Once you’re charged with a crime that’s all some people think of when your name comes up. Even worse that some family members get dragged down by it too.
And all thanks in this instance to John Ashcroft and the W administration 🤦♂️
Since 2019, the FBI has used five “threat categories” to describe domestic terrorism: Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism, Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism (AGAAVE), Animal Rights or Environmental Violent Extremism, Abortion-Related Violent Extremism, and “All Other Domestic Terrorism Threats,” which is defined as “furtherance of political and/or social agendas which are not otherwise exclusively defined under one of the other threat categories.”
“Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism” used to just be “Black Identity Extremism” until somebody told them they were making their racism a little too obvious.
Behind the scenes though, according to congressional testimony reported here for the first time, the FBI maintains a program specifically for combatting anarchists, called the Anarchist Extremism Program. In Senate testimony, the FBI says that it had increased its targeting of anarchist “violent extremists” across the country by using both human and technical sources to spy on them. Since the nationwide protests after the death of George Floyd in 2020, the bureau has tasked field offices to tap confidential informants to develop better intelligence about anarchists.
In 2021, the FBI more than doubled its domestic terrorism caseload; and Wray told Congress that arrests of what the bureau calls “anarchist violent extremists” were more numerous in 2020-2021 (the months around January 6) than in the three previous years combined.
An internal FBI threat advisory obtained by The Intercept defines Anarchist Violent Extremists as individuals “who consider capitalism and centralized government to be unnecessary and oppressive,” and “oppose economic globalization; political, economic, and social hierarchies based on class, religion, race, gender, or private ownership of capital; and external forms of authority represented by centralized government, the military, and law enforcement.”
This is what they’re doing instead of going after Republican political corruption, Libs of TikTok and other right wing extremists, police brutality, etc.
Although we have massive amounts of example of police extremism, including shooting people in cold blood with no consequences, the FBI goes after the people responding to the police violence.
The while AGAAVE acronym even existing to label people who don’t like being treated like shit by authority is depressing.
There is some statistical sleight of hand happening here, I think. This category includes both fascists and similar ideologies, along with anarchists. They then use this stat to imply that there have been many cases relating to anarchism, when most of the incidents I know of were right-wing in nature.
Isn’t it funny how any proposal that would harm the interests of seniors is a third rail in US politics, but they can willingly fuck over our children?
Children don’t vote, and parents of children that can’t afford to pay for school lunches can’t donate, or find the hours needed to vote during a work day.
I think I made it 15-20 min in last night. I heard one candidate stumble, sound old, but make a point. Not ideal or reassuring, but something. I heard the other candidate tell nothing but lies and speak with hostility at a 3rd grade level. No substance, just lies and attacks. It’s exactly what I expected, but I still had to go and hurt myself like that. I had to GTFO before I put my face through my monitor.
What a photo. A guy clad head to toe in black squared up with a club in front of the ruins of a protest, the only color in his uniform a big gold star and an American flag.
Why do they have flags on their uniform? Is someone going to mistake which country they’re in? Are they soldiers at war? Bringing righteous patriotism into a career that mostly attacks US citizens is a really chilling idea.
Cops don’t have any direct association with America as a whole. They’re a civilian organization employed and directed by local officials. I believe those are California Highway Patrol officers. If they absolutely have to wear a flag, they can have a bear.
It seems they are utilizing it the way people on the right do. If you are queer for instance and you come across a gathering where a bunch of people are flying the stars and stripes you remove yourself from that situation because those people are almost always not safe. Those people have used it as a symbol of fear and intimidation wrapped up cloak of patriot rhetoric for a good decade now.
“Following recent regulatory changes in Russia, we received persistent requests from Roskomnadzor demanding that five add-ons be removed from the Mozilla add-on store,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Intercept in response to a request for comment. “After careful consideration, we’ve temporarily restricted their availability within Russia."
It sucks, but it’s a battle they weren’t ever going to win. The dictator gets to have final say in how things go in their country.
Shooting down Iranian dron3s and misses should not be your breaking point lol. This was the most justifiable action that has taken place since this shitshow started shitting.
It’s not the breaking point (that was long ago), but it’s not justifiable either. Protecting Israel no matter what crimes they commit has led us into a genocide. This merely demonstrates that the US could have protected Gazans from Israeli bombs but chose not to.
They were firing at military targets because Israel assassinated one of their generals. If Israel wants to start a war with Iran while they have their hands full with Gaza and Lebanon that’s their perogative but the US shouldn’t be enabling this insanity.
