Well, some may say to promote ideas of anti-fascism... However, it would appear the people in the places that matter definitely don't want that happening and have no issue associating ideas of anti-fascism with terrorism.
So, I think that the correct answer to your question may be "nothing" - unfortunately, it's already too late.
You've done enough. People who have said "All lives matter" on their FB pages have been fired from their jobs this week. This is what counts as "fascism" now.
I'm always confused by the suggestion that education is some sort of panacea for totalitarian ideology.
Someone who is racist or fascist by definition rejects the notion that justice ought to be applied equally and just about anything else that you would likely consider moral or proper.
And fascism also is not a function of wealth inequality. Fascism has historically grown out of the middle-class. Seymour Martin Lipset identified fascism as "Extremismus der Mitte" in Germany. It's well at home in the petite bourgeoisie or in the US I guess you'd say the suburban middle class.
I see fear behind most of the worst behavior in our modern politics. Education goes a long way to address fear.
Want politically charged? I suspect the reason the U.S. has its current president is due in part to a emasculated voting class lashing out from feelings of powerlessness. Education would have gone a long way to making them feel more relevant in a constantly changing economy/society.
I don't have all the answers, but isn't education an answer to racism? I feel that modern beliefs about race realism don't hold up to a basic understanding of molecular genetics.
It is actually simple: The wealth gap will not close, because not everybody is born equal.
Wealthy people will have wealthy kids (the right of inheritance), kids can use the wealth to increase their wealth because they will have more opportunities to exploit.
Poor people will have poor kids, which wont have enough opportunities to exploit and will probably stay poor.
It just snowballs from here, unless you wipe the economy and make everyone equal again. But then a couple of people will get wealthy again, does not matter if pure luck or skill, and the trend will continue.
Life is not fair and will not be, until we find a way to make everyone equal and provide equal opportunities.
So you're suggesting we pretend it's not an issue we need to address? You're framing it as a natural thing, when I fully disagree. Oh Well, I was born rich, f u, seems like you aren't seeing what is going on out there.
I am not saying that inheritance is a natural right. I agree that inheritance should not exist, because it is unfair. But, still, even if you get rid of inheritance, the kids will have different environments while growing up, it will still be unfair.
This is not a solved problem, so I can not provide you an answer on how to fix it. Hence please see my last sentence in my previous post:
Life is not fair and will not be, until we find a way to make everyone equal and provide equal opportunities.
There is no right of inheritance. As people on the right never tire of saying, people should have to work for what they get. Wondermark points out the hypocracy well: http://wondermark.com/c1135/
Bertrand Russell, in one of his more political books (I forget which—maybe New Hopes for a Changing World?) points out how odd it is that we now consider the notion that people would inherit titles & positions obviously silly and can't even understand how anyone ever took it seriously, but consider inherited wealth completely normal and questioning it as radical.
This is pretty off-topic but I've read a lot of Russell, and I just want to point out that he was declared unfit to teach by the judiciary owing to his political beliefs. Just to disabuse anyone of the notion that the United States values free speech and expression.
The United States is one of the most educated places in the world: https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/images/Data_Sources_11.... Most importantly, it has been that way for a long time. Our college achievement rate for people age 55-65, the people who created the systems in place today, is almost double the OECD average, and more than double that of France.
As to people believing that justice should be applied equally—you’ll find few Americans who disagree with that. What you’ll find is a lot of people who disagree about what that means.
The final point is a random left-wing wishlist item that has nothing to do with fighting “fascism.”
The final point is a random left-wing wishlist item
I would say the perception that the system is rigged toward the elite and that the masses will never attain any measure of wealth is directly correlated to the populist election of a president (with fascist leanings) that we see right now in the U.S.
You can't have it both ways. Either facebook/twitter/instagram are common-carrier public squares, or they are private corporations. If they are private corps, they can block whatever they want. If they are common carriers, they can't censor people, but they will also have to open up their platforms to competition and submit to more government oversight to allow for fair and equal access.
Nope. I'm for it. But you can't get upset about social media "censorship" without calling for these companies to be treated as common carrier / public squares and I see a lot of the former and not a lot of the latter. I suspect because gov. regulation of enterprise is traditionally opposed by the same right wing that is currently upset about social media censorship.
Have you not been paying attention this past three years? Rampant nationalism, children in cages (still happening), police brutality and murder without repercussions, teargassing and beating peaceful protesters, the attorney general asserting that the president cannot break the law. I could go on, but if those don't make you worried about the threat of fascism, I'm not sure what would...
