Facebook limits spread of 'Boogaloo' groups amid protests
reuters.com
reuters.com
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
Facebook is streisanding boogaloo.
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
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.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/05/31/us/politics/ap-u...
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)
(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!)
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/electric-boogaloo
Appropriation of language and symbology is quite common among similar movements.
So, I think that the correct answer to your question may be "nothing" - unfortunately, it's already too late.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I also think it is likely necessary to do so if we intend for humanity to move forward.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Nonetheless, the point of my comment is that children are not being caged, they're now being separated, as happens when suspects get arrested.
> Mirian G, a mother from Honduras, came to the U.S. with her young son on Feb. 20, 2018. She presented herself to immigration authorities and sought asylum, committing no crime. During her interview, Mirian provided immigration officers with several identification documents for her child which listed her as his mother. The next morning, Border Patrol agents took away her 18-month-old son with no explanation. She did not see him again for two months.
Even if she had crossed illegally, separating an infant from its mother like this for two hours is unacceptable to me, much less two months - and I would hope it would also be unacceptable to you.
Fortunately, today the mother would be told to stay in Mexico, and get to show up later at the port of entry for her asylum hearing. So we've fixed that problem.
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.
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.
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"
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 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.
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.
What I would call "ultra-left" are militant anarcho-communists who believe in abolishing strong systems of centralized control in favor of community rule. So no nations, only self-governed communities of some arbitrarily small size. This jives with "ultra-left" in areas with leftist militia uprisings. Not saying it's practical, but there are well-established schools of leftist thought at play that predate Stalin and Mao.
Liberalism is a center-right ideology that tries to marry right-wing capital control economies with left-wing social values. Many on the left regard liberalism (and neo-liberalism) as a failed project, because with any clash between economics and social values, the economics tend to win out. I'm not saying communism is the answer, but a move away from a scarcity-based economy would be a good start.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This thread was entirely predictably awful.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
> 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