The entire post is evidence for foreign - Here Somalian - influence in the Swedish voting process with sources provided. Opposing identity politics is not 'identity politics'.
Reducing politics to an identity-based thing (like stereotyping people's politics based on their race or national origin) is literally what identity politics is. Opposing identity politics would be talking policy without bringing people's identities into it, or ascribing people's politics solely to their identity.
"They're not like us" is identity politics.
"They voted differently than us because of their identity" is identity politics.
Sorry friend, it seems you love engaging in identity politics, otherwise your political positions would not be gripes based entirely on people's identity. Your post is like claiming you don't discriminate based on skin color, then in the same breath, saying that people of a particular skin color are bad.
> The main reason ww2 is being continued is because it ending in an indisputably favorable way to Germany would be politically devastating to both its Western backers and to non-aryans who would shortly thereafter be out of power
Wow, almost as if opposing the genocide of millions and the invasion of Europe by a hostile invading power is good or something. Sounds like you're saying it's bad, though. Weird.
Framing this as WW2 is the purely Quixotic. This war was a small border conflict that should have ended within a matter of days. It's not WW2, some grand fight against genocide, or whatever other mental 'reframing' one wants to engage in. It's a border war that Russia expected to win in short order. Then the West jumped in expecting to win in short order.
Neither side got their quick victory, but now the war seems to have been effectively decided. It was arguably decided years ago after the major counter-attack yielded nothing but corpses. All that remains now is prolonging the conflict quite pointlessly, with regular efforts to try to escalate it once again that will hopefully go nowhere. Not because I hope one side or the other wins, but because if other countries start actively jumping in then we have WW3, and in a few years every single person alive, which would be substantially less than today, would regret that decision.
I'm not convinced by your two paragraphs consisting entirely of naked assertions, unsupported claims, and personal opinions. russia has genocided Ukrainians before, and have announced war goals which are tantamount to another genocide.
Could you link a reliable source that says international law supports forcefully attacking and annexing other countries to take their land which lies within internationally recognized borders?
The current state is that the vast majority of countries have judged that russia should leave, and the continued conflict is their fault (regardless of what a few in the extreme minority may think).
I empathize with your concern, but as bad as things are we shouldn't assume infinite malice from all federal entities in all circumstances. Not out of kindness or charity, but because it would be a maladaptive strategy for handling problems.
If they try charging Joe-Shmoe under FARA, there's still some chance of loss in federal courts.
No need to assume infinite malice, but given the track record, it would be naïve to assume anything other than a default of malice unless proven otherwise
The evidence in front of us (the malicious words of the person in question) strongly favors malice anyways.
My guess is that they're drawing a distinction between reporting that says:
1. People in general who have opinions that might happen to align with a foreign power's stance.
2. People who are literally "agents" of a foreign power as defined under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 [0], which often involves being directed/hired/paid.
That'd be a significantly different legal standard. (The constitutionality of FARA-type laws being a separate question.)
There's not any question about it: the president already said in no uncertain terms (and probably all caps) that anybody opposing datacenters is a foreign agent working against the usa.
Only a truly naïve person would not have seen this next logical step (prosecutory threats) coming when the preceding step received virtually no opposition.
> If the article is true, then there were 1,000 targets hit in the first 24 hours. If the majority of the legwork and selection was done by AI, how many schools, or equivalents, would one expect to be wrongly hit if all the targeting work were done by humans only?
An interesting thought exercise: given unlimited time (the usa was not on a deadline to initiate a first strike against iran), can a human tell a school building from a military building?
The answer is almost certainly "yes": watch the building for 1 day, and if children come out or go in, you do not bomb it.
Worse, than a team of humans who have been doing that for decades, for whom that is literally their one job, and who have on-site recon.
For an example, see the incident described in the article, with context that beforehand the usa had this team of people, and then the usa swapped the people out for the AI, and then this incident happened.
The people sticking their head in the sand to avoid hard emotions are the ones writing the people-killing software.
Those who are aware of it, and choose not to, are the ones who have reckoned with those emotions and chosen not to participate in the killing of innocents.
Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised when someone who puts profits over other's lives gets ventillated by one of those lives in downtown New York. And what do you know, nobody was.
The entire linked post is identity politics.
reply