Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 279 posts

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#261

Post by komali2 »

llm_trw wrote: post #198
komali2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you randomly shoot at a anti-fa rally So, Kyle Rittenhouse was shooting randomly into the crowd? Interesting, I wonder what his goal was in doing so.

Statistically speaking? Given the convictions of all involved: killing pedophiles. The one who wasn't only got an arm blown off.

Fascinating. So in his mission to hunt and kill pedophiles, he managed to kill one while in a crowd, leading to everyone thinking he was an active shooter, which led to him then killing someone else who thought they were stopping an active shooter (which, to be fair, he was), and then shooting someone else who also thought they were stopping an active shooter.

Seems only one of the three people shot was a pedophile. That's ok, though, 1/3 is certainly a majority, I agree with you, it indicates that basically everyone at the protest was a pedophile. Except Kyle and his friend. And anyway, the other person killed had a criminal record of violence - I wonder how Kyle was able to identify that when he shot him in the middle of the crowd? We could potentially leverage this technique in a new machine vision model. Luckily Kyle killed him before he could commit more crimes. Once someone commits a crime, they might commit more, and should be shot by unelected strangers without a trial.

As for the third, a notorious anti-cop creep that would frequently get arrested for doing weird things like photographing police stations and the cars parked there. Degenerate behavior, he's lucky police never harass and frequently arrest those weirdo first amendment audit types. If they did, there would be obvious signs, such as a huge list of overturned convictions and dismissed court cases. Anyway the guy was probably a pedophile, because the first guy was.

Thank god a child brought a rifle to a protest.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#262

Post by komali2 »

throw100321 wrote: post #197
komali2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky, so far as I'm aware, has never written "Uniparty." What he generally seems to be referring to when he says "One Party System" is the enthrallment of the USA government to capitalist interests. "Uniparty," as in that exact word, is very much a Trumpean era creation, brought back into popularity by right wing q-anon aligned USA presidential candidate (I believe candidate?) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Someone's usage…

Chomsky say exactly the same without using the term. What does Wikipedia say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty "Supporters of the 2000 Green Party presidential bid of Ralph Nader used the term extensively, and Nader himself called the prevailing political structure a 'corporate uniparty' in his 2002 book Crashing the Party." Pinning this term the right is the usual tactic to outlaw the term and remove it from t…

In the USA "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" also almost mean the same thing except the points they differ on identify them as fundamentally opposed ideologies.

Uniparty specifically is a term Americans mostly use from the right wing to describe what they call Globalist interests, which almost means the same thing as when anticapitalists describe Capitalist interests, except the points they differ on identify them as fundamentally opposed ideologies.

I've never heard any european politicians use the actual term "uniparty," if someone on this sub is using that exact term, they're likely adopting the American right wing definition of the term in the same way if you see someone referring to "libertarian values" on this sub they probably don't mean values like forming cooperative relationships of mutual aid, they probably mean american libertarian values like privatized unregulated industry. My sibling comment mentions that we're discussing Germany, and that's why I'm being a stickler, if you hear a German refer to the concept of "one party" meaning many parties being enthralled to capitalism, that's very different than the typical usage english word "Uniparty."

Chomsky is talking about capitalist interests, he's not talking about the modern American right wing "globalist interests" which is a sort of umbrella term vaguely blaming economic hardship on trade deficits, exporting factories, importing cheap labor, and sometimes simply antisemitism (global jewish conspiracy to pump nations dry for example). What chomsky is talking about is more like how both parties are required to serve capitalist interests e.g. by not socializing healthcare since that would hurt the bottom line of healthcare companies, or by not banning fracking since that hurts the profits of massive transnational oil companies.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#263

Post by komali2 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #207
komali2 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that "violence" is an accurate word to use when describing property damage. Someone smarter than me wrote: > Anarchists dedicated to nonviolent direct action are not opposed to all forms of property damage. It can be an effective strategy if the decision to do it involves all participants, the target chosen is one that will guarantee no one who is not part of the action could be injured, and the method use…

Well that's an important issue in this discussion. People move the goal posts further and further away in order to justify their actions and to claim that their are not violent because violence is always something else, which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic. In any case, the (Cambridge English) dictionary's definition of "v…

> which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic.

I disagree that highly cited Solnit is engaging in "obviously dishonest mental gymnastics" and can be safely ignored. Now what?

Great, you found another definition of violence, let's apply your definition to your own example.

Note that your definition includes "intended or likely." For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters. Firefighters are obviously intending to cause damage to a door they axe down. Why is this not violence and why is this not a criminal offense? It's violence per your definition.

Do you want to use the same word to describe, and justify the criminalization of, all things that can be described by this word? It sounds like you don't because you seem to want to indicate that a firefighter axing a door and a protester bricking a window are different things, and that one is bad and one is good.

If you're ok with using the same word to describe both, then there's not really a point in discussing whether something is violence or not - many things good and bad are violence, and so we don't need to determine if something is violence or not to determine if the action should be criminalized, we need to consider other factors.

