French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists

Walking around your house isn’t evading anyone or anything, and it’d be too periodic.

You need wider range, more chaos, but mainly consistent spoofed behaviour.

I think it is more about fear silences sane people. Not that support for shady things increase. E.g. at work like 2 or 3 out of 20 are phsycotic war mongers to different degrees. There is always this implied "we will shoot you as a traitor if you disagree" if things turn to shit when you deal with that kind of people.

Macron is not a fan of theses social policies, he is right leaning. His governement reduced labor protections, butchered educations, worsened public healthcare, and do nothing for the environment.

Macron, as so many French leaders before him, is in fact obsessed by transforming France into the US.

Sarkozy, his most alike predecessor, used to wear a t-shirt that said "NYPD" while jogging, as he was president of France; and later renamed his party "Les Républicains" as an hommage to US Republicans (!!?!)

This was 9 years ago, so right before Trump happened. At the time, 53% of party members thought it was "too American" but they accepted the change nonetheless.

Macron pushes through "liberal" reforms (liberal in Europe means the opposite as in the US: liberals here are free-market proponents) because he thinks it will make France great again, I guess.

> we happily put an emperor on the throne less than a decade later

to be fair, the emperor climbed on the throne pretty much on his own; I think he had support across broad parts of the population, but it's not as if he was elected (and he didn't even start as an emperor, that came a few years after his coup)

I wouldn't say it went terribly in terms of rights, necessarily. The French Revolution was a massive influence on every other post-enlightenment democracy that came after it. Without the French Revolution (and yes, that includes its failures), we very well could all still be living in different versions of feudalism.

The French Revolution paved the way for just about every pro-worker reform in the modern world.

Given that out of the dozen or so "main political parties" he is the only one who wants that, and that when asked about their priorities for the change of France no group of frenchmen put that in their top 5 besides voters of LFI ...

You're absolutely right that there are definitely some people who want a 6th republic but do not vote or agree with LFI, but for the sake of generalized conversation like we're having now they're mostly irrelevant. If it were to happen, it would be through him and his "vision", and as such I maintain my critics.

Beware of what you want for you might just get it.

Not everyone who supported Brexit in the UK was a right wing xenophobe but look where they ended up.

The military guys from Algeria had already put their hands on Corsica, plus, the iminent threat of the landing on the shores of Southern France (or via an aerial operation, can't remember exactly) of said military forces was heavily used by de Gaulle during the negotiations that got him into power.

Is this an actual quote? Interested regardless of the topic of this comment thread.

Couldn't find any source online except for this comment. Might be because of tranalation though.

You can ensure that the average position is always more right than you by staying on the left!

I didn't mean him to be neutral in his position but in what he is writing. You can clearly see he is biaised and is anti-police. Like the police is responsible of everything and that people are peaceful protesters while it's not truth, it's not black and white and he is a fool to believe that.

Yeah I meant more like "unbiaised comments" and not black and white comments complaining that one is responsible of everything.

I didn't mean him to be neutral in his position but in what he is writing. You can clearly see he is biaised and is anti-police. Like the police is responsible of everything and that people are peaceful protesters while it's not truth, it's not black and white and he is a fool to believe that.

What about just regular fascists then? Do you blame fascists for violence, perhaps caused by communists?

Fighting back against totalitarianism by doing away with freedom of association and assembly. Cute.

No better than the gang laws we have here in the US. It seems Jefferson's rule about 200 years or so between revolutions was right after all.

Myself, I'm a peaceful guy, if every protest I called (assuming I'm a "leader" of cause $INSERT_CAUSE_HERE ) resulted in violence, I would not call any more protests because that would go against my personal values. So it's hard to believe a group is peaceful if every time they have a protest it turns into a riot.

Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

I think as long as most of the protests don't end up in violence and shop lootings they could stay.

> Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

Oh, come on, as if that were a thing so common that there had been a specific word for it for nearly 200 years.

It’s not clear what exactly you were asking or how it relates to the post you were replying to.

> My understanding of the US system design is that the law as defined by the legislative body is in a way "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level), and jurisprudence augments it with the details.

Which really makes me wonder, how the hell to even professionals keep track of that? For regular stuff you literally can have thousands of relevant cases going back centuries as "precedent" to build on.

IANAL but no, the US claim to minimalism is just branding.

The largest jurisdiction like the Federal judiciary, for example, have the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which have a strict point system for criminal sentencing where judges have little discretion due to a Federal “tough on crime” wave.

It really depends on the subfield of law and the vagueness of past legislation.

Townshend v Townshend is a ruling from 1848 still being quoted.

Citing Slavery Project did an analysis and found 18% of all current cases in courts either quote slavery rulings or are less than 2 steps removed (quote a ruling that quotes the slavery ruling).