Oh, sorry, so the nation has been listing towards fascism for decades? That is not a refuting of any of my points.
Bush started the use of drones in war, but Obama bears the blame for them in my opinion, because he could have backed away from it but instead he doubled down. I would say the same for the treatment of refugees at the border. Obama built the cages, but Trump uses them with a sickening joy and enthusiasm.
You seem to be misremembering. It was separating children from their family, not caging them, that people were complaining about last election season, because of perfectly ordinary border enforcement arresting illegal aliens.
The exception was some misaligned activists that accidentally posted Obama-era photos of "caged" children (behind a fence) a couple weeks early, which happened before some lawsuit forced the feds to release the children instead of housing them with their parents.
"because of perfectly ordinary border enforcement arresting illegal aliens."
Sorry, no I am actually super upset about the ongoing detention and inhumane treatment of people at the border. ALSO about family separation, but the cages are immoral to me as well. Many of these people are not "illegal aliens" but people seeking asylum which is NOT illegal.
1. Because we didn't notice, because nobody was bringing it up. The cat's out of the bag now.
2. Because many of us had a baseline belief that the Obama administration wouldn't enact punitive policies towards undocumented people for sport, and there's clear evidence that the current administration does that. So the calculus isn't the same.
3. There are drastically more caged children now, because the current administration adopted policies specifically intended to increase the caging of children, as a deterrent. So the policies themselves aren't the same.
"Boogaloo" isn't exclusively fascist; it's kind of a weird convergence of the militant ultra-right and ultra-left. The ultra-right wants to unironically kill everyone who isn't a white evangelical christian and create a white ethno-state, while the ultra-left wants to unironically kill the rich and end capitalism.
The only thing they agree on is they want to exploit heightened tensions to start a civil war with the belief they would eliminate the other side.
the ultra left does not want to kill the rich and end capitalism, see neo-liberal policies. It's outdated to say the left are for the people anymore, unless they live in coastal elite cities with extremely well paid jobs making their situation so out of touch with the rest of the country/world they now play fascist. The most obvious sign of evil is when it eats something and takes it's face
Shown there, a statement caught on tape at a strategy-summit of the German far-left party Die Linke (I freely translate): "...regarding Energiewende [German Green New Deal]… after the revolution, when the 1% has been shot, we still want to heat our homes…"
To which the party chairman, Bernd Riexinger, present on the same stage replied: "We're not gonna shoot them, we're going to put them to good use"
You're cherry picking idownvote. Look at the current manufacturing and economic/workplace protection/maneuverability between class situation (not the stock market, the people) the US has been faced with. Do you really think this is working for everyone?
I'm sorry but I think warming up old chestnuts about Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Che, Ho Chi-Minh or Stalin would be pointless by now, decades after since their "progress" has been laid bare.
Maybe I'm biased, but I come from an underpriviliged background (in a first world country), yet made great strides and climbed the social ladder. Throughout my experience, people the most concerned with trying to frame my poor childhood as a "class situation" were almost always middle-to-upper-class people.
At some point it even felt like rich kids use this framing to keep poorer ones form passing them on the social ladder. But I'm convinced by now that the urge to frame groups into instituitional victims, is something more personal: Having the luxury of never having to grow up because of their parent's financial background, they rather choose to pick a fight they can't loose because it's not theirs.
I'm not advocating going Stalin or Mao is the solution, I'm saying that the current status quo needs re-adjustment.
I'm also from an underprivileged background (in a first world country as well), I witnessed first hand how the odds stacked against me have translated into my lived experiences.
Maybe unlike you, I have fought and lost against people with better parental financial situation I have a perspective that this is an issue, not something that can just be gritted through. Not all success is through hard work.
Fair enough. I didn't expect that the "ultra" in ultra-left meant softer-than-mao. After all ultra is a pretty super superlative, right?
If I were to be just cynical, I could argue that your loss may be due to processing your uphill battle via this whole marxist framing and not via a more independent "OK, how can I improve my situation?" (e.g. switch companies/sector/trade/town/country).
But I agree, Not all success is through hard work. . Absolutely. My success is a proof of this, because I'm a mediocre programmer at best. Which invigorates my disbelief in programmers advocating the ultra-left Marx: In the programmers job-market how can one feel disadvantaged at all? The financial crisis 2008 left us untouched, while the majority of society were furloughed or fired. Same story this year.
My advice: This odds-stacked-against-you-framing is your biggest waste of time. Financially and spiritually.
