Damn, y’all pollute everything with your large lame meaningless emotes. Maybe your favorite podcast can do a twitch steam, and you guys can do that over there.
Individual action within the rules of capitalism will never be enough to actually get stuff done. @punkisundead has the right idea here. If you want to actually hinder the corporations, you need to make it impossible to stay in business, no matter how they influence the government and rig the system in their favor.
On December 10th, at around 6 p.m., 200 environmental activists suddenly stormed and “invaded” a Lafarge company cement factory of La Malle in Bouc-Bel-Air in the Bouches-du-Rhone, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region in Southern France. Infrastructure at the plant was reportedly attacked using a variety of methods, including: sabotage of incinerators and electrical systems and devices; cable cutting; bags of cement cut open and spilled; damage to vehicles and construction equipment; damaged windows; and graffiti spraying.
Yep, don’t remember who it was that I heard say something along the line of “If climate activists were really convinced they want to end the system that they can’t deny is profitable to them, car dealerships wouldn’t be able to have SUVs on their lot as they would be set on fire during the night, airports would get vandalized, gas stations blown up…”
They are quite serious. you may not agree with their tactics. none the less they are the ones putting themselves out there.
I do agree with you on some points. when I lived in Berlin their were people making gentrification difficult by placing small firelighters under the wheels of expensive cars on the streets.
Which would make no news, because it can be hidden away (as few people are affected by it), while landing the protestors in jail for ages due to destruction of private property.
In conclusion, unless it’s a mass action by a significant percentage of the population, it would have little effect.
I’ve never heard of insurance for large scale projects which can lose tends of thousands to millions of dollars per operations day lost. That’s normally eaten by the company’s savings or loans. Maybe it’s different in France.
Loss of factory working days is a huge loss. Additionally, the more likely this is to happen, the more expensive said insurance will become, or insurers will just stop offering insurance.
Surely not. We have the right to assemble and protest right?
Not like there are examples of police beating the fuck out of unarmed students, or watching armed citizens attack other citizens and doing nothing about it. That would be a fascist police state, now wouldn’t it?
Remember, rights you feel uneasy exercising are rights you don’t have. Flip-off a cop, tell them to go fuck themselves, call them a pig, it’s every American citizen’s right to do so.
So now that you’ve thought about that, do you have those rights? Or no?
It’s not about being an asshole.
It’s about verifying that those rights exist.
When we first think, “I would be able to exercise that right in theory, but it would be rude,” that tells me that as the oppessor all I need to do is convince people that being rude is worse than being free.
Not everyone is suited to challenge authority, but if no one feels safe doing so then the dominoes of fascism have already begun to fall.
The least we can do is film, document, report, and support those who make the challenge.
And who exactly do you expect to talk about the crimes the US commits? Their allies? Just because the information comes from a biased source doesn’t change the fact that all of the information is accurate. Doesn’t change the extrajudicial killings, illegal detentions, torture…
Like, I’ll give you that he is biased. So what? Are you proud of the things he revealed the US is doing? We commit crimes and then hide behind “national security” when the only “security” being threatened is that of those on top commiting these henious acts and hoping to get away with it.
The source doesn’t change the facts that were presented.
Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.
Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.
Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).
WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.
I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.
Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.
Source: Mediastan (2013)
And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.
How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.
That’s extremely disengenious, the indictment was secret for years.
Regardless of that the Secretary of State is not providing direct input into the prosecution of an individual.
Lol
In Assange’s specific case he was charged during Trump’s presidency so Hilary could not at any point have been involved in his prosecution.
Buddy. You’ve got to be kidding.
In 2012 and 2013, US officials indicated that Assange was not named in a sealed indictment. […] In November 2018, US prosecutors accidentally revealed that Assange had been indicted under seal in US federal court;
No it wasn’t secret. Once it is filed it is public.
In 2018 Clinton was not in office. She wasn’t involved in his prosecution, which wasn’t going on until Trump took office, and you don’t seem to have anything that proves she was.
