Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Note that Obama is frowning in all of those photos. He and his team are aware of the long-term possible uses of them (though frankly that's overestimating the public knowledge of the Republican base).

# ¿ Jul 26, 2015 18:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 17:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jagchosis posted:

Hey so even though Diskendo Fox posted in this thread gently caress goons for letting it die.

???

Ouch, I wasn't aware that was my reputation now.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Aug 5, 2015

# ¿ Aug 5, 2015 13:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jagchosis posted:

Good news from Burundi!

I'm so glad things are finally looking up! :smith:

# ¿ Sep 8, 2015 23:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Which one?

# ¿ Dec 20, 2015 22:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Well you see anti-FGM campaigners are the real oppressors and

I just finished reading the article...I think it's probably going to be accepted as correct. The (poor) harm reduction argument is stronger than the (horrific) cultural relativist argument. There's this unpleasant comparison to circumcision running through part of the article that the authors equivocate on, as well.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2016 21:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Here's the article, for folks who are interested. My response as a bioethics person is a) I disagree strongly with many of the leveraged arguments, and b) this is a pretty good example of why I stay far away from international bioethics issues and anything that can in any way reference the male circumcision ~~shitstorm~~ literature.

Choice quote, emphases mine:

quote:

Regrettably, academic and public health consideration of non-therapeutic FGA has been hampered by several issues. First, there is no recognised nomenclature based on the functional effects of each of the several procedures that may be employed to alter female genitalia. Second, discussion often is infused with a strong cultural and gender bias against FGA in all forms. Third, grouping all forms of FGA in discourse and condemnation assumes that all FGA procedures carry the same risks, which is medically inaccurate. Finally, authors arguing against all forms of FGA construe the concepts of beneficence and non-maleficence narrowly with regard to their scope, and too broadly with regard to their applicability. On the one hand, they argue that physical well-being trumps social and cultural well-being. On the other hand, they argue that concepts originally used to apply to the actions of physicians are equally applicable to parents.

My favorite part is where the authors come up with an FGA classification system and promote a policy based on reducing harms that uses this classification, but can't tie the system to actual practice rates or particular procedures.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Mar 3, 2016

# ¿ Mar 3, 2016 21:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

MIGF, you were really good in the Ebola thread. Why not start up a Zika thread, rather than troll this one?

# ¿ Mar 13, 2016 06:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

When all of those parties are refusing to intervene or comment, there's probably a reason for it that the article isn't sharing.

I expect Trump to bring this up in a couple weeks when it finally reaches him, though.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Aug 19, 2016

# ¿ Aug 19, 2016 17:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's been really heartening to see intersectionality actually working in minority protest movements over the past few years- the original BLM really stood out to me in this regard.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 22:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Badger of Basra posted:

Taking down a statue honoring a terrible person is a thing of substance, see: Confederate statues in the US.

It's a paradigm-setting case of insubstantial change. The confederate statues were never a source, but rather a third-tier symptom, of problems of reconstruction and ongoing racial inequality.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 18:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

kustomkarkommando posted:

No, challenging the presence of a statue honouring a man who's achievements where the subjugation of African peoples for direct personal profit whose white supremacist ideas where considered controversial even at the time of his death is confronting the issue

What is the issue?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 19:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

kustomkarkommando posted:

Well I would say the deep antipathy among sections of British society to confront the realities of colonialism beyond the tired 'the empire did a lot of good you know' maxim

See, that's interesting, because the original purpose of the movement was apparently about institutional racism, racial inequality and campus housing. The statue was symbolic. In this thread, the original line of discussion of the movement was about how symbolic, destructive actions took over the movement and removed its ability to produce meaningful policy change. And now the issue and goals being litigated in the thread have similarly shifted.

I'd be curious to hear from Lead out in cuffs regarding the relative foci of fees must fall versus rhodes must fall, and why the internal dynamics of those movements worked out the way they did. It sounds like there was a discipline problem in RMF that cost them the media battle.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Sep 3, 2016

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 20:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Brainiac Five posted:

Oh no, not 'destruction'. If only we could avoid destroying things like racist institutions and racial inequality.

Statues aren't institutions. They're statues. The discussion was about how the movement focused on destroying symbols of colonialism in a way that hampered their ability to produce change in the institution-the stuff that was actually producing inequality and injustice. The protest became about names, statues and paintings instead of, e.g., the number of black professors, or cost of student housing.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 20:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Badger of Basra posted:

The "discussion" being about how whatever they did hampered their ability to change things was one person calling them an "anti-white movement."

