EU is planning a new mass surveillance law that includes mandating data retention, built-in backdoors, sanctioning non-compliant services and is asking you for feedback: Impact assessment on retention
EU is planning a new mass surveillance law that includes mandating data retention, built-in backdoors, sanctioning non-compliant services and is asking you for feedback: Impact assessment on retention
You're viewing a single thread.
Every year they try to push this same shit with a new name. One day there will be a reichstag fire and it will be passed.
So fucking transparant, yet I don't see a way to stop them.
The rough quote is, we have to win against this every time. They only have to win once.
Pretty straightforward: join anarchist groups like the ccc and the fau, vote radical left and tell everyone you know to do the exact same. It already helps in some areas, just keep doing it.
And how do you ensure that the "radical left" doesn't support surveillance measures? Not like the ideology has a good track record on that matter.
You mean like every other government? I dont. Radical leftists stand for human rights. Of course there is a chance that they get coopted. But every other political ideology does not need to get coopted to oppress people.
Most moderate anything government doesn't even begin to come anywhere close to the control of a "radical" leftist state.
What is your basis for "radical" leftists standing for human rights? Radical leftists are rarely liberally minded. I don't disagree that many left-wing parties stand for decency, environmental protection, and various rights - but "radicals" do not.
You are making assumptions. It shows that you dont have any idea of leftism.
The idea of leftism is that people (and animals in most cases) are the same and deserve their needs met.
You can criticize the measures taken to ensure this, especially in capitalist societies where you may have to use force to break capitalist resistance. If all you ever knew is rape, being disallowed to rape can feel repressive. But its still okay to repress it.
And it is okay to disagree on this. Thats why we have both anarchists and marxists. Massively simplified, one party wants to mentally arm the population and push for a self educating, politically mature population. The other one wants to change the system from the top and reeducate the public on cooperation and classless society while forcefully repressing the regressive ideas.
They both actually want the same, communism. The classless, stateless society.
Of course that is an ideal, a utopia that might never be real but the millions of people dying under capitalism every year and the exploited people all over the world, the exploited planet that is starting to kick us out are WAY worse than all that has been seen before. The strongest argument for marxism is the limited time we have before we will just die out (starting with those who already are exploited the most today).
no thanks, no person who waves around hammer and cycle gives two shits about betterment of mankind, the same way someone waving a swastika around does not.
Interesting take. What makes you say that?
the insane number of atrocities and murders commited under the hammer and cycle flag and the modern commies love of whitewashing and apologizing for it. Nobody who wants the world to be better for everyone would not call themselves a communist.
Okay. So you dont mean communism or socialism, you are talking about a symbol. So if one took lets say, a wave, would it be okay then to have people housed and fed?
I get you dont think eastern europeans are real people and their lives or suffering matters but commies are same as nazis to us: they both want to mass murder.
Why the fuck would anyone who is not selfish rally behind a symbol of oppression, mass murder, authoritarianism, war, propaganda and economic decline? If you have no issues waving hammer and cycle around, you have issues.
I didn't know about those groups, thanks for bringing light to it although I'd be wary of voting radical left unless the alternative is only a right-winger
"Wary" of radical left why exactly?
Not in all cases as I said between a radical left and a right-winger you might be better voting for the radical left but why I say to be wary is because of the Horseshoe Theory
If you were to say progressive leftists is where I'd be all for
The horseshoe theory is bullshit to discredit anti establishement leftists.
The idea of radical leftism is that the capitalist system needs and breeds inequality and the state is its assistant. There is no overlap of fascism and leftism. There is a lot of overlap between fascism and capitalism though.
Dont believe stuff like this. It has been disproven many times.
Radical leftism means in essence:
- everyone is the same
- everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
- a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights
The only thing i would warn of is that just because someone says they are leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc doesnt mean they really are. Examples: national socialists and anarcho capitalists. They're both just using the term and perverting the idea. Then there are radical leftist parties that are lost (like russia apologists).
Of course you need to make an informed decision but yes, radical left all the way.
Radical leftism means in essence:
- everyone is the same
- everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
- a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights.