That is not how FISA courts work. God damnit, the DOJ admired it themselves and you still won’t believe. Can you spell cognitive dissonance and blind faith?
THE INTEGRAL AND LONG-STANDING USE OF SECRET INDICTMENTS IN UNITED STATES LAW
Regardless of the results that the practice of secretly indicting war criminals may have on future peace talks, it remains a fact that United States law allows indictments to be kept secret. Courts throughout the United States frequently seal indictments. Secrecy is one of the major characteristics of grand jury proceedings from which indictments arise and one that has withstood the test of time. Federal grand jury deliberations and hearings are conducted in secrecy. According to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts,
yea those large troves of archives sure do look cherry picked… (not) In any case, even if you’re right, editorial bias is not a crime. Every major (and minor) news outlet has editorial bias.
So an organisation (WikiLeaks) that collects primary documents from anonymous inside sources whose identity it protects, verifies the authenticity of the documents, analyses them, collaborates with major news outlets around the world in publishing them for maximum journalistic impact, is what, “not a news outlet”, just a “site”? Please.
The fact is, if not for WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning would likely not have released those documents because every news outlet she contacted first had no secure communication and didn’t take her calls seriously. It was the secure dropbox WikiLeak pioneered that revolutionised journalism. Many of the legacy media have since adopted similar tech.
Julian has won numerous journalism awards. His publications helped end the Iraq war and enabled torture victims to get justice.
“The aim is justice, the method is transparancy.” - Julian Assange
Please read up on the Iraqi gov decision making pre-US withdrawal and get back to me after.
They decided US troops could no longer be immune to prosecution due to what they learnt from certain docs released by WL, describing possible murders. This then spurred the US withdrawal.
Editorial policy is a blatant excuse. Have you scrutinized Fox News, CNN, DW and RT editorial policies? Want them tortured to death too? Nah, that’s just the USA state giving us a lesson to keep our heads down, nothing more, nothing less.
Are those organizations accused of directly being involved on an individual level in hacks against the USA? Because the allegations against Assange are that he directly was involved in the hack.
"The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. "
No they do not do that everyday. If a journalist tells you what secret documents to take they are a co-conspirator in the crime. If all he did was receive the documents completely unsolicited then he would have broken no laws. The allegation is that he was directly involved in the planning stages.
Use the right words, to “held him responsible” means to potentially murder him in the name of democracy. Add to this that the USA state is not going after all these people, nevertheless, they are crossing borders for Assange. They want to show him to the world as an example. Their efforts resemble those they took to get to Osama.
First. No realistically it doesn’t. Second, they should. I never said they shouldn’t. Specifically I said they should hold them all responsible. So I don’t know what you’re getting at. You’re not even addressing what I said.
Is everyone forgetting how Assange had a TV show on RT, the Russian state propaganda network?
And how every single leak about Russia was either heavily redacted, or just not released, when leaks about the US or US allies were not? Even when some of those US ally leaks put people in danger?
Wikileaks showed clear favoritism to Russia, because Russia was footing the bills.
RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]
In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74]
As to the show being "independent"... It was made by Assange, specifically to air on RT. Assange was paid for the show, because that's how licensing content works.
I always love that people go on and on about “he shared government secrets!” and always convientantly leave out that those “secrets” included that we were “double tapping” targets and killing aid workers and reporters arriving on the scene after the first strike. Or the video of the Apache gunning down a reporter and laughing about it.
A young and talented photo-journalist, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, both Reuters employees, were gunned down by a US Apache on 12 July 2007 in the Al-Amin neighbourhood of eastern Baghdad, along with a number of other people on the street. Saeed was wounded and tried to crawl away, only to be shot dead along with the passer-by who stopped his van to help him. Two children in the vehicle were severely wounded. WikiLeaks revealed what really happened that day when they published the Apache footage in 2010 under the name of Collateral Murder, along with the Rules of Engagement in use at the time. Julian is charged with publishing the Iraq RoE (count 14) but not the video. This means the video won’t be shown in court as evidence. It would presumably be too embarassing to the US government to show the footage in court.