No, they didn't. They argued that an anti-white movement "came to the forefront". I too am suspicious of anti-white movement fearmongering in the context of SA, but if the movement has parts of it that you wind up having to disavow because they're burning poo poo, then yes, there's a problem with how you're controlling and directing people.

kustomkarkommando posted:

Specifically in the UK context, which is what I am talking about, the local version of Rhodes Must Fall sprang up to counter deep-rooted racism prevalent in sections of Oxford and a culture of imperial glorification that alienated the small Black student population. Forcing a confrontation on persistent colonial nostalgia by challenging the presence a statue embodying that makes sense to me. To quote:

From the same article:

quote:

But complaints of structural racism and calls for curriculum reform don�t draw public attention like the toppling of a statue, and the RMF leaders know this. Peter Scott in the Guardian called the removal of the statue the �easy option� and a �displacement activity� that distracts from the real issues. But it�s hard to imagine that anyone would be talking about Oxford�s colonial past, or racist present, if the statue�s future weren�t hanging in the balance.

Focusing on the statue was a mistake. The products of the movement have become, again as per the same cited article, about removing statues and portraits instead of the things the organizers were actually trying to accomplish. This is how institutions divert protest movements-and how movements divert themselves. It's why Penn State removed the Paterno statue, and stayed quiet about what they're going to do with it. The statue became the subject of discussion, and the problems of culture and funding of sports at the institution remained. Now they're hosting a celebration of his life- and in the meantime, another statue of him was erected in downtown.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 20:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Brainiac Five posted:

Really? Because the discussion seemed more to be about how you're a weiner. Especially given that "hampered their ability to produce change in the institution" has not really been justified or any attempts made at justifying it, beyond asserting it.

So, as kustomkarkommando posted as I was writing this post, the maintenance and reenactment of racist, colonialist, imperialist, etc. symbols is something that both reinforces and demonstrates the values of the system that performs this maintenance and reenactment, as shown by the constant defense of these symbols whenever they are attacked. To put it simply, the Chicago Police Department's reaction to vandalism of the statue of a police officer in Haymarket Square commemorating police violence against protests is by no means unrelated to the CPD shooting to kill in 1968 or disproportionately targeting, arresting, and killing people of color. Attacking these symbols is a way to break this cycle.

The article kustomkarkommando cites acknowledges it. The goals of the movement were not centered around the statue. The article also concludes by stating that all of the university's changes involved moving symbols, rather than making policy changes, and that ultimately most of the symbolic changes also didn't happen.

Again: I get the maintenance and reenactment arguments involving symbols. I understand that they have those effects. And I get that they are an appealing way to draw attention to a movement. They are a better way for the institution to ensure that nothing happens.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 20:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

There's also been pretty good research (which I can't link atm, sorry) on some of the rumor and conspiracy information systems in countries affected by ebola. It's a model very similar to a slow burn, lower-information version of what happens in public information and social media systems around, say, a mass shooting or disaster event in the US. The circumstances are such that false information that appeals to people's underlying social or personal psychological needs gets shared far, hard, fast.

note: twitter is a huge medium of spread for this stuff; there's a bunch of googleable research of highly variable quality on it as a contributor to conspiracies and misinformation around ebola outbreaks in Africa. I unfortunately can't recall which articles I'd been reading/watching presentations from on this, but the best research on the subject is hamstrung by twitter giving exclusive full access to their systems to a limited subset of researchers, under murky circumstances.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 3, 2019

# ¿ Aug 3, 2019 21:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I con't find anything about the provenance of that channel.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2020 19:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Squalid posted:

nor could I, except that they say they are based in the UK. My impression watching a few videos is that the author is trained as an economist but if there are multiple writers I don't know. They have a twitter account though so you could try @ing them?

https://medium.com/@kwabena.taiwo

https://www.linkedin.com/in/k-b-taiwo-2a6a6218a/?originalSubdomain=uk

all stubs. I really can't tell how to evaluate it, given the significant amounts of money behind the design, and because I am not literate enough in the area to tell its slant.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2020 07:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fair enough- sorry, the last few years've got me instinctively asking all this.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2020 07:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

PawParole posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AwasaGua...870784015806468

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-crisis-in-ethiopia/

???

# ¿ Jul 14, 2021 01:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It�s a pretty significant distinction, yeah.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2021 01:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 17:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

No, that's much further west.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2021 16:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Sub-Saharan Africa: They're Conflict Minerals, Marie