Agreed. I poorly implied with the “mostly” that I don’t think any of the actions are justifiable in their own merit and only meant to compare it to the other shit we’ve been backing and how this action was atleast responding to militant aggression. I tried to say it as tho we won 1st for being the fastest speed walker when really we won because the only people who speed walk in a mall are 70-80 years old lol.
Netanyahu is trying to stay out of prison, like Trump, so he needs conflict but not too much (losing support from his right wing coalition wounds end him) to seem strong and as a distraction and for political points. Iran doesn’t want war but doesn’t want to look weak and want to make a point to not let Israel think there won’t be consequences, they can’t just do nothing at all. Biden doesn’t want war in the region and he’s focused on negotiations to calm everybody down, preventing escalation. If Iran had hit something important it almost certainly would’ve escalated to war.
This article quotes Hasan Piker and thats all I needed to see to know everything I need to know about this article. Nobody should be quoting that guy as the authority on anything except for having the evident need to continually hear his own voice, and having some of the most hypocritical, worst takes I have ever heard in my life.
Yeah I honestly expected more nuanced takes from decentralized Reddit but I guess I expected too much. Nobody has provided any examples of his “bad takes” except that he makes money off his work, as he fucking should. So I’ll just move on with my day. Been watching the guy on and off for years, haven’t donated to him once so not sure where I’m being grifted lmao.
Also is this place being brigaded by incels/right wingers? Some of the comments on this post are concerning.
Edit: nice username and profile pic, I’m a big fan of King Gizzard myself, Infest The Rat’s Nest gets a spin weekly!!!
Hasan was quoted by this article because he was notably outspoken about the original gamergate, had the correct take on it, and the current trend is literally just an attempt at relitigating those same issues.
Here’s an exercise for you: can you name a single person on the planet that would more appropriate to quote on this issue than Hasan, and why?
Even if I accept and agree with the position in your comment, there isn’t.
I think in your rush to namedrop someone else involved you maybe neglected to consider whether that’s actually the case. Anita went into hiding and gamers don’t know who she is anymore
Hasan was the biggest driving force behind anti-gamergate sentiment originally and that deserves to not be disrespected in the comments because of some unrelated gripe you have with him that is founded on a logical farce, that’s it
I’m not the person you originally responded to so hold your assumptions. The journalist who still actively works in this specific field a decade later, after becoming the subject of its ire is an objectively better choice. Don’t blame me for having the capacity to answer your question.
Wait, what? I was at an event where she spoke about it and she seemed comfortable enough speaking about it in that context. I guess feelings can change over the years, my mistake. Sincerely.
For sure, she is still a media critic in public (following intially going into hiding), and has talked about it numerous times. Her historic stance hasn’t really changed though, I’d imagine at a certain point you’d just want to move on to something else, in her case to pivot toward speaking on female empowerment etc indirectly related topics. Pretty sure she’s not done any gaming-specific media work for a number of years now.
I was wrong to make the proposed exercise such a zero-sum game though, I just mean to highlight how ridiculous the opposing position (that any article quoting Hasan for any reason is auto trash) is, in this particular case.
I know it’s not new that our two options are Genocide Denier, and Guy the Agrees there is a Genocide, but wants to Help Genocide Harder, but it hurts every time they bring attention to it
They know perfectly well but prefer the revenue to fulfilling their journalistic responsibility and acting ethically.
When news is a product to market and not a social responsibility this is the result. They’re selling a narrative and horse race delivers profits - also their delusion that kissing the ass of the guy that calls them the enemy might save them could be a factor.
Shameful how their response has been to cower and equivocate and not report objectively and clearly.
But this, in fact, is what actual war looks like these days: Sometimes it’s a volley of 300 missiles and drones, and sometimes it is lean, targeted, and carried out covertly. Gone are the days of vast conquering armies and conventional military confrontations between two parties.
So, like what’s happening in Ukraine right now?
I mean they use drones for some deep strikes causing minor damage but most of the actual advancement is made using artillery and boots on the ground.
Drones have extreme effect on the Ukrainian battle field as there is no secrecy anymore. Every inch of the front and the hinterland is permanently watched by both sides via drones. But yeah you are right the actual advancement is still made on the ground
Every inch of the front and the hinterland is permanently watched by both sides via drones.
Are you seriously claiming there are enough drones to have full surveillance not only over the entire front but also the lands around and far behind it?
Drones have had and have a significant impact. But they are not that numerous and covering - that’s not feasible nor even physically possible (resources + products + management). There’s no “permanent drone watch”.
Notably, drones are used for more than just observation. They are used for targeted strikes, dropping shells, or drone-suicide sabotage strikes.