That’s tragic but it doesn’t excuse what he did. The us was wrong to do that. Julian is a criminal as well for what he did. Exposing USA crimes does not absolve Julian of his own crimes.
Please keep posting this stuff. I haven’t seen the video in years, but I can still clearly remember it. We need to not let the world forget about the atrocities committed and stop turning the issue into something else. The entire Assange saga has all been over someone embarrassing us and not about the crimes we happily committed. It’s crazy that we pay more attention to him than WAR CRIMES(oh right, it’s not an official “war” 🙄…)
Been one of the more frustrating aspects of modern politics. Talking to people about what is happening, and getting told again and again that I'm exaggerating, don't be ridiculous!
And then it happens, the warning comes true. And they just never acknowledge it. They refuse to acknowledge it. Again and again and again.
And every time you bring anything up, they have the same refrain, don't exaggerate, don't be ridiculous.
If they thought about it, It’d hurt their heads. And if they acknowledged it, it would be admitting they were wrong. . and possibly even worse, admitting to playing a part in the bad thing that happened.
And we cant fucking have that happen, now can we? Why be an adult, admit a wrong, and grow as a person, when you can be an obstinant bag of dicks with your fingers in your ears going “LALALALALALALA”
Save yourself the time. Outdated video from 8 mo ago with a bunch of weak arguments. It’s comparable to what one could expect from a middle school essay.
I don’t have to. You shared the video with nothing else. No call to action, no question(s), no concerns, nothing.
Why did you share this video? You thought this was a solid educational piece on FF didn’t you? That’s the only reason I can think of that fits requesting a counter. So no questions, no research, didn’t even browse the comments, just choked this video down and decided to pass it along. Hell you’re not the first person to run into and post this video, a quick search would show you multiple discussions on it.
Nah you’re assuming a lot of garbage because you’re dumb. I’m stuck in a first past the post system given a choice between actual trash or a biohazardous fascist dumpster fire. If you don’t vote, you’re more likely giving power to the biohazardous dumpster again and we all saw how that worked out. You’re an idiot if you think not voting absolves you from the consequences of the next person in power.
Same here, sounds like a lot of these people are disenfranchised, or are paid to dissuade voters from one particular side, or they’re useful idiots.
I live in a first past the post system, it’s not going to change for the better from the top down, I petition for ranked choice voting on the local level, if I want to continue to be able to vote in the future (and not in a Russian sense of “being able to vote”) I’m voting for Biden.
For sure, I know accelerationists are the dumbest people on the left who have never picked up a book in their life. I’m getting downvoted in series of 7 votes which seems like a strange number to AstroTurf lmao.
What is “it”? All the nebulous statements with no plan lmao. They haven’t broken people enough to revolt yet. I’d have expected Russians to revolt again considering the worse oligarchical state over there, but the oligarchs are still in power. The bullies still have the better organization skills.
I hope y’all are at least part of a union otherwise you’re just worthless words lmao.
Nah you’re just a dumbass for thinking that voting for either of the genocidal fascists and endorsing the capitalist system keeping them in power “absolves” you of anything (whatever that means).
Political power in a capitalist state comes from organizing, not from writing the name of some maniac on a piece of paper
And naturally, with non-peaceful protest being the only form of organization, since both potential administrations will treat that issue equally, the logical option is to hand it to the one who will also do plenty more terrible things on top of it.
The logical option is a vote of no confidence. But we don’t have that in the US. We have Kings for 4 years so we have to respond to them the way people have historically.
Do something about it lmao. I want to hear about you on the news organizing your way to power before the election. Name drop Jaderick in your speeches, I would love to see it and you could prove me wrong.
In the mean time you’re just trash sitting there doing nothing lol.
Lmao calling me MAGA. Dude can’t even read a post history, I’m surprised you can format a post.
So what are you then, just nihilist internet trash? Explain how not voting is going to make Palestinian lives better. While you’re at it, explain how a Trump presidency would be better for fighting fascism. Explain how not participating in the system of power is somehow going to give you what you want, whatever that may be? You just want to watch the world burn? Start with your own house.
