charlchi

Wrong link btw

We're talking about neonazi and far right militias in the ground that are being trained and funded by America. You clearly didn't read any of the sources that I linked(which are Western, and in some cases, US military sources). I'm not talking about dumb neonazis larping somewhere, we're talking about well armed and funded militias that are being used to fight a proxy war, killing civilians.

Regarding Kharkiv and Mariupol I won't discuss further as you clearly are more motivated by rhetoric, than talking about actual facts.

These groups don't need political success when they are already subsumed into the apparatus of the military, as the sources I have linked to also point out.

Are you implying that having a neo-nazi problems justifies the invasion? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Not that I condone war, or the invasion, but going off the cuff here: If we take the context of what Russia has said, and to facts on the ground, the 2 largest Russian military operations are currently surrounding Kharkiv and Mariupol, which have shown to be 2 of the largest bases for the neo-nazi and far-right militia recruitment in Ukraine.

There’s also some irony in dismissing this article as propaganda when all you’ve pointed out is that it, offhandedly I might say, called the situation Kremlin propaganda. Especially it since consists mostly predictions, an enormous amount of which have become true.

I don't doubt the validity of the article's predictions. I doubted the articles dismissal of the neo-nazi and far right presence as being "Kremlin propaganda". When I hear this line, it automatically makes me believe the writer is either ignorant, or intentionally spreading propaganda, as this kind of dismissal does not coincide with reality. I'm just trying to inform people, because I see this narrative constantly, and it's worth fighting back against.

with Kremlin propaganda portraying Ukraine as a proto-fascist, neo-Nazi state

Kremlin propaganda... I mean the US did (publicly at least)suspend military aid to Ukranian militias over their overt neonazi and white supremacist ties¹(these militias were then simply subsumed into the National Guard). Furthermore, the American military has even published a publicly available analysis of such forces in Ukraine², confirming their existence.

[1] wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

[2] ctc.usma.edu/the-nexus-between-far-right-extremists-in-the-united-states-and-ukraine/

Furthermore, see jacobinmags article for more comprehensive analysis of these sources³.

[3] jacobinmag.com/2022/01/cia-neo-nazi-training-ukraine-russia-putin-biden-nato

None of the sources I've used here are in any way "Russian", they are all by Western sources. If quoting the American military's own reports is spreading "Kremlin propaganda", well then I can't help you.

If you think there is no weight to the neonazi presence in Ukraine, you've clearly fell for western propaganda, which the linked article gives itself away as being.

Oh, this is simply the tip of the iceberg. Most people have absolutely no idea how compromised the information system is.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, am I right? Unless people in government want to have you murdered for standing up against corruption, or for being an activist. Very, very deeply disturbing, actually.

If companies respected and paid platform/architecture engineers, or SecOps/SysAdmin types fair amounts of money and treated them with respect, instead of just throwing more and more money at hordes of mindless devs who are "pushing product", as virtually every single company does, maybe this problem wouldn't exist.

I've had this conversation too many times. Security isn't hard, it's just that nobody has respect for it. The guy who understands software security isn't getting the respect he deserves. The situation is so bad, some companies are literally hiring people who know the equivalent of script kiddie "penetration-testing".

Pay security engineers enough and listen very carefully to what they have to say. Literally the only companies who seem to understand this basic concept seem to be the intelligence agencies, and a few other high profile companies.

Someone remind me why Germany needs to be installing Israeli spyware onto citizens phones? We know this software's only purpose is to track down wrongthink and then murder dissidents.

Massive blow to the integrity of European telecoms.

Irrelevant. The people who own the most morally corrupt and toxic companies, that are destroying the planet, have all the money in the world to advertise and influence "organically" when everything they do is as inorganic and unnatural as it gets.

Industrialists will be first to the guillotine(in Minecraft of course).

Do you honestly believe everyone would suddenly know about the Chicago Strangler if they were murdering only white meth addicts? This racial rhetoric is so tired.

This really seems far fetched and disingenuous. I'm assuming that holocaust deniers are only 100% successfully deplatformed when the SPLC has absolutely free reign over which obscure groups and individual statements it may flag. In other words when the SPLC has literally 100% full control over the public discussion. How is this not totalitarian?

I've seen entire microcosms of people on twitter and facebook call for the murder of white people, I wonder if the SPLC would use some of their extremely extensive public funding to study that instead. (Hint: no)

The people who visit this website are the people who are paid to create and administer all of this technology.

Exactly, some falsely assume all technologists somehow share an enthusiasm for morality. Many of the most successful technologists I know simply work for the highest pay from military/intelligence contracts.

I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family.

It's almost like making generalisations about people's actions only by their skin colour or ethnic background is somehow wrong. Weird to think that basically anyone studying social science or humanities is being taught this stuff and that it is at this point basically accepted as fact.

In South Africa, twitter users make regular calls for the killing of white people, about as regularly as 4chan/pol has calls for killing jews.

The other day twitter refused to remove of an extremely hateful image of 2 white people's decapited heads being held up by 2 black women.

So no, they are about the same. One platform will ban hate speech from some groups but not from others.

