Vote with your dollars (and of course vote with your vote!).
It's also wild to me that some of the best reporting on this administration has been coming from Verge and Wired.
Perhaps that should change.
What we need is people refusing to refuel them or service their aircraft.
Ricardo Prada Vásquez, a Venezuelan man whose family says he was “disappeared” and who wasn’t included on a previously leaked government list of people sent to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador, was included on a private airline’s flight manifest to the country, according to hacked airline data obtained and analyzed by 404 Media."
Those are the first two paragraphs of the story, what do you think is missing that would help your comprehension of the situation?
The problem is that he hasn’t had an opportunity to plead his case.
Good law enforcement officers regularly make honest mistakes. Courts are a safeguard against this.
Imagine that you get caught up in an immigration raid. Maybe you were at a Mexican restaurant. ICE shows up and half the staff quickly sit at tables pretending to be customers. ICE arrests everyone, including you.
Will ICE let you go home to go look for your birth certificate? If your wife hires a lawyer what process will your lawyer use to present your birth certificate to ICE?
Due process and the rule of law protects you from the arbitrary power of the state.
There is perhaps some “reason” this happened to him that the news doesn’t know yet, but it can’t possibly be a good enough reason to do this. I think it’s unlikely many of these men are violent criminals, but even if they are, the law should be followed and their family and lawyers should know where they are.
MAGA say stuff like “if you want to immigrate here or seek asylum, there’s a process; don’t do it illegally.” The same is true of deportation. While I don’t think it should be a big priority, I would be a lot less angry about deportations if the law and basic human decency was being followed while doing it.
If you are unscrupulous enough to hack someone else’s data, you are not trustworthy enough for me to trust that you haven’t manipulated the data you claim you have hacked.
Seems to me bad actions are just “bad”.
— Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Can you say that about the government, media, or activist hackers? I know I can’t.
Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Someone/something specific. Not just "not people I can't trust", that's a negative set.
Maybe a good start is someone who doesn’t break the law to do it?
I mean the issue is caused by a government breaking its own laws, correct? Isn’t that what’s bad? I guess I don’t see how breaking a law to expose someone else breaking a law makes you virtuous and trustworthy.
So…like I said…who you going to trust? The government, the media, the hackers? All are bad actors here. Ain’t no one here with clean hands…including you by suggesting that due process wasn’t provided when the article you are commenting about actually said that it was.
sherdil2022•1d ago
EnPissant•1d ago
It's more accurate to get your worldview from actual history than Hollywood movies.
tombert•1d ago
Movies are a cultural shorthand.
realo•1d ago
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
robertlagrant•1d ago
pstuart•1d ago
And Socialism presents zero threat to the republic these days, while fascism is unfolding daily
soco•1d ago
robertlagrant•1d ago
AnonymousPlanet•21h ago
The word Socialism might not mean the same for everyone.
Edit: Before you downvote read Webster's definition I posted further down. To be clear, I don't believe the conservative government of Ludwig Erhard would have introduced the 40 hours week out of their own good will. You can read about the union's campaign here: https://www.planet-wissen.de/geschichte/deutsche_geschichte/...
throw0101d•21h ago
And the government just decided to do that out of the kindness of their hearts?
There was years/decades of agitation and pressure by labour to bring the idea to the forefront of people's thought.
> The rallying cry of the 19th-century labor movement was “Eight hours labor, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest,” a phrase first coined by Robert Owen, a Welsh textile manufacturer turned labor reformer.
[…]
> The next big push came on May 1, 1886, when Chicago unions and political activists called for a nationwide “May Day” strike for the 8-hour day. More than 10,000 people gathered in Chicago for what was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration. Tensions escalated between strikers and police, resulting in the death of four demonstrators. In response, rioters and anarchists took to the streets on May 4, a violent clash that ended with a deadly bombing in Chicago’s Haymarket Square.
* https://www.history.com/articles/five-day-work-week-labor-mo...