All of that is easy to contemplate. You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances (things that make the situation worse or better for the defendant)

And on top of that you have a window for sentencing. So if murder is lets say 4-20 years in jail. And you were drunk, that makes it worse, but it was not premeditated, and this and that it all adds up and you might 6 years or you might get 18 depending on the circumstances.

This also allows the law to be rewritten from scratch instead of being based on whatever higher court thought in the 1800s.

How do you stop actual terrorist groups from committing actual terrorist attacks, the like of which france has seen recently, without being "authoritarian"? A terrorist is almost always a normal person. They likely will not have committed a crime until they do the terrorism.

Like, this is paradox of tolerance stuff. How do you prevent bad actors from taking advantage of your permissiveness and liberal laws? I'm not saying france is in the right to detain someone for using a simple app, because they aren't, but that this action is on a spectrum, and everyone from governments to your local forum admin is desperately trying to find the right point on that spectrum. So what do you suggest?

If your answer is "don't try to stop the terrorists", then you should understand that human society really hates random violence that isn't "normal", so unless you have some way to make innocents dying for no reason "normal", people will give up any freedom to fix that. Maslow's hierarchy of needs isn't good science but people's desire for "safety" is a very very strong desire.

You would think that with that pun I wouldn't get downvoted. Ah well :)

The AfD may not be literally a fascist party, but it does have a prominent right-wing extremist faction that includes several of its most widely known members such as this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke

I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point. You and I both know the people calling the AfD fascist or nazi won't suddenly like it better if you can convince them they don't meet the exact definition of fascism or are identical to the historical National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. It's clearly more about a vibe, but that is also true for the AfD's own political ideology (and yours, apparently, if you think "identity kamikaze" is 1) a thing that is happening and 2) something to be seriously concerned about). Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions including Strasserites, who imagined a more proletarian-led economy and people who thought having homosexuals like Röhm around was acceptable, at least for utilitarian purposes. Incidentally, most of those were murdered by the rest once the NSDAP actually got into power. Such is the reward for being progressive in the far-right.

Well, you do, but not if you don't already find their views palatable.

There is a large undercurrent of reactionary hateful views in German politics that usually hides behind the fig leaf of "conservatism" but has become more visible thanks to parties like CSU openly copying AfD talking points and "liberal" media being unequipped to handle them in any other way than giving them a platform and hoping that the "marketplace of ideas" saves the day. Of course as we now know from experience, "rational debate" is impotent in a "post-truth" environment.

It's a widespread misconception that Germany got rid of all the Nazis and Nazi ideology during the so-called "Denazification" (Entnazifizierung).

While there were formal reviews of the innumerable former NSDAP members to determine their ideology and behavior under Nazi rule, only the most blatant offenders faced any consequences and it was demonstrably easy to "cheat" (i.e. we now know based on a better understanding of historical records that some people were able to hide very incriminating evidence of their involvement in e.g. forced labor and Jewish persecution) and any undesirable rulings could be appealed to offer another opportunity to "correct the record" so to say. As a consequence, many Nazis saw no real consequences and even ended up in the same positions of power because their job experience made them the most qualified (and "innocent until proven guilty", right?).

Additionally, many former NSDAP members went on to continue working in politics. Of the parties still relevant today, the conservative CDU/CSU received the lions share of them, in addition to those formerly associated with the likewise Christian "center party" which while ostensibly "politically moderate" was one of the driving forces in the rise of the NSDAP and the passing of the Enabling Act dissolving the democracy.

In East Germany, likewise many former NSDAP members ended up in the equivalent of the CDU/CSU (known as CDU in East Germany at the time and CDUD or Ost-CDU in West Germany), the NDPD and the LDPD (the East Germany equivalents of the market liberal West German FDP, the NDPD explicitly being created to target "unimpacted" ex-NSDAP members and siphon off conservative voters who would otherwise have supported the CDU or LPDP), all of which continued to exist as an executive organ[1] of the ruling unity party until 1989.

It's also worth pointing out the East Germany was even less rigurous in its "Denazification" (Stalin ended the program in 1948 insisting that it was time to stop distinguishing between ex-NSDAP and non-NSDAP and instead focus on growing democracy) and the SED was uniquely ill-equipped to deal with neo-Nazis when they arose, previously already having viewed "unimpacted" NSDAP members as politically confused rather than genuinely dangerous. For some it was literally impossible to imagine neo-Nazis could exist in East Germany because they saw the rise of the Nazis as a response to capitalism and East Germany was supposed to be non-capitalist[2]. For this reason, East Germany was however (like the USSR) quite successful at fighting other leftist currents, which were seen as misguided or even "capitalist" (as the only valid form of anti-capitalism was clearly that practiced by the government and opposing it therefore must be capitalist).

