigots
> > merely because they do not trust the dictatorial regimes of powerful
> > foreign nations.  You did not get this from your instincts.
>
> I didn't say "natural".

I believe you said "instinctive". I don't think it's a natural instinct, that's all I'm saying.

> Call it a knee-jerk reaction if you like.

Fair enough. 

> I have no problem with criticising totalitarian regimes.

That's great! 

> I do have a problem with this sort of criticism - not from you, but from a lot of sources, because it's clearly nothing to do with criticising a cruel and brutal government, and everything to do with painting a place and its people as being "to blame" - and that reflects back not on the brutal government, but on the innocent civilians who happen to be from that country.

I'm confused.   If this has nothing to do with me, then why are you even bringing it up?  I agree that it has nothing to do with me.

> I accept, and repeat, that it's not you.

That's great!  But somehow I suspect that there is still an issue.

>  But this sort of talk can also be used to serve agendas I am *strongly* opposed to.

Which has nothing to do with me.  Right?

> So I do need to be really clear on the place you're coming from, ideologically.

You just said you were really clear.  What are you saying now?

If I'm not saying anything you disagree with, then wait until I say something I disagree with until you make an issue out of it.  Why does that not work?

> I wish all places of discourse could communicate in the same way.

In what way?  I'm confused.

> > The first time it occurred to me that the WHO was kissing China's ass (or,
> > if you prefer, being diplomatic) was when (and this is a loose paraphrase
> > from memory) they said, in effect, that they were not worried about the
> > effect of the Wuhan outbreak on China because China had the situation
> > under control, but there was only cause for concern because of its
> > potential effect on less developed nations.    
>
> At the time, this may well have been true. The WHO is hindered by the necessity of adhering to the facts as they know them, and based on previous pandemic situations this was how things looked.

Even I knew "at the time" that the WHO was talking nonsense.  I'm sure the WHO knew more and better than I did.  They not only had all the information I did, they had far more.

This was confirmed by the AP article I linked you to.  It is not that they did not know better, but that they were moderating their public statements to what China wanted to hear, for the (arguably) benevolent motive of obtaining China's limited cooperation in fighting the epidemic.

> All in all though, there was way too much of this politically-motivated muzzling of information, and it severely undermined the WHO at a critical time.

There is still too much of this muzzling of information, much of it directly or indirectly at the instance of China.  When China gets the WHO to appease them by taking positions favored by President Xi, and condemn positions opposed by President Xi, the next stage is an extensive propaganda effort to get online news organizations and companies to censor things President Xi does not like, on the pretext that anything not endorsed by the Holy Infallible WHO is a "conspiracy theory."  Youtube is another company whose president has declared that they will censor information not endorsed by the WHO.

Elio Garcia is, wittingly or unwittingly, a tool in this process.  One guess is he is actively censoring his website to ensure that it does not get blocked in China, and to ensure that Westeros.org has access to Chinese markets.  But this could be wrong, and he could have other motives that I do not fully understand.  He might even believe the nonsense he says.

> > Then there were the times they praised China for its "transparency",
> > virtually in the middle of its massive coverups, massive censorship,
> > punishment of whistleblowers, exclusion of independent outside observers,
> > and arrests of citizen journalists.
>
> Yeah, that's some bullshit.

Indeed it is.

> I'd still be inclined to continue listening to the WHO, though. Rather than withdraw from the organisation. I'm glad I live in a country that still does.

The question at the time was not whether any country should withdraw from the WHO but whether people should be allowed to criticize that organization.  Any organization that cannot be criticized is an organization that cannot be trusted.

Powers of censorship are always abused, and they are always abused for political ends.  For instance, I hate quack medicine; until the government starts censoring the quacks, and not even permitting them to talk.  Then I get suspicious.  Yeah it might START with the quacks, but it NEVER stops with them, once the precedent is set.

> > But not to any measures that China itself opposes, like restrictions on
> > travel OUT OF China to other countries.  China opposed this, so the WHO
> > opposed it too.  Can you name one situation where the WHO's response did
> > not follow the (shifting) line of the Chinese Communist Party?
>
> I don't remember the WHO saying international travel was fine.

That's okay.  I remember them saying it.