60,000 rounds of rifle or pistol ammunition is not much.

Military equiment being lost is a regular occurrence?

This is a labour issue, not an issue of xenophobia. Though I'm sure these companies would love us to believe it's about xenophobia. The breakdown of western labour protections and the march towards near chinese levels of exploitation will likely be overseen by people who claim that western labour protections are racist.

I know, that's a terrible study. Their final metric was very carefully chosen.

White supremacist propganda and neonazi recruiting is what causes radicalization. Deplatforming those people is a good idea, yes.

Unlike what leftwing youtube and a few researchers from liberal universities would like you to believe though, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux and conservative news sites are not radicalising people. There's no evidence for that.

Your comment gives anecdotal support for the argument that much of the change mentioned in the article comes down to demographics.

Wow. This is really, really cool. Having this level transparency on who is spreading narratives or propaganda in what way is very interesting. In my few brief searches on some history-related pages you can see hoardes of edits from US military bases for instance.

you know the second part you are quoting isn't actually published by the EU

What's your point? Firstly, it's still EU funded, which by the way, many of these parent organisations like the UN and EU do some of their most important work through child organisations exclusively so I don't see your point. Secondly, if you look at the list of the people involved, there are actors from Facebook and the SPLC:

http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/9.BIOs-conferentie.p...

It seems you are trying to spread misinformation to me, or do not look into the sources you provide.

I'm confused.

If I was an EU taxpayer, I would want to know that my tax money is going towards funding these types of organisations and conferences where people say the type of things they do.

Hester also makes compelling and unexpected links between these second-wave feminist strategies and those of contemporary transfeminism, uncovering unlikely affinities between schools of thought often positioned in antagonism. In both of these historical instances, individuals acquire power over their bodies through building networks and repurposing everyday technologies. For Hester, the Del-Em is a direct antecedent to online trans* communities providing medical support or even grey-market hormones. At the threshold of this continuum is another of Hester’s evocative examples – a transgenic plant developed by Open Source Gendercodes which allows laypeople to grow sex hormones within tobacco leaves.

For some reason I was expecting something more interesting than the same feminism and transgender politics...

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEG...

... hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;

Define "hatred". This is extremely vague. Again, I suggest you to do some of your own research in this regard. There are thousands of documents freely available on UN, EU or related organisations websites that very clearly outline what the goals are of these types of laws and what has been done in this regard.

I will refer you though, to one such document, in which there is an interesting section that quotes someone as saying that the only way for migrants and minorities to be integrated into European society will be through "forced assimilation" and what I would define as a complete destruction of European national identities:

first and foremost the notion of what it means to be the member of a certain European nation (e.g. being French, German, Spanish, etc.) has to change. Europeans cannot define themselves anymore through the colour of their skin and/or their religion. They have to realise the excluding nature of these signifiers and come up with others that can really work as umbrellas that all can fit under. European values could be a great starting point. The respect for human rights, democracy, liberalism, secularism, etc. are all ideas and ideals that are inherently inclusive and independent of ethnic background, religious beliefs or skin colour. Obviously, immigrants and members of minority communities also have to subscribe to these ideas and - due to cultural differences - that will also be hard work on their part (and on the part of European societies). However, there are hardly any other options to create healthy and unfragmented European societies through integration that is not forced assimilation.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about what "forced assimilation" means.

Edit: Document in which this phrase can be found: http://www.inach.net/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2018-1...

If you are unfamiliar with this environment I suggest you read the entire document and not just the part I quoted.

In this case it is useful to carefully read what I have said and to take stock of the definitions. "Illegal hate speech" is currently defined as inciting violence or hatred against specific people based on some characteristics. In the larger context which I have mentioned, there is a correspondence between various EU multi-national and national governmental agencies, hundreds of NGOs and "The IT Companies"(Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc..) that establishes more specifically how these rules are implemented in the context of "hate".

Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place.

This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years.

And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.

I remember Jared Kushner was asked about the Russians ads, he said something along the lines of "that's what the GOP spends in advertising in 3 hours". I don't think 99.99% of people understand the scale to which propaganda and establishment bias penetrates into their lives and daily functioning.

"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right. Is this fair towards these parties? Imagine making climate change speech illegal because it hurts the feelings of people who drive cars or eat meat. Would green parties not be discriminated against? How about making speech illegal that suggests increasing taxes on corporations? Where do we stop?

There is always an ongoing political battle to steer our thinking. The world is a political place down to the air we breathe, what we eat, what we wear, how we to talk to each other and increasingly even what people we find in our community.

Migration, automation, and the meaning of life in the new western world.

Someone should write a book for white males, sadly we keep leaving this discussion to neonazis and white supremacists online instead of having it ourselves in the public realm...

If you think this is all just playing devil's advocate and trolling there is something deeply flawed about your assumptions about how these people(alienated young white men) experience modern culture and politics.

If you think the male suicide rate and mass shootings have anything to do with some kind of "objectively worse" metric you're not thinking about this in the right way...

"slightly below replacement"? Most of the countries I'm talking about are either "below" or "far below" replacement, which gets even worse if you compare native vs. immigrant fertility rates.