In the US, Labor Day is in September, but for the rest of the world it is called May Day and celebrated on May 1, which was decided at the Second International socialist conference:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day
AnonymousPlanet•19h ago
Let me give you an example in English.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary from 1981 [1] gives the following definition of socialism:
"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: asystem of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"
That is the entire entry. Only later other meanings have been added to it.
The word has been abused, especially in the US, as a label for anything that protects worker's rights or tries to keep the social chasm between rich and poor at bay. Even entire countries that are actually very capitalist like Sweden have been mislabelled "socialist", either because of ignorance or some weird political agitation.
So no, Socialism is not what gave us a 40 hour workweek, but the political engagement of unions and of those who believe that unchecked capitalism is not a good idea. If you believe those people are socialists, you might want to ask yourself whether you have fallen for some kind of propaganda that tries to paint those ideas in a bad and dangerous light.
(edits for grammar and clarifications)
1: https://archive.org/details/websters_202301/page/1094/mode/2...
throw0101d•15h ago
Whether it is "socialism" or progressive or whatever label you want to use, just because a conservative government just happened to have passed some legislation does not mean it was a conservative idea.
See also Nixon and the EPA:
> Still, Brinkley said, Nixon was one of the nation's four greatest environmental presidents. The historian's short list also included Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. Whether or not Nixon cared about the issue, Brinkley said later, is another matter. According to Ruckelshaus, not only did Nixon not care about the environment, "he wasn't [even] curious about it." Even Reagan had more interest in the subject, he remarked.
> Nixon's lack of interest notwithstanding, "he had to do something about it," Ruckelshaus says, "because the public demanded it." Nixon took office just in time for the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. An offshore well in the Santa Barbara channel blew out eight days after his inauguration. Pictures of oiled seabirds made TV news and newspaper front pages all over the United States. That June, Cleveland's Cuyahoga River — or at least the oil and debris floating in it — famously caught fire. Clearly the images of those disasters had impact, but were they responsible for the popular uprising that made Nixon an environmental President?
* https://www.cascadepbs.org/2011/08/richard-nixon-unlikely-en...
> That’s not to say that Nixon personally embraced the environmental movement. He did not campaign on environmental issues, and, privately to Henry Ford II, he worried, vividly, that the movement wanted humans to go back to living like “a bunch of damned animals.” But despite his ideological differences with aspects of environmentalism—and unease with it—he presided over the biggest expansion of federal environmental protections ever.
> One way to explain this is that Nixon’s presidency coincided with a groundswell of environmentalist fervor, with membership in the Sierra Club tripling between 1965 and 1970, and the share of the American electorate believing that pollution was a serious problem going from one-third to 70 percent during that same period. So, while the tension between businessmen and “tree huggers” existed during Nixon’s time, there was nothing to be gained politically from exploiting it: Environmentalism was popular, and Nixon responded to the moment.
* https://newrepublic.com/article/171780/richard-nixon-earth-d...
AnonymousPlanet•15h ago
I never said that. Maybe you should re-read my posts.
And also you might want to stop your American navel gazing. Whatever Nixon or whoever said about some EPA or whatever is totally irrelevant to what I said.
And that kind of American navel gazing is exactly part the issue I raised. Americans throwing around words like socialism without having even the faintest clue about the historic relevance of the word to other parts in the world. And Americans believing some of their local political issues need to be steamrolled across the rest of the world.
They do not, so please stop.
energywut•1d ago
Take "Fear of difference" -- socialists tend to be (perhaps even annoyingly) anti-racist and "woke" types who are largely cool with everyone being different.
Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
"Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
So no, I don't think all of these are commonalities of socialism in any way. (And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does...)
DeepSeaTortoise•1d ago
That's why close to 100% of the POC walking away from these communities describe them as racist hell holes full of backstabbing and enjoy the "don't tell, don't care" approach of the opposition.
And good luck to you if the diversity you enjoy isn't genetic in nature, but a matter of non-approved opinion.
> the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high.
The problem is the number of violent ones being high, too. E.g. I don't see cars made by Jack Dorsey burning in the streets.
Also where is all the praise for Trump for being the only President since the 70s to not have started any new armed conflicts during his first term?