> Certainly not once lockdowns went into effect.

You're talking about the China lockdowns, right?  The answer is yes, certainly so.  After China instituted draconian lockdowns WITHIN China, China continued to argue that Chinese citizens should be free to fly to other countries, and the WHO supported the Chinese position (while having nothing but praise for China's internal measures, which would presumably include their internal travel restrictions).

> > China downplayed the disease, so the WHO downplayed the disease too.  The
> > WHO did not declare it a pandemic until this was obvious to everyone
> > already.  
>
> That's kind of when it makes sense to do so? They're not going to cause a panic by making shit up. I find it hard to fault their caution here, although admittedly a bit more hysteria may have been useful in hindsight.

That's nonsense.  The WHO changed or abandoned its previous definition of "pandemic" just so they would not have to declare this a "pandemic". 

> > How about how the WHO refuses to list Taiwan as a separate entity in its
> > coronavirus statistics, for the obvious purpose of appeasing China.
>
> Can't really comment on that. That feels like a greater-good pill the WHO have to swallow (like so many other groups do, and I know you don't like that argument but I'm not using it as a justification) in order to get the most traction for their work. I wish it wasn't the case.

We can debate the pros and cons of appeasement all you like.  If you want to argue that the WHO was buttering China's ass for the Greater Good, be my guest.  I might roll my eyes a little bit, but never mind.  That was not the issue.
The issue was whether we must swallow, hook, line and sinker, the things that the WHO says to butter China's ass.   Elio's position is yes, we must.  And anyone who disagrees with what the WHO says (including the things the WHO says to appease President Xi) must be censored as a "conspiracy theorist".
Then the lies of the WHO get used as a justification for censoring anyone who disagrees with the lies.  Does not that alter the cost-benefit equation a bit?  Would it not be better if we all accept that the WHO, however useful it might be, is a political organization, and that citizens of the World and each nation within it should have both the right and the duty to take it's pronouncements with a grain of salt?

I'm not an anarchist.  I believe we need government.  Perhaps (but I'm honestly a bit less sure of this) we need world government.  Perhaps we even need the WHO.  But citizens should still have the right to distrust their governments, including their world governments and its various departments like the WHO.
Any governmental body that one is not allowed to criticize is exactly the governmental body that cannot be trusted.

> > And the icing on the cake was the video where a Hong Kong reporter tried
> > to interview Dr. Bruce Aylward and tried to ask him about Taiwan.  This
> > so-obviously showed Dr. Bruce to be in China's ideological pocket that the
> > WHO removed Dr. Bruce's name from their website to protect against the
> > damage to their image.
> >
> > If you care, watch the video and tell me if you still trust Dr. Bruce as
> > an uncompromised and unbiased source of coronavirus information.  This
> > link currently works, and it's only a minute long, so it won't take much
> > of your time.  And this is the same man whose endorsement of the Chinese
> > coronavirus statistics allegedly proved they were accurate, according to
> > Elio.  This is the same man who you have to trust, according to Elio,
> > otherwise you are a "conspiracy theorist", who deserves to be banned:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASh2_RzMuE
>
> Yeah, that's shonky alright.

Yup!

> > Elio believed the Chinese numbers were accurate, I believed they were
> > vastly inaccurate, and that Chinese authorities was underselling the
> > threat of the virus for political reasons.
>
> Just as well we all learned our lesson from this.

Who is "we"?  And what did "we" learn?

> > It was not about bashing China, it was about whether something really bad
> > was coming our way, which we ought to prepare for.
>
> Sure, absolutely. It was a fuck-up of disastrous proportions. I believe that it wasn't about bashing China for you, that's very clear. It should have been clear to Elio as well. Sadly he decided to not-ban you instead of having a conversation.

I suspect he'll do the same thing the next time anyone tries to start a discussion in the international thread about topics disfavored by Predident Xi and the Chinese Censors.

> I can sort of understand the damage-control aspect of limiting that kind of talk, when it comes to the bottom line of what this is going to mean socially and interpersonally. It's too dangerous a weapon to let it go unchecked, considering the idiots out there and the panic that's still going on.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

>  But "unchecked" doesn't need to mean "censored".