I would assume the hit Ringo Starr song Back Off Boogaloo from 1972, which is one of his most popular non-Beatles singles, might be more likely to be known by the average person.
That's funny, I've never heard that on "Classic Rock" stations; guess Top 40's gonna Top.
(incidentally, "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" is also from 1972, but there's a lot on the Billboard Top 100 with which I'm unfamiliar. Thanks for giving me a new queue!)
The alt-right usage etymology is ... convoluted, but dates to a gratuitously terrible film sequel ("Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo", 1984), and came to be a go-to reference for any sequel or return, here, with race war connotations:
Yikes on appropriation. I had been assuming the "Trump on a Tank" image was obviously parody, both from subject matter and from the black power fist on the tank (on the mudguard just behind the sprocket). Now I wonder if this may actually be a case of "any sufficiently advanced ideology is indistinguishable from satire"?
I've been thinking for a while about what would happen if the slippery slope doesn't happen and big tech companies stick to censoring only the things that you can't say in nice costal elite company or can't say in China. I think I have finally worked out what the analogy would be for that. It is analogous to what some would call "systemic racism." Systemic racism is defined as a constant headwind against minorities that is composed not of organized pogroms against innocents, but as thousands of tiny cuts combined with a few isolated pogroms that can be denied as the work of radicals. Our violent criminals get a little less punishment than their violent criminals. Our political radicals are pushed away by the media a little less than their political radicals. We have a few instances of doing something clearly unfair to them, which are understood as exceptions and quickly forgotten, but whenever they do something clearly unfair to us, it's held up for years as an example of their moral inferiority.
That's the kind of constant headwind that can add up over time and distort a society beyond recognition. Why? Because the disadvantaged group will see their disadvantage get worse over time, because in the vast average of thousands of interactions, they slide slightly backwards. As the disadvantage gets worse, the bias gets worse along with it. This can play out in many situations, from the ones that seem totally indefensible ("What do you mean we're being unfair, he's a murderer!"), to the ones that seem ridiculously minor.
Just to be clear about your argument here - you are suggesting that Facebook changing its recommendation algorithm to not suggest that people join groups run by white supremacist paramilitaries advocating for a second civil war is akin to systemic racism?
One facet of systemic racism is how legitimately dangerous black radical groups were treated, yes. Like I said, bias can even appear in situations that seem totally indefensible.
Beginning in 1969, leaders of the Black Panther Party were targeted by the COINTELPRO and "neutralized" by being assassinated, imprisoned, publicly humiliated or falsely charged with crimes. Some of the Black Panthers affected included Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Zayd Shakur, Geronimo Pratt, Mumia Abu-Jamal,[18] and Marshall Conway. Common tactics used by COINTELPRO were perjury, witness harassment, witness intimidation, and withholding of evidence
Wow. This is quite a stretch. I honestly didn't expect to see this on hackernews. At least this mental exercise, as improper as it is, probably can help you see how bad the situation is for black people.
This is the first time I've heard the word boogaloo in connection with insurrection. Banning it makes it sound like a genuine threat/possibility, something I should learn more about.
It's not facebook streisanding, they've gone mainstream after years of alt-right/incel/QANON build-up. A lot of outlets are covering it and having not heard of it by now is probably getting on the back end of the bellcurve.
I've seen it around. Pretty sure it's just a joke taken way out of context, or I'm just not aware of it being taken too far. I've seen the amusing memes about ATF only knowing how to shoot dogs, then there's dog whistles for mildly illegal things like hiding their now-outlawed Bump Stocks and describing that as a "boating accident" i.e. "losing" them in a lake.
It's actually pretty horrible to suggest that, now that you're learning about white supremacists attempting to start a race war, that you might go participate -- "streisanding boogaloo".
You must not have much exposure to alt right groups and or 4chan, because you can’t scroll through those for more than 5 minutes without seeing a reference to Boogaloo.
To be clear, I’m not some deep Internet lurker, but I’ve known the term for about 5 months (circa the Pizzagate news), and whenever I check out a place like that, usually in response to a news story, I’ll see it there.