> And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does
Fun fact: Fascism is just Syndicalism combined with Engel's nationalist approach to Socialism. This includes Italian Fascism, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany (who also slapped novel occultism on top).
I'd say "Socialism" are all of the ideologies spawned from the first two Internationals. Comintern didn't really allow for any divers thinking.
Also Anarchism isn't Socialism or left wing at all. Enforcing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without a functioning state. Many of the self-declared "Anarchists" are but confused lazy Communists thinking they're going to be part of the Intelligenzia class.
Genuine Anarchism is the right most end of right wing extremism: A complete collapse of any organized society.
fifilura•1d ago
Socialism as in Soviet, East Europe and 20th century China was most things bad. Including racists and whatever.
Socialists as you define them are mostly just like a big chunk of regular europeans.
robertlagrant•1d ago
Socialists tend to be big on class warfare and killing people by the millions in the name of levelling the playing field.
> Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
Almost all of the most violent things happening in the 20th Century were in Socialist regimes. USSR / China under Communism / the Khmer Rouge.
And "pro gun" isn't "pro violence".
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
There's endless Soviet propaganda showing strong, heroic depictions of comrades.
DeepSeaTortoise•1d ago
- Restricting freedom of assembly
- Restricting freedom of speech
- Depriving people of political representation
- Disarming the citizens
But I get:
- 1. People like Christmas
- 2. Not adopting the radical ideology of a self-declared intelligenzia
- 5. Not celebrating an entrenched political elite mass importing people sharing their ideology
- 6. Being upset when politicians actively work on making people's live a living hell
- 7. Paying attention to the fact that it's a big club and you're not part of it
- 8. Stop mentioning the people ruining your lives also have weaknesses
- 9. Stop resisting, you barely staying alive is perfectly normal. Expecting success in return for your efforts is absurd.
- 10. Weakness is strength. How dare you support people seeking to improve themselves?
- 12. How dare you trying to figure out what is happening on our private islands? All of you hate women! And having sex. And not having sex. And those having sex, but not with you.
- 13. Do not question our narrative of who is the only valid Voice of the People. Those voicing their concerns in spaces escaping our control so far are just a few selected Russian trolls.
- 14. Stop expressing your thoughts in ways people actually understand. Using words with definitions older than 2 weeks is strictly forbidden
dttze•1d ago
Oh, and your given list also applies to this government too.
DeepSeaTortoise•1d ago
There is a reason the author linked to a paywall instead of a freely available copy. Just read it yourself: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
I skipped over some points, not because they're hard to dismiss per se, but because them being intellectually honest makes them hard to dismiss.
cauch•1d ago
Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship.
The second list is obviously a ridiculous take, and it is also a good illustration of the hypocrisy that we find too often in these discussion. "Nowadays, all the wokes are saying that everything is racist" followed that "someone pointed that usually in fascist movements, we find appeals to a cult of tradition, so this person is a bad person that says that everyone who like Christmas is a fascist". There is a big big spectrum of possibilities between "liking Christmas" and "appeal to a cult of tradition". Plenty of people like Christmas and yet it is impossible to find in their ideology an appeal to a cult of tradition.
DeepSeaTortoise•1d ago
Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism.
> The second list is obviously a ridiculous take
Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous, cut up beyond recognition to fit the author's political agenda. SmolLM-135M would have done a more decent job summing up the original 14 points speech. And even some of the points in the original speech were ridiculous. Like:
"Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons, doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
cauch•1d ago
Oh, so your two first points are 1. people don't like to work, 2. not adopting the radical ideology of self-declared chiefs of industry.
(Don't take it seriously, it is just to show that everyone can do the same lame argumentation than you have done with everything, and that therefore it has no weight at all)
> Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous
Not sure who you are referring to as "author". Eco? The author of the OpenCulture article? Someone in HN comments? 404media?