I think you meant to say "But 'checked' doesn't need to mean 'censored'".  Maybe not, but it is unclear what distinction you have in mind.

> > Elio cited the WHO's praise of China, after their little guided tour, as
> > proof that the Chinese numbers were accurate.  I said the WHO had been
> > kissing China's ass, and he not-a-banned me.
>
> *shrug*
>
> I think there are better ways to talk about it.

What exactly do you mean?  Are you suggesting I should have known better than to use colorful language like "kissing ass" on a family-friendly forum devoted to the G-rated works of GRRM?

If not, then what are you talking about?

> And I think you have too much history on westeros.org for either side of the conversation there to operate in good faith. Just the impression I've gotten.
In what way was I not operating in good faith?  And how did you get the impression that I was not operating in good faith?  And how is our "history" relevant?

Elio knew nothing of my "history", whatever it was.   We had one prior encounter under my present nym where he forbade me from discussing another topic forbidden by  President Xi.  I obediently followed his command, and dropped the topic. 

I doubt he could read my mind, and intuitively understand my "bad faith" and general unworthiness.  And with all due respect, I rather doubt that you can do that either.  I'm inclined therefore, to think he banned me for the things I said.

> So how bad do you think it is in China right now? As bad as the US (per million)?

I think it is many times worse, both in terms of COVID deaths per million, and in terms of increased mortality (from all causes) as a result of disruptions ultimately related to the epidemic and the government's draconian countermeasures.

 I also tend to suspect (though I have not looked too much into this yet) that the US figures are not comparable to those of other Western nations with more centralized governments.  The US government is very decentralized.  Each individual state is competing for federal funds, aid, and resources to help them fight the epidemic; and even where there might be some political motive to downplay the epidemic this will in the long run be more-than counteracted by other considerations.  I could be wrong about this, but I would have to be convinced.

> We're doing okay over here, but we have another huge data shadow on our eastern border.

"Here" being Finland?   I really don't know the details about Finland, or how their official figures are computed.  Just going by the raw death rate, they are doing pretty well, but maybe not quite as well as Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, or Montana.  Not that that is necessarily a fair comparison or anything.

> > Scapegoating has always been a tried and true propaganda ploy in the
> > arsenal of dictatorial regimes.
>

> Which is exactly what I was trying to head off for the sake of my Chinese friends.It wasn't aimed specifically at you, so much as at the idea - it was a weird reversal of ad hominem. Which, you know, shouldn't be weird but we are what we are I guess.

Sorry, but I really don't see what your Chinese friends have to do with it. 

I don't have a lot of friends.  But it just so happens that I have a friend for 30+ years who happens to be Chinese.  And you should hear some of the things he says about the Chinese state.  My friend would never insinuate that it is problematic to doubt the WHO or otherwise express opinions disfavored by President Xi.  So I'll keep my friend, and I'll let you keep yours.

  > > > What matters, to me, is your takeaway from this "theory" of yours. What
> > > should we discuss / do / have done instead? What's your conclusion?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the question.
>
> Your comments, and your conclusion, is functionally identical to Chinese scapegoating that will turn people against "dirty" Chinese civilians all over the western world. How do you responsibly prevent that, while holding regimes accountable?

What kind of talk is this???  Right back at you, bud.  Your line of attack is "functionally identical" to saying that nobody should be allowed to criticize the Chinese government, because it is always somehow racist and problematic by some guilt-by-association smear logic. 

Sorry if  that kind of interpretation is uncharitable.  I realize you did not ACTUALLY say that.  But then again, you seem perversely determined to judge me by things I did not actually say. Why is ANY of this necessary? 

If you think I am wrong in anything I said or did, give me an honest argument.   One that addresses what I actually said.

> Because "it's people's responsibility to read what I say and take the right lesson from it" is fine when it's you and me.  But that's not what's happening in the world.

I'm not an elitist.  I do not consider myself to be morally superior to the common man.  I certainly do not trust the political and corporate elites who try to position themselves as the cultural managers of the common man.

Not just you and I, but also the common man, has a right to criticize China.  To the extent that he is a voting citizen in a democracy, he might even be said to have a duty to be concerned about such things.  At the very least, he has a duty to stand up to anyone who tries to tell him what he may or may not discuss.