It started as some idiots trolling and calling for "Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo" and it got taken up by nutters who thought they are for real. But it has been around for a while
"You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread."
only the fringiest of fringes argue for absolutes. everyone (else) is arguing about where the line is drawn. for instance, if we take yours at face value, you'd be arguing against the american revolution.
our justice system isn't built on prevention, for pre-cognition, thought-crimes, or any malfeasance really, because that's the road to any of a slew of nasty -isms (totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc.). justice is served after a wrong, not before it. that's intentional.
we prevent crime by being good to each other and expecting the best, not trying to force behaviors and ways of thinking. it's actually amazing that we are so good to each other--everyday there are probably millions of opportunities for strangers to kill or maim each other, and they blow right past that opportunity every time. it's awe-inspiring, really.
I find your absolutist interpretation hard to understand. I think if the occurrence of a situation in which violence is appropriate necessitates an exception to a rule, that doesn't necessarily indicate a bad rule. For example, even though the Founding Fathers were presumably well aware that circumstances may exist in which violent revolution would be justified, note that the constitution they drafted didn't make allowances for a new American Revolution to able to occur without any laws being broken.
the founding fathers didn't draw that line. they didn't say "free speech, except inciting revolution", they said "freedom of speech", particularly allowing for insurrection speech. the supreme court upheld this interpretation a number of times, for instance[0],
"In Brandenburg, the US Supreme Court referred to the right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms"
no one is breaking any rules or laws here, as far as the constitution is concerned.
but see, that's all beside the point regarding facebook. they have no binding legal requirement to that same standard of free speech. the debate there is how much corporate censorship people are willing to tolerate without injury to facebook's bottom line and stature.
the debate there is how much corporate censorship people are willing to tolerate without injury to facebook's bottom line and stature.
Facebook doesn't need to respond to what its users think it should do, because its users aren't organized enough to achieve the collective action necessary to threaten its bottom line. More generally, what Facebook "should" do, from the perspective of the public good, is a wrong question. Facebook's business model is fundamentally misaligned with the public interest, so even if we could pool our strength to force it to the right policies, it couldn't be trusted to enforce them faithfully. What's right for Facebook isn't what's right for Us; with perpetual struggle we could at best narrow the gap.
In contrast, a federated structure, like Diaspora, is conducive to democracy, because Diaspora is not a company with its own interests. Diaspora is Us. In a federated system, the question is not "what speech do I wish the monopolistic enterprise I've subjected myself to would allow". The question is "what speech will I allow on my server" and "what servers do I want to network with". These questions are inherently more democratic. When the right model is chosen, the problem of endlessly tuning parameters disappears. Fit can be achieved without all the work of overfitting.
So I use Diaspora. I don't have any friends. But I know I'm right.
These groups seem to have sprung out of nowhere suddenly and that smells off to me. Or at least they have appeared in the media suddenly in the last week. I don't watch too much news.
I suppose once the evidence and interviews with members on the ground occur we should be in a better position than assuming the boogaloo is not a fake boogeyman.
All Facebook groups are made up, and are brand new at some point (which is the same as having sprung out of nowhere suddenly). But the boogaloo folks who create and join these groups exist IRL.
Last week, for about a day, media tried to pin the rioting and violence on some nebulous white nationalist actors but obviously that didn‘t test well in the face of overwhelming audiovisual evidence and remnants of critical thinking so they quickly returned to the tried minimizing and voxsplaining.
What can we do, as a community, to limit the spread of fascism? It seems that it's quite a problem.
Well, some may say to promote ideas of anti-fascism... However, it would appear the people in the places that matter definitely don't want that happening and have no issue associating ideas of anti-fascism with terrorism.
So, I think that the correct answer to your question may be "nothing" - unfortunately, it's already too late.
You've done enough. People who have said "All lives matter" on their FB pages have been fired from their jobs this week. This is what counts as "fascism" now.
Who has been fired for only saying "All lives matter" on FB?
As a start:
Education.
People need to believe justice is applied equally: white as well as black, rich as well as poor.
Close the extreme and growing wealth gap in the country.
I'm always confused by the suggestion that education is some sort of panacea for totalitarian ideology.
Someone who is racist or fascist by definition rejects the notion that justice ought to be applied equally and just about anything else that you would likely consider moral or proper.
And fascism also is not a function of wealth inequality. Fascism has historically grown out of the middle-class. Seymour Martin Lipset identified fascism as "Extremismus der Mitte" in Germany. It's well at home in the petite bourgeoisie or in the US I guess you'd say the suburban middle class.
People like throwing education out there because it's less politically charged than anything meaningful.
Also to push the false dichotomy that we have to choose one or the other, but can't do both.
Not really.
I see fear behind most of the worst behavior in our modern politics. Education goes a long way to address fear.