But it does not really matter, does it? Imagine someone says "all the dogs are purple". Then I say "what they said is ridiculous because the fact that people like Christmas is obvious and not particular". We are BOTH stupid. The first person has said something ridiculous. And me, instead of just using a non-stupid argument to point that it is ridiculous, I made uselessly a fool of myself by talking about people who like Christmas as if I'm too stupid to notice that this argument does not have any grip on the initial sentence. Either I thought it had grip, and in this case I'm an idiot, or I know it had no grip, and in this case I'm an idiot for uselessly choosing to look like one instead of saying the hundreds of other things that could have been constructive.
Yeul•1d ago
The only difference is that the American elite is now in on it too. For whatever reasons I do not know.
wizzwizz4•1d ago
dragonwriter•1d ago
No, it is annews story, and widepsread concerns are often reported on; its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
EnPissant•1d ago
Here is a list of major news media outlets from Wikipedia[1].
Which of the following do you think either supports the current administration or fears being targeted by it?
ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Politico, Bloomberg, Vice News, HBO, HuffPost, TMZ, CNET, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Time , U.S. News & World Report
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_State...
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
Unless you think threats of DOJ investigation, pulling broadcast licenses, or extremely expensive lawsuits don't produce fear? In that case you should let authoritarians know their playbook is out of date. Of course it's not, which is why authoritarians follow such a distinct pattern.
EnPissant•1d ago
I suspect people will say they are critical of him, but "not enough" or cherry-pick 1 or 2 neutral headlines in a sea of critical ones.
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
Oh yeah and that they wouldn't publish a cartoon poking fun at the kleptocracy. The artist resigned in protest and went on to win a Pulitzer, which WaPo had no problem taking credit for.
Is it fair to say that Navalny didn't fear Putin because he was actually quite vocal against Putin?
EnPissant•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
EnPissant•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
I see. So “in fear of being targeted in retaliation” then?
ZeroGravitas•1d ago
Literally things that you'd expect to find in an Alan Moore dystopian graphic novel, or as world building background TV headlines in a gritty Robocop described in peppy business as usual terms.
The top one is an alcoholic Fox News host being appointed as an Attorney General to replace a disastrous one that couldn't even get Republican support to be confirmed, a brief summary of his 120 days:
> He represented Jan. 6 defendants before getting the job, punished and demoted their prosecutors when he got it, and launched a series of ideological investigations (wokeness in medical journals, a five-year old Chuck Schumer gaffe) that went nowhere.
alabastervlog•1d ago
bigbadfeline•12h ago
They all support it and none of them is afraid of being targeted because... they all support it, albeit in ways that are discernible only to those who can read between the lines.
wizzwizz4•1d ago
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
ZeroGravitas•1d ago
I'd argue it's fairly directly responsible for the small number who don't support climate action too.
And I think the same applies to governments kidnapping people and ignoring courts who tell them it's illegal.
bborud•1d ago
When I cancelled my Washington Post subscription I wrote a letter to the editor. The important part of that letter was under what set of circumstances I might start trusting the Washington Post again. I never got a response. Not that I expected one. I’m sure they were inundated with angry letters at the time.
From time to time I write letters. To journalists, to leaders, I even wrote our prime minister once - and got a reply. Sometimes they are letters of support when someone has stuck their neck out and deserves a pat on the back. Or when someone has done good work. Too often they are letters telling people to do their job properly or to behave like adults. A lot of politicians and members of the press need a reminder to behave like adults and do their job these days. To do the demanding part of their job. Not just the part that is easy or that brings in campaign contributions or easy sales.
I never expect people to respond. But sometimes they do. This means I’ve reached people.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF•1d ago
The purpose of most news companies is to make money by selling ads. Real news would have to come from something that doesn't run ads and makes their money another way
mystified5016•1d ago
ZeroGravitas•1d ago
Rupert Murdoch did not buy the Wall Street Journal to help better inform the populace.
_DeadFred_•1d ago
The government has forgotten it can only do what it does with the consent of the people, and that a small minority could really frustrate things if they truly wanted to.
bonestamp2•1d ago
pstuart•1d ago
Because that would demonstrate weakness and accountability. This is a trial run and they have big plans for this.
Note that the courts have blocked this and thus far been ignored.
chneu•1d ago
sjducb•22h ago
This is why they’re not trying to fix mistakes. Once you set a precedent of allowing appeals everyone will want one.