> No, I phrased that badly. It was a more general hope for cases where you (for example) are voicing criticisms of dishonest and agenda-driven government agencies. Do it in such a way, responsibly, as to avoid the risks that accompany the (functionally indistinguishable) nationalist scapegoating.

And how should I do it "responsibly"???  And how was I not "responsible"?

 
> None of it does much good now anyway. Who cares which country was "to blame"?

Under the ideals of (oldschool) liberalism, which value freedom of speech, whether certain foreign governments are "to blame" for this or that, is certainly a legitimate thing that free citizens should have a right to discuss.  We should have just as much right to criticize foreign governments as we do to criticize our own governments.  Of course, we are also free to argue that the foreign government is NOT to blame.  We might even argue that the issue does not matter, and that other issues matter more.  We lose all authority, however, when we start arguing that no-one should be allowed to discuss the topic.

I don't know why you keep raising the spectre of scapegoating.  If you want to accuse me of scapegoating, just go ahead and do that.  But I'd like to know who you think I have scapegoated.

>  It's here, now, on all our doorsteps. Now we need to trust the medics again.

This is not a case of "fool me twice, shame on me."

It is exactly a case of "fool me twice, shame on me", if we continue to trust the censors and allow them to censor us.

> > On Westeros.org, people did not get censored (banned) for saying Trump was
> > covering up coronavirus numbers, and nobody, including me, was calling for
> > that.  But I was (secretly) censored for saying China was doing it.  How
> > is it possible to have any kind of honest discussion when moderators are
> > secretly putting their fingers on the scale like this?
>
> This is a you-and-westeros problem, it's not my problem.

You don't have to be interested.  But you have chosen to have a discussion with me about it.  If you're not interested, feel free to stop talking to me about it at any time.  What else am I supposed to say to a remark like this?

> I get the frustration of being moderated out of a community and then having no recourse to talk about it though.

I'm talking about it here.   With you.   And maybe with anyone else who might show up.

One of the reasons this cannot be discussed on Westeros.org is of course because one of the cardinal rules of Westeros.org is that you cannot discuss the moderators.  I'm curious to find if any others have run into problems for daring to criticize China (or otherwise hold "wrong" political opinions).  Maybe someone will show up.  Maybe not.  But if someone does, I could compare notes.

What would happen if the plight of the Uygher muslims were mentioned on Westeros.org in the international thread?  I can't help being curious.

[Butterbumps@Home]

lauantai 1. elokuuta 2020 5.41.53 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> If you're not interested, feel free to stop talking to me about
> it at any time.

Yep, I'm gonna do that. Sadly I hoped my efforts in the last exchange would get a better response from you and I don't have the energy to go on with it. That's on me. I think ultimately we're both in agreement that the Chinese government is worryingly aligned and its practices are terrible, and the WHO made a catastrophic mistake in kowtowing to their party line.

I don't think there's a damn thing either of us can do about those two monumental problems, and I don't think any of the rest of the discussion has any purpose or merit. Good luck with your argument with Elio though.


B@h
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 7:33:39 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> lauantai 1. elokuuta 2020 5.41.53 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:
> Yep, I'm gonna do that. Sadly I hoped my efforts in the last exchange would get a better response from you and I don't have the energy to go on with it. That's on me.

You seemed to be trying to convince me that it was my own fault I got banned for saying a perfectly true statement. I found that a bit mystifying and responded accordingly.

> I think ultimately we're both in agreement that the Chinese government is worryingly aligned and its practices are terrible, and the WHO made a catastrophic mistake in kowtowing to their party line.

I don't know if it was a "mistake" or not. I merely said said (in different words) was that the WHO was indeed kowtowing to the party line. So yes, we agree on that much. And that's exactly what Elio banned me for saying.

> I don't think there's a damn thing either of us can do about those two monumental problems, and I don't think any of the rest of the discussion has any purpose or merit.

"Resistance is Futile!" Is that what you are saying?

One thing we COULD in theory have done, had you been interested, was have a discussion here on topics that President Xi and his allies (apparently including the moderators on Westeros.org) do not think people should be allowed to discuss. It would not be much of a rebellion. It is only you and me here. But it is still something.