If you're not ok with using the same word to describe both, then we need to engage in what you're erroneously describing as "goal post moving." It's actually just seeking to define what "violence" encapsulates. In this case your chosen definition from Cambridge probably isn't great. Though it's in a dictionary, we can always change the definitions of words if we like, it happens all the time. Cambridge describes our language, not defines it.

As to your final sentence I'm not sure the relevancy, nobody ever brought up suffering and its relation to violence, so far as I can tell.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#264

Post by leereeves »

rbanffy wrote: post #256
leereeves wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that related to the US or EU?

Do black Americans fear their police forces?

This discussion is all over the place.

At least we're back in the US, where, according to Gallup, 71% of black Americans think "that police would treat them with courtesy and respect in an interaction".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/511064/black-americans-less-con...

Also, black Americans fear crime more than they fear the police, and "most also prefer to maintain (or increase) local police presence and spending"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

The whole protest movement against the police was more popular among privileged liberals who haven't experienced crime than it was among the people it claimed to be helping.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#265

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

rbanffy wrote: post #254
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence that AdD wants to 'significantly hinder democratic representation via elections'? So far I do see efforts to do just that by parties that promote censorship ('stop disinformation') and try to ban their political opponents like AfD.

No. And that’s why it hasn’t been banned yet.

So why even the talk of it then? You can't just ban the opposition if you expect to lose elections to them.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#266

Post by generic92034 »

fdfgyu wrote: post #249
generic92034 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by…

In a parliamentary democracy every minister has been elected to his seat in Parliament. Voters can literally fire the PM while giving the ruling party a majority. Take Canada. The PM - Papineau The defence minister - Scarborough South West Finance Minister - University - Rosedale Even the Speaker, who stands for the Majesty, is a member of the House - Hull Aylmer. While Cabinet members are, typically, given safe seat…

> In a parliamentary democracy every minister has been elected to his seat in Parliament. Voters can literally fire the PM while giving the ruling party a majority.

In many (most?) of the democratic EU countries the voters cannot fire the PM/chancellor/etc. while keeping the ruling party in power. So, to have that expectation on EU level would be strange, as it is not typically realized in the constituents.

The EU commissioners and their president are nominated by the (often themselves indirectly) elected governments of the EU countries. That is a level of indirection too much for my taste, but it is still not undemocratic. But they have to be confirmed by the EP, which is elected directly.

One reason for that approach is that most possible candidates for the positions are completely unknown to the general populace in most EU countries. There is a lack of EU level political information and conscience in the EU. If the system has to be improved that is the point to start.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#267

Post by yunohn »

gruez wrote: post #214
yunohn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you seriously think that agent provocateurs are a hoax? Literally not sure how to reply, you could just google it?

I think the claim isn't that agent provocateurs don't exist, it's that jumping to it as first explanation is lazy and slightly cranky. Just because the government has killed civil rights activists in the past, doesn't mean the next civil rights activist who dies was a government assassination.

Of course, and the Boeing whistleblower and Epstein really did commit suicide amid some of the most high profile cases of the decade.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#268

Post by yunohn »

llm_trw wrote: post #160
yunohn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you seriously think that agent provocateurs are a hoax? Literally not sure how to reply, you could just google it?

I'm sure they were needed in the 90s and 00s. Today there are enough meth heads that the only thing police need to do for violence at a rally to explode is nothing.

So you’re gonna write off any question of illegitimate interference by governments/corporations as “meth heads looking for violence”?

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#269

Post by mytailorisrich »

komali2 wrote: post #263
mytailorisrich wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's an important issue in this discussion. People move the goal posts further and further away in order to justify their actions and to claim that their are not violent because violence is always something else, which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic. In any case, the (Cambridge English) dictionary's definition of "v…

> which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic. I disagree that highly cited Solnit is engaging in "obviously dishonest mental gymnastics" and can be safely ignored. Now what? Great, you found another definition of violence, let's apply your definition to your own example. Note that your definition includes "intended or likely." F…

> For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters

Hmm, this is an excerpt from my previous comment: "you'll note that what firefighters might do is not intended to cause damage while vandalism obviously is". You do also seem not to understand the meaning of "intent"...

Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#270

Post by jonathanstrange »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #152
germandiago wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks to me, increasingly and clearly like the current people want to keep the power tight. Not the politicians necessarily, just the whole oligarchies that govern. In my humble opinion, they have pushed Europe to a disaster if things do not get fixed in the next few years.

It makes sense to pay attention to what is being pathologized by the EU establishment, because that can make you a target. However, interestingly, if you look at US Department of State travel advisories, note those for the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Sweden and compare those with Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, for example. One element is that the very policies that the EU is pursuing co…

US travel advisories aren't based on the subjective fears of EU citizens or immigration statistics, they are based on the actual terrorist attacks that happened in those countries and on intelligence indicators that inform officials about the current threat level.
Post reply on HN