You must log in or # to comment.
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).
deleted by creator
Interesting take. What makes you say that?
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?
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.
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.
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
To the EU:
At least they give a platform for people to speak out and it’s public, but yes disappointing although if you see the other cross-posts some are not straight talking about the risks other than just saying it’s about mass surveillance or metadata collection which could ring less alarm bells for people reading it (i know mass surveillance should be enough but oh well)
True, that’s actually a wonderful initiative and they should build upon it, the EU needs a public forum to discuss these things.
Just like me!😎💅
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I wouldn’t be aware of it otherwise. For what its worth, I left my ideas as feedback there.
Also, I would just like to point out that before lemmy (and subscribing to various EU communities) I was not at all active in voicing my opinion about such things as I didn’t have any idea that it was even possible/how to do it. Lemmy as a whole has helped me become more active in this regard :D
This is to make sure VPNs have to retain data and zero logging will be illegal
They have been a thorn in the side of Disney, Netflix, Amazon and HBO for years.
Even as an American, this is terrifying. Everyone knows my country is shit, but I’ve always seen you guys as the gold standard and for this kind of thing to even be discussed over on your side of the pond is absolutely horrifying…
It’s a specific group within the EU that’s trying to do this.
Like those Project 2025 people.
This has widespread support under MEPs, accross party lines. It’s only Germany and Poland that opposed it last time. (1)
Is there a list of those who support?
I think that was for Clientside scanning, not all the awful things this secretive group is trying to push.
And Germany won’t oppose this time because the government is righ wing as hell.
always seen you guys as the gold standard
In the land of the blind
If the bottom of the barrel is what you’re trying to compare a golden coated shit is taking all the money.
Lol I mean, nobody is perfect, but you guys have things like freedom of movement (even between countries) and France and Germany pushing open source software forward for the sake of privacy, security, flexability and community. Plus, you guys seem to have a mindset of “until it’s proven safe, it will be illigal” compared to our “until it is proven UNsafe, it will be legal”. Maybe “gold standard” isn’t the best term, but I feel like you guys have better way of thinking about the world
I fear your glasses are tinted too rose. If you look at what they do instead of say, a different conclusion reveals itself.
Plus, you guys seem to have a mindset of “until it’s proven safe, it will be illigal” compared to our “until it is proven UNsafe, it will be legal”.
pushing open source software forward for the sake of privacy, security, flexability and community.
What happened instead was that bad governance made sure that there is little to no tech developed in the EU. We missed the 21st century tech boat.
Something they aim to “fix” the same way they always do: give money to professional grand receivers with the better political connections (example).
That failed, ofcourse, not in delivering grants, but in creating succesfull technology. So now they also try a new strategy: just fine foreign companies that they can’t tax.
Still failing to address the original issues on why we aren’t part of 21st century technology development. As addressing those issues would require them to look in the mirror.
Damn, you’re probably right. I likely just see the good parts that differ from the shitty things about my country lol
How accurate is the FOSS part in practice?
" built-in backdoors,"
Good luck getting that into a lot of the open source tech we now use.
Simple: the open source tech is now illegal unless they can afford a full time legal team.
It’s regulatory capture: the big firms get consulted by the EU and can design the laws to the detriment of competition. It’s why now, for example, european cars are so expensive and restricted to a handfull of producers.
Alphabet and friends welcome regulation like this.
Only the headline asserts “built-in backdoors”, the actual link… not so much.
A reasonable reading of the proposal, assuming it came into effect, is that ISPs, banks, telcos etc would be asked to retain certain records for a number of months or years in a harmonised way. Law enforcement agencies would be required to ask for it in the exact same way they ask for records right now and all the rules concerning GDPR etc would still apply.
Open source tech has zero to do with it, it’s a matter of policy.
The only wrinkle there is “voluntary compliance,” which might be construed as warrantless access.
This is something you’d expect in North Korea
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
They already see the coming day. This is why they want the control and enhanced viability
Well then you’ll have to go full blown socialism
I tried posting on reddit, but it’s blocked for some reason.
Data retention != mass surveilance. Data retention != built-in backdoors. Even the link summary spells out exactly what the purpose of the proposal is (criminal proceedings) and the intended objective (data retention standards).