Want politically charged? I suspect the reason the U.S. has its current president is due in part to a emasculated voting class lashing out from feelings of powerlessness. Education would have gone a long way to making them feel more relevant in a constantly changing economy/society.
"as a start" != "panacea", and education was only offered as one of three items.
I don't have all the answers, but isn't education an answer to racism? I feel that modern beliefs about race realism don't hold up to a basic understanding of molecular genetics.
The wealth gap will not be closed, unless an economic wipe (e.g. a world war again) occurs.
Well than here we go, why is this, and what can be done to rectify it before that happens?
It is actually simple: The wealth gap will not close, because not everybody is born equal.
Wealthy people will have wealthy kids (the right of inheritance), kids can use the wealth to increase their wealth because they will have more opportunities to exploit.
Poor people will have poor kids, which wont have enough opportunities to exploit and will probably stay poor.
It just snowballs from here, unless you wipe the economy and make everyone equal again. But then a couple of people will get wealthy again, does not matter if pure luck or skill, and the trend will continue.
Life is not fair and will not be, until we find a way to make everyone equal and provide equal opportunities.
So you're suggesting we pretend it's not an issue we need to address? You're framing it as a natural thing, when I fully disagree. Oh Well, I was born rich, f u, seems like you aren't seeing what is going on out there.
I am not saying that inheritance is a natural right. I agree that inheritance should not exist, because it is unfair. But, still, even if you get rid of inheritance, the kids will have different environments while growing up, it will still be unfair.
This is not a solved problem, so I can not provide you an answer on how to fix it. Hence please see my last sentence in my previous post:
Life is not fair and will not be, until we find a way to make everyone equal and provide equal opportunities.
Or people learn to share and be of service to others. There's nothing natural about everybody being "equalized".
There is no right of inheritance. As people on the right never tire of saying, people should have to work for what they get. Wondermark points out the hypocracy well: http://wondermark.com/c1135/
I believe you have touched upon the fundamental problem.
We severely reduced inherited political power in the West. It was bloody and painful, but it was accomplished.
We can reduce or remove inherited economic power also. Hopefully it doesn't have to be so bloody (I am not so sure).
Bertrand Russell, in one of his more political books (I forget which—maybe New Hopes for a Changing World?) points out how odd it is that we now consider the notion that people would inherit titles & positions obviously silly and can't even understand how anyone ever took it seriously, but consider inherited wealth completely normal and questioning it as radical.
This is pretty off-topic but I've read a lot of Russell, and I just want to point out that he was declared unfit to teach by the judiciary owing to his political beliefs. Just to disabuse anyone of the notion that the United States values free speech and expression.
It is a massive paradigm shift. That is exactly what leads me to believe that moving to remove/reduce it is going to lead to violence.
I also think it is likely necessary to do so if we intend for humanity to move forward.
I don't disagree that there will always be wealthy and poor. I think it is a matter of degree though. In the U.S. it has only worsened....
The United States is one of the most educated places in the world: https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/images/Data_Sources_11.... Most importantly, it has been that way for a long time. Our college achievement rate for people age 55-65, the people who created the systems in place today, is almost double the OECD average, and more than double that of France.
As to people believing that justice should be applied equally—you’ll find few Americans who disagree with that. What you’ll find is a lot of people who disagree about what that means.
The final point is a random left-wing wishlist item that has nothing to do with fighting “fascism.”
I would say the perception that the system is rigged toward the elite and that the masses will never attain any measure of wealth is directly correlated to the populist election of a president (with fascist leanings) that we see right now in the U.S.
But perhaps I am ignorant of the term "fascist".
What exactly is the “fascism” that we’re worried about spreading?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
People voting for trump.
And not people advocating mass censorship on communication platforms? Please, you're biases are showing and it's embarrassing.
I think you missed the irony in GP's comment
You can't have it both ways. Either facebook/twitter/instagram are common-carrier public squares, or they are private corporations. If they are private corps, they can block whatever they want. If they are common carriers, they can't censor people, but they will also have to open up their platforms to competition and submit to more government oversight to allow for fair and equal access.
I see no issue with the second option. Do you have an argument against that?
Nope. I'm for it. But you can't get upset about social media "censorship" without calling for these companies to be treated as common carrier / public squares and I see a lot of the former and not a lot of the latter. I suspect because gov. regulation of enterprise is traditionally opposed by the same right wing that is currently upset about social media censorship.