As far as I understand it the Frontline is pretty saturated with drones. Heard it in a documentary that I cannot find, of course, but a quick search gave this article washingtonpost.com/…/ukraine-drones-russia-war-sk…:
The sheer number of drones means the battlefield is “almost transparent on both sides,” Nepal said, speaking from a makeshift base near the front line filled with parts for FPVs.
So yes seems to me as if it is a almost 24/7 thing. Maybe not over 100% of the Frontline, but at least in the most of it.
(I may have overestimated the meaning of hinterland… I meant like the 10km or so behind the front)
Drones are important sure. I am not sure how important. It is no surprise that Ukraine cannot do large scale combined arms maneuver warfare though. Neither Ukraine or Russia is trained in that and Ukraine does not have conventional air support to a large extent. I would not attribute it entirely to drones.
Everyone in the world (except for Russia, with their ‘special operation’ euphemism) recognizes the invasion of Ukraine as a war. People are still pretending that Israel bombing targets inside Iran and Iranian military units in other countries, and Iran launching a large-scale missile strike against Israel, isn’t a war. It’s no longer a proxy war, it’s a direct conflict, but because people are still stuck in exactly that mode of thinking- that ‘war’ means artillery and troops and taking ground- people are treating this as something else.
I don’t think the author is correct that war won’t still look like the WW1/2 paradigm of conflicts as well, but as of right now there are 16 countries involved in the Israel/Iran not-war:
Direct involvement:
Israel
Iran
US
UK
Syria
Iraq
Jordan
Yemen
Lebanon
Logistical involvement (including intelligence sharing and air defense deployment):
Kuwait
UAE
KSA
Qatar
Oman
Djibouti
Bahrain
I think the salient point is that the US’s insistence that they/we’re not yet in a war is a lie designed to both avoid blame being put where it belongs (Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, and the US’s involvement, that kicked this all off), and to temper calls for more action to stop the war, which will require stopping Israel in Gaza.
By calling for preventing a war, the US is attempting to blame future actions, whereas if they acknowledge we’re already in a war, they’d have to admit that it’s because of actions that already took place, and the US wants desperately to make Iran the bad guys here, and claim this has nothing to do with Israel doing war crimes both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
Yes, but a handful of conventional missiles going back and forth against symbolic targets is not a very useful definition of a war, much less a world war, if for no other reason than it is to broad to be useful. The on again/off again three way between India/China/Pakistan comes to mind, as might India and Canada if the definition goes much beyond that. The word war tends to imply that nations don’t have active trade between them for instance, and generally implies that at least one side is attempting to achieve some sort of military victory.
So you’re saying that people fighting with nail-studded sticks, or secretly assassinating internal political opponents in the other’s territory, is a similar level of conflict as flattening an embassy with a laser-guided bomb, or firing 300 drones and ballistic missiles, and then having a retaliatory strike on the location of another country’s nuclear program?
This strains my credulity, that you are suggesting this.
If China bombed a US embassy in Japan, the US fired 300 missiles at targets on China’s eastern seaboard (which were intercepted), and China retaliated by striking targets in San Diego… no one on earth would be denying that they were at war.
All of the above are cases of one nations government killing a handful of another’s people for minor political posturing, and are all far more similar in scale to each other than say the US-Vietnam, Ukrainian, or even the undeclared Falklands war.
If the ultimate goal of a war is to force one nation
or group to surrender to another through military might, then I don’t think anyone in Israel expected Iran to surrender to them after they ‘accidentally’ blew up an embassy, nor do I expect anyone in Iran to have expected Israel to send an offer of surrender after they launched a single wave of largely outdated missiles against a handful of airfields.
In practice there are of course secondary effects, but the primary political motivation is internal, not external. Iran doesn’t expect Israel to surrender, but primarily wishes to reassure its public and keys to power that it can respond to military aggression. Israel does not wish Iran to surrender and end the ‘war’, it wishes to commit the US to giving it more resources while finding a situation in which it can play the victim.
So yes, I would say it is far more similar in scale, scope, and goal to assassinating a foreign citizen or sending a bunch of soldiers to beat another off ‘your’ land with nail studded sticks than it is sending tens of thousands of soldiers to occupy territory and replace the local government with your own.
If the ultimate goal of a war is to force one nation or group to surrender to another through military might
I don’t think it is the ultimate goal of war, that’s overly restricting the definition based on, as I said, this conception of war as only being these wide-ranging conflicts (really, what “total war” refers to). Many wars have been fought purely over control of land or resources, where surrender or government toppling was never the goal.
war, noun, ˈwȯr (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
Surrender of or the replacement of the government on that land or resources through military might either directly or indirectly is however the way control over those resources is achieved, and no, I am not just taking about total war, as one of my examples there was the Falkland’s war, which was not even close to a total war for either side.