Ironically showing your own privilege. Those who are in imminent danger from things getting worse will vote against another Trump term, no matter who. Biden and the status quo fucking suck, but they can get so much worse.
Liberals can’t see beyond the next election (myopic). They also can’t see the results of 30 years of “voting blue no matter who,” so they lack the ability to learn.
Meanwhile leftists have been saying since Marx that Capitalism is the problem, and voting for your favorite color of Capitalism isn’t beneficial to anyone but the Capitalist system. So yes there are that many myopic people, like yourself, who will not only vote for blue capitalism over literally any other action, but they will also come to explicitly leftists spaces and browbeat others to do the same.
Whenever I see a person blaming Russian’s and Bots for going against their narrative, I know I’ve found a liberal. When someone else entertaining the option and suggesting the people downvoting the liberal are in the wrong, well it looks like I found two liberals.
You can see the vote history? Last night I’m pretty sure I was at 20 and the first response was at 10… But maybe it was a different thread? Pretty sure it was this one…
Vocal participation in a genocidal system is endorsement of it. You can’t tell people to vote for one of the parties of Capital one year and then suddenly tell people that actually it needs to be overthrown and think that’s going to happen 5 years later.
At some point you have to commit to it being “broken” (actually working as intended of course) and organize based entirely on the fact that it is and can not be supported in any way whatsoever. We’re long past that point with the “lesser evil” party currently committing genocide.
Successful revolutions in the past have used elections primarily as a way to show the size of the movement, never by endorsing a party of Capital.
Organize. Endorsing a genocidal party won’t stop them from committing genocide.
Stop gaslighting people. They said it’s time to march and protest and you still accuse them as if they’re participating in the system. We want both of them out. This is how movements for change start.
Classic lib take - attack the voters, because the current admin’s terrible policies are clearly their fault.
Repugs and Dems aren’t the only candidates on the ballot, and thankfully I can vote for someone who has policy positions much more aligned with my interests. Perhaps you can too, think about it. Or vote for more genocide, it’s your choice.
Yup, this commerad (the one you’re responding to) is 100% okay with fascism it seems.
Better to allow the group that locks up protestors, doesn’t convict anti fascist murderers, kills minorities, and actively surpresses the ability to vote, than vote for “the lesser of 2 evils”. I’m not saying they’re Russian, or Republican, but they’re saying the same things as those groups.
Currently the Biden administration is locking up protesters, not convicting FASCIST murderers, killing minorities, and suppressing the ability to vote, all right now. If you want to continue with the liberal policy of pretending everything’s okay go ahead, but don’t give us shit for trying to do something about it, sit down and shut up King.
Edit: I just finished watching the main part. I think they could have gone further. I assume some people will be curious about Nicotine gum/lozenges after this video. And wonder if it’s an ideal alternative.
Otherwise, the way they show all the downsides is really effective IMO.
Sure. There’s a lot to it, so I’ll copy/paste (with some minor modifications) an explanation from elsewhere.
It started when a YouTuber whose channel is called Coffee Break reached out to Philip of Kurzgesagt as part of a video he was doing into the flaws of popular science communication. Specifically, about some significant errors in K’s video on Addiction. Instead of agreeing to collaborate, or even giving a simple “not interested, sorry”, K took an instant accusatory tone, claiming CB must have been making a “gotcha” piece. CB and K agreed that they would talk more about the matter to try and assuage K’s concerns, but K kept stalling while working on a retraction video, at which time K took down the video that was the impetus for this discussion (shortly after, as one of those aforementioned stalling efforts, having said “I never could bring myself to take it down”, claiming it would be “cruel and unnecessary” to do so—funny, considering in his AMA attempting to spin the story, he said “I was really stressed out about the addiction and the refugee video for years. Being finally open about my mistakes and deleting them felt like weight leaving my body.”). The Refugee video was also taken down along with the Addiction one that CB was interested in.
