Just an ordinary free-spirited girl who unfathomably got put into a reform school. The BBC certainly has a point of view it wants to advance.
Can't say I'd have done the same choice, but it makes it more understandable.
Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting?
Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.
Empirically, no.
"Popular dictator" is an oxymoron. The dictator is always focused on their own survival. They are never able to completely wipe out their opposition, and end up collaborating with the powerful, and repressing the weak, in order to retain power.
80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.
Under the czar successful farming resulted in high taxes.
Under the communists, successful farming made you a kulak, you died / starved to death, and then everyone else did too.
When you have nothing to add, say nothing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac...
Or have the courtesy to do the reading.
The generalissimo used forced labor not unlike the DPRK, made widespread use of concentration camps, and was quite fond of executing dissidents. All religions other than Catholicism were outlawed and all political parties were outlawed.
Why would opposition to a murderous dictator be a bad thing? It isn’t as though the protestors/rioters/rebels were the ones escalating the situation. The government was already killing people. This could easily be viewed as justified violent opposition in the pursuit of stopping more murder.
The ‘throw molotov cocktails’ are mentioned in the same sentence as ‘hand out leaflets’, which makes me feel the surrounding people were generally not panicking about the fire. Hard to say without reading the book though.
throwing molotov cocktails is in NO way "normal"
it's so sad that the allies killed so many Axis soldiers in WW2 right? wasn't very nice :(
> and when the police turned up, scatter in every direction.
Whoever they set out to burn alive was very likely defenseless.
Any other insights you'd like to add?
What do you believe the purpose of this article is? Do you think it is advancing a policy agenda, in which case which policies is it advocating for? Or is it perhaps just documenting what happened and the impressions of those effected by what happened?
I think you're right that the BBC is being irresponsible in putting "my mum was a 17-year-old free spirit" in the headline -- even though it's a quote, it does imply a level of BBC editorial agreement with the characterization. It makes her sound like she was just an innocent hippie or something.
On the other hand, this wasn't vandalism for vandalism's sake. It was political protest against a dictatorship. It's not like she was engaging in criminal acts for the fun of it or for personal gain, so the snippet you choose is similarly misleading without the context of why.
Tankie implies someone who supports both the left and auth of auth-left governments. It doesn't include people who are left but not auth (e.g. most anarchists), or auth but not left (e.g. Francoists).
Unless your purpose is to dilute the meaning of the word so much it has no meaning and therefore becomes useless.
The Chinese State's actions w.r.t. the Uyghurs in undoubtedly a genocide. The Tankie angle misleading, "Han supremacist" would be more accurate.
Calling anyone supporting Franco a 'tankie' is so ahistorical it beggers belief.
Please try to understand the words you use, lest you rob them of all meaning.
I'd suggest replacing 'tankie' with 'partisan'.
B) She was imprisoned, and tortured, as the article discusses.
C) What POV would you prefer?
D) This was Franco's Spain, what do you imagine yourself doing at a time like that?
okay she threw molotov cocktails, she was lucky she wasn't imprisoned.
Throwing Molotov cocktail is trivially an criminal offense. OP is making it clear that framing it as she was a “free spirit” is ridiculous.
Your comment is treating her with full agency (i.e. "she shouldn't have done anything bad or disruptive") and completely ignoring the agency of the institutions that harmed her (i.e. "what did she expect in response?").
/s
people supporting a totalitarian fascist regime, blaming the victim...
"Shouldn't fight against the regime, violence is bad mmmkay"... "she threw molotov cocktails, she deserved it"...
what is happening, i feel like i'm taking crazy pills
Businesses are set up like tiny little fascist dictatorships. They are always trying to pay less taxes, evade regulations, layoff workers, monopolize, destroy competitors etc. They don't know anything about the public sphere, or common good, or government, or democracy, or rule of law. They suck at that, it goes against all their training and instincts.
3rodents•2h ago
https://time.com/6997172/teen-torture-max-abuse-documentary/
“They are often a last resort for parents struggling with children with behavioral problems, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse issues. Depending on the state, these rehab centers—a multi-billion-dollar industry—have few regulations, and there are no overarching federal standards governing them. Many are faith-based facilities designed to convert teens into born-again Christians and are therefore exempt from regulation in some states.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-About_Ranch
https://helpingsurvivors.org/troubled-teen-programs/turn-abo...
mothballed•1h ago
Natural result of that is catch-22, parent can't actually stop teenage kids from such activity except through what amounts to torture. As always either way, the parent is damned.
Aeolun•1h ago
mothballed•1h ago
Welcome to America where you must watch the kid every second until they turn 18, except at the moment they turn 18 they must be booted from the house to figure everything out all at once with nothing more than a minimum wage job, a gun, and rents that reach the stratosphere.
Duwensatzaj•25m ago
twodave•1h ago
mothballed•57m ago
Increasingly this is what the tyranny of the majority is in the western world. People who don't have kids, or only limited experience with kids, declaring that parents are neglecting or abusing their children because they don't behave the way the hypothetical ideologically pure parent would. Almost every single one of them has a cell-phone and the second they see something they disapprove of they can call CPS at the drop of a hat and make your life a living hell, even if you are 'innocent' of even whatever BS they made up.
As always, it's just a smug attempt at moral superiority. They want the intoxicating power rush from threatening and imposing on parents, with none of the responsibility, and the state is all too happy to provide it to them. Just punish and then rest soundly knowing you have no kids of your own for which you could be prosecuted.
plqbfbv•1h ago
I am not in any way affiliated with the author, it's just one of the few books with real content that I've read in a long time.
zoklet-enjoyer•1h ago
nekusar•2m ago
Christians are more concerned about *causing* extreme child abuse, and then turning around and claiming its to "save them", so the abuse isnt reallllly abuse.
Most of these camps cited are christian. And the people running them? Dogmatic christian fundamentalists. And these are the same types that run "pray the gay away" camps too.
rayiner•1h ago
areoform•19m ago
It is alarming to read such things on HN. When the heck did we go from the hacker spirit / "information wants to be free" to authoritarian lap dogs?
stuckinhell•53m ago
she was lucky she wasn't imprisoned or executed
maxldn•45m ago
Edit: clarification