Any progressive leftist would agree with those things hence why I'd be all for them and as you said there are exceptions in radical left where they shouldn't be taken seriously
Exactly. Its just important to understand that horseshoe is not a viable concept. Use specifics instead. No Gos are:
- russia apologism
- israel apologism
- science denial/esotherics
- selective exclusion from basic rights
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox. It states that tolerant treatment of intolerant parties will lead to them dismantling of the tolerant system.
- science denial/esotherics
- selective exclusion from basic rights
No true progressive leftist would be in for either of the two, but in regards to the other two it can become tricky to know
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox
Or simply ignore the gaslightning that tolerance is a paradox and take it as a social contract where both ends must comply, if one won't then you shouldn't take for granted the other should
Horseshoe theory is bunk because, when you drill down, all it's basically saying is that people who disagree with the tenets of liberal capitalism don't respect the legitimacy of a system based on the tenets of liberal capitalism. It's essentially a tautology, and not incitefull because liberal capitalists also don't respect the legitimacy of systems that aren't based on liberal capitalist tenets.
fair enough
Horseshoe theory is utter nonsense and not worth any kind of real consideration.
well you're entitled to your opinions but you don't seem to try to argue in good faith your points to favor your reasoning
to be fair to them: "horseshoe theory" is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions...soooo...why bother with much of an argument?
it IS bunk, it's pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.
not saying you are wrong, at least in general.
it's just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.
a bad faith argument doesn't really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that's why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don't. that's why the right constantly comes up with new ones.
If it helps, i have a political science degree. No one takes Horseshoe Theory seriously. I'm not arguing because there is nothing to argue.
The horseshoe theory doesn't apply to every leftist group. You need to gauge and research their backgrounds to see if they're authoritarian first.
horseshoe theory doesn’t apply to every leftist group [...] research their backgrounds to see if they’re authoritarian first
hence why I say to be wary and why I say I'd vote but not in every circumstances though BrainInABox makes fair points against it
Radical right and radical left. You should be wary of both of them because they are radical.
- Radical plans often need to be enforced to be accepted
- Enforcing political will is authoritarian.
- I'm anti-authoritarian above everything else.
Ah, a "centrist". So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?
The idea of "radical = bad" is a trick. It's got zero to do with reality.
Example: depending on where you ask, radical means entirely different things. Read about the overtone window.
That said, radical leftism is about human rights. It is about destroying hierarchies between people. In short it means: everyone gets what they need and does what they can. Or "food, water, housing are inalienable rights."
The radical right is about superiorism. White power, discrimination and ultimately destruction of what they view as "lesser" be it people who look different, have different ancestral history etc.
And you think its smart to compromise between the two? I suggest reading books.
So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?
Very non-radical actions you asking me to support.
From all of that I get that you're someone who thinks it's left Vs right. Two positions, Two ends of a line. If you're not at one end, you're at the other and what lies in-between (if anything) is grey, cowardly, compromising, compliant lemmings.
..and you're telling me to read books? This is the most juvenile and laziest of political thinking. You need to grow beyond thinking anyone that doesn't agree with you must either be the enemy or a collaborator. At least get past one-dimensional thinking.
And it's the Overton window (not "overtone") after Joseph Overton, a US libertarian and free-market supporter. He came up with the concept to describe how think-tanks should manipulate public opinion to consider what was previously unthinkable, particularly in a free-market direction. Of course, that's all lost now it's become part of pop-politics.
You're funny.
I said we should not compromise on these things, you're trying to make a strawman, and badly.
You started with the left vs right debate and are attacking me ad hominem with it.
Your way of discussion is massively out of line and very condescending.
Also, trying to top my point of the overtone (its not important if i spell it correctly, get over yourself) window is childish, while you're accusing me of being exactly that. That was massively ableist too.
You're the exact reason why people with a brain dont like centrists. They're just fashists undercover. The same attack methods, the same disregard for human rights and decency.
Next you say feminists, vegans or climatechange activists are hurting the cause because they're "too loud". Honestly, people in the thousands die every day because people like you say " what can you do?!" Instead of "maybe we stop that"
Anyway. As you can imagine, i dont allow people with less than decent communication style in my feed. So go spill your poison somewhere else.
The current center was extremely radical for most of human history. And if you think that centrist politics don't need to be enforced then I would encourage you to pick up a history book.
The current center was extremely radical for most of human history. And if you think that centrist politics don't need to be enforced then I would encourage you to pick up a history book.