Trump is using ICE to create a parallel legal system where people have no rights. This is exactly what early (1933) Nazi Germany was like.
dataflow•1d ago
I don't actually think the majority of the population believes this could happen to them. Furthermore, a huge portion of the population is very deliberately tuning out what they find to be depressing news. Though I'm not sure you're correct about the lack of widespread concern regardless.
bborud•1d ago
anigbrowl•1d ago
~20% are fatalists who think there's nothing you can do about it and just want to keep their head down and out of trouble.
Maybe 20% are naive people who don't get it and another 20% are hand-wringers who don't know what to do about it.
Fewer than 20% are able to comprehend, speak out, and organize against it and it's hard for them to make their voices heard enough to build a coalition that outnumbers the first group.
ndsipa_pomu•20h ago
From the outside, it looks like there's a few protests, but nothing particularly decisive. To my mind, the next step is rioting, although that will likely lead to martial law being imposed. However, it looks to me like ICE agents are pretty much acting like martial law has been declared.
wizzwizz4•18h ago
Violence, especially undirected violence, is a credible threat. If you can't trust those in power to respond sensibly to that threat, they escalate and escalate and then you've got a civil war on your hands. Nah: minimal, surgical, de-escalating force is the way to go. (Unless you deem things bad enough for a revolution, in which case… I'm still not sure riots should be in your playbook.)
I guess a riot would be useful if you need to distract the enemy's forces, while a small party sneaks into Mordor to destroy the One Ring. But the real world rarely has single-target objectives like that.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2•18h ago
wizzwizz4•17h ago
My point wasn't "you should do this specific vandalism". My point was "if you're breaking the law, you might as well be smart about it". Damaging an enemy's car in an obvious way, to keep them from getting to work (without putting them at risk), is more effective than burning some random, unaffiliated storefront.
I originally said "slash" because (if you're carrying a sharp thing) it's quicker and easier than "deflate" – but I wasn't taking my own advice. Turning intact tyres into hazardous waste is suboptimal, and property damage that isn't necessary is a failure to de-escalate. (Besides that: carrying a knife seems unnecessarily risky. Which headline is better? "ICE agents defend themselves against knife-wielding activist", or "Possession of lentils now a crime"?)
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2•17h ago
bigbadfeline•12h ago
They are stunned by disbelief or ill-conceived happiness. The former are waiting for the Dems to do something, which won't happen. At most, they'd pull some sort of reverse Jan 6, which will help Trump and/or the neolibs who secretly support similar policies.
BTW, that lentils thing is dumber than the vegetable, the effects would be no better than open riots. No violence, property damage or "sit on the road" type of disruptions can do any good in the current situation. Lawyers, truthful propaganda and organization can help but these are in short supply and "tariffed" extensively.
runjake•16h ago
And in our current case, causes the Administration to crack down harder. Against rioters. Against illegals and those deemed to be illegals.
antifa•14h ago
tialaramex•1d ago
At first this can be quite structured and casual like, I should look for life opportunities abroad. Ooh, I quite like France and this outfit in Brittany are hiring in my field, I will apply and see what happens.
Gradually leaving becomes more urgent, and eventually you should focus just on getting over the border even if you don't have specific plans for where you'll go or what you'll do after that. Countries immediately bordering a fascist state often don't have a lot of patience for refugees, but, hey, at least you're out.
wizzwizz4•1d ago
Fleeing makes sense for people at most risk of persecution (e.g. trans people, Jews, those who speak out), but many people are prevented from fleeing by their consciences. They have to stay and fight. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Factions
tialaramex•1d ago
If your home is on fire, some people will bravely stay and fight the fire, but the instruction we give everybody is to flee, you can get another home, but if you die there's nothing to be done about it, so better flee.
mvdtnz•1d ago
_DeadFred_•1d ago
K0balt•17h ago
verzali•13h ago
potato3732842•1d ago
I mean they made a f-ing hollywood movie about it in 1998, it's not like the potential wasn't foreseen.