Have you not been paying attention this past three years? Rampant nationalism, children in cages (still happening), police brutality and murder without repercussions, teargassing and beating peaceful protesters, the attorney general asserting that the president cannot break the law. I could go on, but if those don't make you worried about the threat of fascism, I'm not sure what would...
"Children in cages" happened during the Obama administration. No uproar then?
You're really missing the forest for the trees there.
Oh, sorry, so the nation has been listing towards fascism for decades? That is not a refuting of any of my points.
Bush started the use of drones in war, but Obama bears the blame for them in my opinion, because he could have backed away from it but instead he doubled down. I would say the same for the treatment of refugees at the border. Obama built the cages, but Trump uses them with a sickening joy and enthusiasm.
You seem to be misremembering. It was separating children from their family, not caging them, that people were complaining about last election season, because of perfectly ordinary border enforcement arresting illegal aliens.
The exception was some misaligned activists that accidentally posted Obama-era photos of "caged" children (behind a fence) a couple weeks early, which happened before some lawsuit forced the feds to release the children instead of housing them with their parents.
"because of perfectly ordinary border enforcement arresting illegal aliens."
Sorry, no I am actually super upset about the ongoing detention and inhumane treatment of people at the border. ALSO about family separation, but the cages are immoral to me as well. Many of these people are not "illegal aliens" but people seeking asylum which is NOT illegal.
Illegal border crossing is still illegal. We have a system in place for asylum seekers at a port of entry.
Nonetheless, the point of my comment is that children are not being caged, they're now being separated, as happens when suspects get arrested.
1. Because we didn't notice, because nobody was bringing it up. The cat's out of the bag now.
2. Because many of us had a baseline belief that the Obama administration wouldn't enact punitive policies towards undocumented people for sport, and there's clear evidence that the current administration does that. So the calculus isn't the same.
3. There are drastically more caged children now, because the current administration adopted policies specifically intended to increase the caging of children, as a deterrent. So the policies themselves aren't the same.
"Boogaloo" isn't exclusively fascist; it's kind of a weird convergence of the militant ultra-right and ultra-left. The ultra-right wants to unironically kill everyone who isn't a white evangelical christian and create a white ethno-state, while the ultra-left wants to unironically kill the rich and end capitalism.
The only thing they agree on is they want to exploit heightened tensions to start a civil war with the belief they would eliminate the other side.
the ultra left does not want to kill the rich and end capitalism, see neo-liberal policies. It's outdated to say the left are for the people anymore, unless they live in coastal elite cities with extremely well paid jobs making their situation so out of touch with the rest of the country/world they now play fascist. The most obvious sign of evil is when it eats something and takes it's face
Leftists and liberals are not the same thing.
the ultra left does not want to kill the rich
Just from the top of my hat, the latest example of a hundred-plus years worth of statements/actions that disprove that statement: https://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/Linken-Mitglied...
Shown there, a statement caught on tape at a strategy-summit of the German far-left party Die Linke (I freely translate): "...regarding Energiewende [German Green New Deal]… after the revolution, when the 1% has been shot, we still want to heat our homes…"
To which the party chairman, Bernd Riexinger, present on the same stage replied: "We're not gonna shoot them, we're going to put them to good use"
You're cherry picking idownvote. Look at the current manufacturing and economic/workplace protection/maneuverability between class situation (not the stock market, the people) the US has been faced with. Do you really think this is working for everyone?
I'm sorry but I think warming up old chestnuts about Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Che, Ho Chi-Minh or Stalin would be pointless by now, decades after since their "progress" has been laid bare.
Maybe I'm biased, but I come from an underpriviliged background (in a first world country), yet made great strides and climbed the social ladder. Throughout my experience, people the most concerned with trying to frame my poor childhood as a "class situation" were almost always middle-to-upper-class people.
At some point it even felt like rich kids use this framing to keep poorer ones form passing them on the social ladder. But I'm convinced by now that the urge to frame groups into instituitional victims, is something more personal: Having the luxury of never having to grow up because of their parent's financial background, they rather choose to pick a fight they can't loose because it's not theirs.
I'm not advocating going Stalin or Mao is the solution, I'm saying that the current status quo needs re-adjustment.
I'm also from an underprivileged background (in a first world country as well), I witnessed first hand how the odds stacked against me have translated into my lived experiences.
Maybe unlike you, I have fought and lost against people with better parental financial situation I have a perspective that this is an issue, not something that can just be gritted through. Not all success is through hard work.
Fair enough. I didn't expect that the "ultra" in ultra-left meant softer-than-mao. After all ultra is a pretty super superlative, right?