K claims to be interested in science communication. But here, he decided to make the selfish decision to do what he thought would protect his own personal brand through duplicitous means. He got ahead of the story that falsely assumed was coming, and put up a pre-emptive response to that. Now, CB isn’t entirely blameless. In response to the above, CB put out a rather hot-headed reaction to the whole incident. He didn’t follow up with K to try to understand what had happened; he lashed out in anger at K’s self-righteous arse-covering video.
And then CB started getting harassed. K called out CB, and many of K’s friends (other very large, powerful YouTubers such as CGP Grey and Philip de Franco) made very public statements to their audiences attacking CB. It ended up forcing CB into taking down his video, deleting a whole heap of tweets explaining what happened, and putting out an apology. Perhaps it was an apology that CB should have indeed made, but the need for an apology from K was much, much greater. And one never came. K used his larger platform to spin the narrative so that his large audience, and now also the general public who becomes aware of this, almost all take his side.
And as a separate thing that came out a while after this, Both Kurzgesagt and CGP Grey were early members of Nebula. Today, Nebula is fairly well-known as a creator-owned streaming service. Creators literally have an ownership stake in the business, and are paid out a slice based on their viewership (I don’t think the exact formula is public, but presumably some function including number of views, view hours, etc.).
But early on, when it was still taking the shape we know it in today, Grey and Kurzgesagt were members with an ownership stake. They left it a long time ago citing “creative differences” (or some vague nonsense like that). From little pieces that have come out on the rare occasions that existing Nebula creators have said something about it, apparently those two were less interested in the vision of Nebula as a place where multiple creators support each other in growing their collective revenue; instead they wanted to take more of a parasitic approach where they could profit off of the backs of other, smaller creators. Because the then-co-owners weren’t interested in that, Grey and Kurzgesagt ended up leaving.
Yeah it sucks. Though for what it’s worth, I’m definitely not suggesting other people should stop watching him. It would be hypocritical of me to do so.
I don’t watch Kurzgesagt, but then I never did much. I watched a video of theirs here and there but never got really into it. But I was a huge fan of CGP Grey. The above was only a minor part of it, but some of Grey’s other actions have upset me to the point I can’t say I really like the guy any more. But I still watch his videos…when he actually puts one out. They’re high production value and usually on interesting subjects.
Must have been in the spring. I initially thought this was some tropical beach, but now that you mentioned it, I can see this being late May/early June here.
All those SUVs and people cant drive off road… Also quite telling what kind of people are going to burning men in what kind of cars, in regards to its supposed spirit and culture…
If you’re not actively involved in a movement your thoughts on the effectiveness of it are relevant because you’re one of the people it is trying to affect.
You’re maybe one of the people they’re trying to reach. If so, thoughts along the lines of “I don’t like this behavior” might be helpful for the people working to strategize in the movement. Responding to a protest with “I don’t think this will be effective in convincing people” says one of a few things:
“I agree with some of the goals of the movement on the surface, but I would rather start a conversation about civility than about the actual problems they’re trying to bring attention to”
“I disagree with their goals and I would rather shift the conversation to be about civility than to have to defend my position”
“I’m apathetic to their goals and I don’t like being inconvenienced, so all I care about is how civil they are being”
Every one of these is an attempt to derail the conversation due to emotions ranging from discomfort to malice, and none of them are worth engaging in.
The problem is that then the people are never heard. I used to think this way too but they have a point, if they aren’t literally in your face, you’re going to walk right past them. We’ve all seen people on the sidewalk handing out flyers trying to get the word out - how many of us stop to read it? <10%? <1%?
You don’t need to take and read their flyer to get the message… I can agree with their message, and still be pissed off that they’re causing a disruption in my day. These kinds of people only hurt the cause.
It’s a no win scenario no matter what, that’s what I mean. If they get in your face people don’t like them and we get these arguments. If they protest over there in the protest spot they get ignored. If no one protests then nothing gets done. There are no valid options. I don’t like it, but I don’t blame them either for being frustrated that no one cares
videos
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.