But you are hostile to that. Not merely uninterested. Hostile. This doctrine of despair is only the latest of your tactics intended to convince me I should shut up about things that are perfectly true.

> Good luck with your argument with Elio though.

Sarcasm? Gloating? My argument with Elio is over, and Elio "won". But you know that.

Whatever. Have a nice day.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 2. elokuuta 2020 4.34.18 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

> You seemed to be trying to convince me that it was my own fault I got
> banned for saying a perfectly true statement. I found that a bit
> mystifying and responded accordingly.

Nope, I really don't have any stake or interest in why you got banned and I have no opinion about it one way or the other, except I understand the frustration. That's what I said from the start.

And a *lot* of your posts are derailed by complaints about westeros.org.

> > I think ultimately we're both in agreement that the Chinese government
> > is worryingly aligned and its practices are terrible, and the WHO made a
> > catastrophic mistake in kowtowing to their party line.
>
> I don't know if it was a "mistake" or not. I merely said said (in
> different words) was that the WHO was indeed kowtowing to the party line.
> So yes, we agree on that much. And that's exactly what Elio banned me for
> saying.

Seems to me, if lives could have been spared by doing the objective and scientifically responsible thing, the WHO did indeed make a mistake.

> > I don't think there's a damn thing either of us can do about those two
> > monumental problems, and I don't think any of the rest of the discussion
> > has any purpose or merit.
>
> "Resistance is Futile!" Is that what you are saying?

By no means!

> One thing we COULD in theory have done, had you been interested, was have
> a discussion here on topics that President Xi and his allies (apparently
> including the moderators on Westeros.org) do not think people should be
> allowed to discuss. It would not be much of a rebellion. It is only you
> and me here. But it is still something.

Okay. What sort of topics? Go. I'm in.

> But you are hostile to that. Not merely uninterested. Hostile.

I'm really not.

> This doctrine of despair is only the latest of your tactics intended to
> convince me I should shut up about things that are perfectly true.

Nope, that's happening in your head.

> > Good luck with your argument with Elio though.
>
> Sarcasm? Gloating? My argument with Elio is over, and Elio "won". But
> you know that.
>
> Whatever. Have a nice day.

I didn't, sadly. This whole weekend has been shit.

But I wasn't gloating or being sarcastic. It still felt to me like you were having an argument with people on westeros.org, Elio in particular, and imprinting those arguments onto me in order to keep having *that* argument. I have no interest in that.


B@h
--
https://hatboy.blog/

[Platypus]

On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 6:54:24 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:

> Nope, I really don't have any stake or interest in why you got banned and I have no opinion about it one way or the other, except I understand the frustration. That's what I said from the start.

You never leave it there. And it is obvious by now that it isn't true. You're like Marc Antony, come to bury Caesar not to praise him. For instance, here you go again in your very next sentence:

.
> And a *lot* of your posts are derailed by complaints about westeros.org.

Some kind of weird ad-hominem remark. Intended to prove what, I wonder?

I started this thread. This thread is about political censorship on Westeros.org. .I'm not "derailing" it by discussing political censorship on Westeros.org.

If I said anything negative about Westeros.org in other posts in other threads, then I'm sure I meant them, and they expressed my honest opinions at the time. If you have an issue with what I said in those other posts in those other threads, take it up in those other threads, so I can see exactly what you are talking about. If I was wrong, you will need to convince me. I was right, I have nothing to apologize for. In the meantime, please don't derail this thread with vague ad hominem remarks. Thank you.

[Butterbumps@Home]

sunnuntai 2. elokuuta 2020 18.45.58 UTC+3 Platypus kirjoitti:

So anyway...

> > I don't think there's a damn thing either of us can do about those two
> > monumental problems, and I don't think any of the rest of the discussion
> > has any purpose or merit.
>
> "Resistance is Futile!" Is that what you are saying?

By no means!

> One thing we COULD in theory have done, had you been interested, was have
> a discussion here on topics that President Xi and his allies (apparently
> including the moderators on Westeros.org) do not think people should be
> allowed to discuss. It would not be much of a rebellion. It is only you
> and me here. But it is still something.

Okay. What sort of topics? Go. I'm in.

- B@h
--
Hm?