So in essence Germany has never weaned itself off fascism, really. While Germany has become generally more progressive compared to the 1930s, in some ways it is also still less progressive than it was during the Weimar era. A lot of leftist politics also died even before the suppression under the Nazis, the suppression under the SED or the suppression under the Cold War era anti-communist West Germany: while many know about the in-fighting between the SPD and the USPD after WW1, culminating in a massacre at the hands of monarchist paramilitaries, there were also numerous other leftist mass deaths such as the two(!) socialist republics in Bavaria, which eventually also fell victim to the monarchists.

In other words, it shouldn't be surprising that we still have monarchist terrorist groups (Reichsbürger) treated with more bewilderment than horror, whereas the closest we have to leftist activism is moderates gluing themselves to public roads to demand incremental climate protection legislation, and two so-called leftist parties that hate each others guts and one of which has almost fully embraced neoliberalism (the SPD implemented the neoliberal reforms of weakening labor protections, social welfare and medical care some 20 years ago).

The AfD is a protest vote in as much as Trump is a protest vote. They're not something you usually bring up in polite conversation but they have easy answers and push all the right (wing) faux-populist buttons.

[1]: Point of pedantry: East Germany quickly established a system with a single ruling party, the SED or "socialist unity party". However the CDU, NDPD and LDPD continued to exist as "block parties" and began increasingly aligning themselves with the ruling SED. The "block parties" were infamously nepotistic and provided a relatively easy path to political power and privileges compared to the dominant SED.

[2]: Point of pedantry: East Germany was not "communist" although it was at times framed as "Stalinist". East Germany instead eventually used the label "real existing socialism" (along with some other Eastern block countries) which was intended to frame anyone left of the ruling party as "utopian" and unserious. This "it's already as good as it gets" position is distinct from other so-called "communist" countries which often used the term aspirationally, claiming they would eventually achieve the communist ideal after reaching a tipping point (allowing the state to "wither away"). Both are distinct from anarcho-communists who would argue that if you try to build a state to achieve communism, "real existing socialism" really is the best you can hope for because states don't wither away voluntarily and you can only grow communism from the ground up (cf. prefigurativism).

I would argue the conclusion to that isn't that they don't have a valid point, but that the people cannot be sufficiently motivated, or that they are unsure how to protest effectively, or that they are unaware that disrupting often leaves people feeling disrupted, that feeling disrupted is not a positive feeling, and that associating Negativity with a movement too many times can really hurt it in the long run. Just look at the cultures idea of PETA in the USA.

I don't understand this point, and it's one we see very often. What would have happened if they'd been civilised?

1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.

2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.

3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution, the feminist protests that earned women the right to vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker rights, etc.

> I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable

Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as well?

Seriously ?

In France the only way firefighter got heard the last few times, after month of peaceful protestation, is by doing violent protest, including throwing heavy thing on the policeman. Then the government accepted to negociate with them. If you don't use violence in France, in many case you don't get heard at all.

Gilets Jaunes, aslo because of their violence did manage to get the government to made some concession.

Millions of French people (more than Gilets Jaunes at their peak) marched several times peacefully against the recent Pension Law, supported by all the trade union democratically elected, supported by more than 70% of the population and more than 90% of the workers. Nothing happen. No concession. Not even a vote in the parliament.

For sure sometimes violence is efficient, sometimes violence in counter-productive. Justifiable ? that is something else...

Used to work just find in France before Macron

And your definition of democracy is nothing more than electing a master to rule over you for 5 years. As long as his actions are legal, you consider them legitimate despite being highly unpopular and imposed on people through police violence.

There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years.

Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised."

The founders of the United States believed that the government of Great Britain should rest on the principle that government depended on the consent of the governed and that any government not based on that consent could be justifiably overthrown and replaced.

Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same principles.

Through parliement. Thats just how a normal democracy works. Or through a referendum.

unless we are talking about handling a national crisis, or avoiding a US-style shutdown, then avoiding a vote may be legitimate under specific circumstances.

but I doubt pension reforms fall under national emergencies

Yep, and this is the logic that is followed by judges: self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no other option. Run away. Always run away.

I think you’re really putting the kart before the horse here. It’s certainly not true that no legitimate governments existed prior to the 20th century, regardless of what particular phrases may be been invented to describe them during that time. Just like gravity existed long before Newton managed to come up with a sensible description of it. You also almost get to describing the actual reality of the situation, but not quite, which is that a monopoly on violence and a state are the same thing. All states emerged when some group attempted to assert a monopoly over violence, and whether they fail or succeed in becoming a state comes down to their ability to monopolise violence. The status of legitimacy here is entirely subjective, and if it’s called into question, the only way it’s ever falsified is if some other group successfully challenges that monopoly.

It's grounds for having your citizenship revoked unless it will render you stateless. People suspected of being on the way to Syria would get their passports confiscated.

Nine EU countries made similar rules, though I don't know how many still have it in effect. Any citizen/resident of Denmark is still prohibited from going to the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq.

Because it can be difficult to prove. There are/were no direct flights to Syria. So people would travel to Turkey and cross the land border to Syria.

> If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS

Like joining the Taliban ?