Moreover your definition would seem not to apply to the current Iran- Israel conflict, as it is being discussed and decided on a case by case basis for both sides instead of an open and declared conflict.
Probably because some people tend to pick user names that identify them in some way. Take me for example, I have a few names I go by but this username is definitely helpful in identifying me. I use it on the other place, a couple of emails, discord, telegram, etc. I don’t feel the need to be as anon as possible (no shade on those who do) so I main this one. I have a few others that I have been known to use and those are mainly for things that I don’t want easily connected back to me.
You shouldn’t be forced to be anonymous. If you want to pick the same username, you should be able to. But even so, there’s still a required number at the end. So unless your username elsewhere ends in 2 digits and isn’t already taken, then you can’t pick it anyway
It’s not about forcing anyone to be anonymous. I’m not OP here but I kind of agree. Maybe signal should default to a randomized one with a blurb about safety, anonymity, etc but let you create your own if you want.
Again. My personal view isn’t to force random usernames on people but to maybe educate them on this stuff. Also, there are legit reasons why you should have non identifying usernames even if it’s not how the world should work. There are enough nutters out there who may recognize something in someones name that links them to someone they know offline and people are nucking futz. I can tell you stories I’ve heard from my clients that you would believe but don’t want to.
Oh and for the numbers, that can be even more identifying because people tend to use numbers that mean something to them. I have a variation on this name that includes my birth year in 2 digits. If I was posting things online that close family might have a problem with, it wouldn’t be hard to do to the math and identify me that way.
guessing it would mean that people wont be using the same username as they do on every other account. So if doodlebop69 can’t be traced from signal they could go to google and find the same doodlebop69 to grab their information from
Personally, I’d like to see the public rally around a 3rd party candidate who’s focused on getting money out of politics (stop the legalized bribery), and ending FPTP in favor of ranked choice or star voting. Then we could actually let democracy play out, and wouldn’t have these terrible candidates foisted upon us time and again.
I strongly believe both the major parties would crumble within 1-2 election cycles if this happened, and it could lead to the dawn of a new age of prosperity for our people.
It’s almost impossible to get a 3rd party to win in the US. Their system is rigged so that voting for a 3rd party means throwing away the vote.
You also have to take into account that it is a country in which almost 50% believe Donald trump to be their best option as a president, there’s no way you’re gonna convince enough people to vote 3rd party.
I don’t think you understood my reply. You asked how, and I gave a solution that would work.
As an aside, especially if you aren’t a US citizen, you might fall victim to some of the same liberal propaganda that many Americans do concerning the motivations of Trump voters. The vast majority of Americans of all political stripes are simply fed up with lack of representation. Give them a candidate who puts the people’s interests before those of corporations, and you might be surprised by the broad coalition of support which emerges from the woodwork. This is why any time a leftist outsider enters the political arena, they’re immediately subjected to bipartisan dogpiling. Trump is accurately considered an outsider, it’s just that he’s a right wing grifter and thus a fake populist. Consider that 2020’s record voter turnout was comprised of only 2/3 of eligible voters, and imagine a better world with a better candidate leading the charge. This is how we dispense with the “lesser of two evils” Hobson’s choice
Part of the problem is that people are sold on these guys as “Less Evil” every time. Clinton was the less-evil replacement for Bush. Bush Jr was the less-evil replacement for Clinton. Obama for Bush. Trump for Obama/Hillary. Biden for Trump. Maybe now Trump for Biden.
Evil is necessarily subjective, and a great deal of what we see as “evil” varies starkly based on where we’re getting our news and our values. What do you tell to the people who are doggedly convinced a mob of hispanic/arabic/chinese fentanyl fueled rape gangs are charging across the border to steal American children and murder them for their adrenochrome? What do you say to the folks doggedly convinced that the wrong President will bring about a thermo-nuclear holocaust or a dozen new 9/11s? How do you reason with a person who believes Plan B is no different than strangling a baby to death with your own two hands?
So much of the conversation about “Lesser Evil” is justifying a new and more brutal police state as a defensive measure against some horrifying phantom menace - be it J6 Groypers coming to lynch everyone to the left of Mitt Romney or Chinese TikTok dancers tricking American teenagers into perpetuating a Uyghur genocide.
When you’ve got Israeli Genocide versus Palestinian Islamic Jihad as your baseline for debate, there’s an endless capacity for evil even in the “Lesser” branch.
Absolutely. There are limits and gray zones in everything. But sometimes you just have lying demagoges on one side and reasonable (but far from perfect and oftentimes really shitty) people on the other side. I wish more people could tell the difference.
There is a difference between spin and lies. Truth and false. Garbage and near-garbage.
theintercept.com
Top