If I were to be just cynical, I could argue that your loss may be due to processing your uphill battle via this whole marxist framing and not via a more independent "OK, how can I improve my situation?" (e.g. switch companies/sector/trade/town/country).
But I agree, Not all success is through hard work. . Absolutely. My success is a proof of this, because I'm a mediocre programmer at best. Which invigorates my disbelief in programmers advocating the ultra-left Marx: In the programmers job-market how can one feel disadvantaged at all? The financial crisis 2008 left us untouched, while the majority of society were furloughed or fired. Same story this year.
My advice: This odds-stacked-against-you-framing is your biggest waste of time. Financially and spiritually.
They agree too that that an AR-15 is an enabling technology.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This thread was entirely predictably awful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sometimes I wonder if the cosplaytriot types are even aware that they're Googlebombing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_(funk_dance) has the semantics I had expected for the syntax.
It even made it across the Iron Curtain: https://youtu.be/QSc3uk8Q5w4?t=4881
(1986, so a bit later than 1984's Electric Boogaloo, and a bit earlier than the 1989 end of the wall)
I would assume the hit Ringo Starr song Back Off Boogaloo from 1972, which is one of his most popular non-Beatles singles, might be more likely to be known by the average person.
That's funny, I've never heard that on "Classic Rock" stations; guess Top 40's gonna Top.
(incidentally, "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" is also from 1972, but there's a lot on the Billboard Top 100 with which I'm unfamiliar. Thanks for giving me a new queue!)
The alt-right usage etymology is ... convoluted, but dates to a gratuitously terrible film sequel ("Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo", 1984), and came to be a go-to reference for any sequel or return, here, with race war connotations:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/electric-boogaloo
Appropriation of language and symbology is quite common among similar movements.
Yikes on appropriation. I had been assuming the "Trump on a Tank" image was obviously parody, both from subject matter and from the black power fist on the tank (on the mudguard just behind the sprocket). Now I wonder if this may actually be a case of "any sufficiently advanced ideology is indistinguishable from satire"?
It's meta that sometimes gets people injured or killed. It's also a sort of natural balancing act.
I've been thinking for a while about what would happen if the slippery slope doesn't happen and big tech companies stick to censoring only the things that you can't say in nice costal elite company or can't say in China. I think I have finally worked out what the analogy would be for that. It is analogous to what some would call "systemic racism." Systemic racism is defined as a constant headwind against minorities that is composed not of organized pogroms against innocents, but as thousands of tiny cuts combined with a few isolated pogroms that can be denied as the work of radicals. Our violent criminals get a little less punishment than their violent criminals. Our political radicals are pushed away by the media a little less than their political radicals. We have a few instances of doing something clearly unfair to them, which are understood as exceptions and quickly forgotten, but whenever they do something clearly unfair to us, it's held up for years as an example of their moral inferiority.
That's the kind of constant headwind that can add up over time and distort a society beyond recognition. Why? Because the disadvantaged group will see their disadvantage get worse over time, because in the vast average of thousands of interactions, they slide slightly backwards. As the disadvantage gets worse, the bias gets worse along with it. This can play out in many situations, from the ones that seem totally indefensible ("What do you mean we're being unfair, he's a murderer!"), to the ones that seem ridiculously minor.
Just to be clear about your argument here - you are suggesting that Facebook changing its recommendation algorithm to not suggest that people join groups run by white supremacist paramilitaries advocating for a second civil war is akin to systemic racism?
One facet of systemic racism is how legitimately dangerous black radical groups were treated, yes. Like I said, bias can even appear in situations that seem totally indefensible.
COINTELPRO was an FBI program to discredit the Black Panthers, whose public image is marred to this day by the program. So these things do happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Wow. This is quite a stretch. I honestly didn't expect to see this on hackernews. At least this mental exercise, as improper as it is, probably can help you see how bad the situation is for black people.
This is the first time I've heard the word boogaloo in connection with insurrection. Banning it makes it sound like a genuine threat/possibility, something I should learn more about.
Facebook is streisanding boogaloo.
It's not facebook streisanding, they've gone mainstream after years of alt-right/incel/QANON build-up. A lot of outlets are covering it and having not heard of it by now is probably getting on the back end of the bellcurve.
They're getting arrested routinely by FBI counter-terrorist police e.g. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/pr/joint-terrorism-task-forc...
Hawaiian shirts, Race War Electric Boogaloo, "Great Awakening", the radical right has gone off the deep end
I've seen it around. Pretty sure it's just a joke taken way out of context, or I'm just not aware of it being taken too far. I've seen the amusing memes about ATF only knowing how to shoot dogs, then there's dog whistles for mildly illegal things like hiding their now-outlawed Bump Stocks and describing that as a "boating accident" i.e. "losing" them in a lake.
It's no joke when they show up to any demo wielding guns.
It's actually pretty horrible to suggest that, now that you're learning about white supremacists attempting to start a race war, that you might go participate -- "streisanding boogaloo".
You must not have much exposure to alt right groups and or 4chan, because you can’t scroll through those for more than 5 minutes without seeing a reference to Boogaloo.
To be clear, I’m not some deep Internet lurker, but I’ve known the term for about 5 months (circa the Pizzagate news), and whenever I check out a place like that, usually in response to a news story, I’ll see it there.
It's been reported in mainstream publications before this [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/05/31/us/politics/ap-u...
It started as some idiots trolling and calling for "Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo" and it got taken up by nutters who thought they are for real. But it has been around for a while
Free speech balances delicately, and that should be debated vigorously, but it should not be treated as an absolute.
You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread.
only the fringiest of fringes argue for absolutes. everyone (else) is arguing about where the line is drawn. for instance, if we take yours at face value, you'd be arguing against the american revolution.
Many self-described free speech advocates here also draw the line at inciting violence.
our justice system isn't built on prevention, for pre-cognition, thought-crimes, or any malfeasance really, because that's the road to any of a slew of nasty -isms (totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc.). justice is served after a wrong, not before it. that's intentional.
we prevent crime by being good to each other and expecting the best, not trying to force behaviors and ways of thinking. it's actually amazing that we are so good to each other--everyday there are probably millions of opportunities for strangers to kill or maim each other, and they blow right past that opportunity every time. it's awe-inspiring, really.
the first step is to stop being fearful.
I find your absolutist interpretation hard to understand. I think if the occurrence of a situation in which violence is appropriate necessitates an exception to a rule, that doesn't necessarily indicate a bad rule. For example, even though the Founding Fathers were presumably well aware that circumstances may exist in which violent revolution would be justified, note that the constitution they drafted didn't make allowances for a new American Revolution to able to occur without any laws being broken.
the founding fathers didn't draw that line. they didn't say "free speech, except inciting revolution", they said "freedom of speech", particularly allowing for insurrection speech. the supreme court upheld this interpretation a number of times, for instance[0],
no one is breaking any rules or laws here, as far as the constitution is concerned.
but see, that's all beside the point regarding facebook. they have no binding legal requirement to that same standard of free speech. the debate there is how much corporate censorship people are willing to tolerate without injury to facebook's bottom line and stature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech
Facebook doesn't need to respond to what its users think it should do, because its users aren't organized enough to achieve the collective action necessary to threaten its bottom line. More generally, what Facebook "should" do, from the perspective of the public good, is a wrong question. Facebook's business model is fundamentally misaligned with the public interest, so even if we could pool our strength to force it to the right policies, it couldn't be trusted to enforce them faithfully. What's right for Facebook isn't what's right for Us; with perpetual struggle we could at best narrow the gap.
In contrast, a federated structure, like Diaspora, is conducive to democracy, because Diaspora is not a company with its own interests. Diaspora is Us. In a federated system, the question is not "what speech do I wish the monopolistic enterprise I've subjected myself to would allow". The question is "what speech will I allow on my server" and "what servers do I want to network with". These questions are inherently more democratic. When the right model is chosen, the problem of endlessly tuning parameters disappears. Fit can be achieved without all the work of overfitting.
So I use Diaspora. I don't have any friends. But I know I'm right.
These groups seem to have sprung out of nowhere suddenly and that smells off to me. Or at least they have appeared in the media suddenly in the last week. I don't watch too much news.
I suppose once the evidence and interviews with members on the ground occur we should be in a better position than assuming the boogaloo is not a fake boogeyman.
All Facebook groups are made up, and are brand new at some point (which is the same as having sprung out of nowhere suddenly). But the boogaloo folks who create and join these groups exist IRL.
One of the more obvious psyops I‘ve seen.
Last week, for about a day, media tried to pin the rioting and violence on some nebulous white nationalist actors but obviously that didn‘t test well in the face of overwhelming audiovisual evidence and remnants of critical thinking so they quickly returned to the tried minimizing and voxsplaining.
But apparently they’re not quite done yet.
Can you elaborate on this?