Antifašizam

[Dybuk]

Šta oni rade, dižu ruke i zighajluju, to je nazi?

Da.

Tvrdite da pošto među sto ljudi trojica dižu hitlerovski pozdrav i to znači da je svih sto nazi?

Švarci gore pokrio i taj scenario "slučajnog učesnika".

Uostalom, zamisli sebe u toj situaciji. Da li bi stajao među tim ljudima, a da ne deliš njihova uverenja, eto tako, vidiš takvu gomilu pa došao dizblejiš? Ja ne bih.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Švarci je možda zaboravio ali ja nisam zaboravio Running Man, gdje se ove medijske manipulacije savršeno prikazuju. Tamo je montaža objašnjena kao nigdje. Mediji su, jelte, Švarcija u tom filmu prikazali da je pobio stotine ljudi, pa ga onda poslali na doživotnu robiju. A onda ispadne da je on sprečavao druge da pobiju te ljude, da sad prepričam čitav plot.

To da li je neko nazi ako diže ruke je misaoni eksperiment, gdje mediji očigledno površno dolaze do svojih zaključaka, jer uopšte ne provjeravaju ono što vide. Jel budista sa svastikom u stvari nazi?

Ispašće da ko šta nosi na tintari određuje dal je nazi ili ne, ja mislio da je nazi neko bez tetovaža koji actually ubija ljude po logorima, al ajd, idemo za onim šta nam mediji kažu.

I treće, nakon što je nesporno dokazano da su na protestima po Balkanu i tokom arapskog proljeća udbaške službe upadale i izigravale najektremnije frakcije demonstranata, gdje upadnu likovi u fantomkama a policija nijednog ne uhapsi no polomi obične demonstrante i slično, i kada se sumnja da su i na Occupy Wall Street upadali obučeni kao klošari i pravili se da su usput i mentalno oboljeli, ja sad da gledam CNN i da vjerujem da je neko nazi jer mi to CNN kaže.

Isti CNN koji je vjerovatno se ispovraćao i po Occupy-ju onomad.

Dakle, na kraju se stvari svode na to da treba da obeshrabre sve da uopšte protestuju, time što im ubace lažne naciste i slične ekstremiste, ili tako što mediji ističu samo tu manjinu na nekim protestima, jer eto treba odmah napustiti taj protest.

Nema problema, eo malo Gramšijevih misli dok je trunuo u fašističkom zatvoru

"svest se na više ili manje energičan način vezuje za određenu društvenu grupu, utiče na moralno ponašanje, na usmerenost volje, što može dovesti do tačke u kojoj protivrečnost svesti ne dopušta nikakvu akciju, nikakvu odluku, nikakav izbor, i izaziva stanje moralne i političke pasivnosti"

Takoe! Budite mirni, inače ste nacisti.

[Dybuk]

To da li je neko nazi ako diže ruke je misaoni eksperiment, gdje mediji očigledno površno dolaze do svojih zaključaka, jer uopšte ne provjeravaju ono što vide. Jel budista sa svastikom u stvari nazi?

Vidim da je vreme za Duck Test

[Aco Popara Zver]

To da li je neko nazi ako diže ruke je misaoni eksperiment, gdje mediji očigledno površno dolaze do svojih zaključaka, jer uopšte ne provjeravaju ono što vide. Jel budista sa svastikom u stvari nazi?

Vidim da je vreme za Duck Test

upravo potvrđuješ ono što govorim o površnim medijima

dakle, kad klikneš na Duck test piše

"The Duck test is a humorous term for a form of abductive reasoning."

a kad klikneš na abductive reasoning piše

"In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion"

[mac]

Nije bitno da li si nacista, ili simpatizer nacizma, ili branitelj čistote rase, ili šta god. Bitno je šta će se u budućnosti desiti sa društvom ako ti bude dozvoljeno da radiš to što sada radiš. Ako većina trenutne populacije ne želi takvo hipotetičko buduće društvo onda je opravdano za društvo da te spreči da radiš to što bi promenilo društvo. Ovde imamo sukob između "needs of the few" i "needs of the many", ali jasno je šta principijelno outweighuje u takvom konfliktu.

Američki (a verujem ni većina evropskih) zakon ne pokriva takve hipotetičke ŠBBKBB situacije, i zato imamo sukobe raznih grupa. Svi imaju slobodu pred zakonom. Grupe nisu pasivne nego aktivno rade na promociji svojih vrednosti. Pošto antinacista ima više očekujem da će njihove vrednosti nastaviti da preovlađuju, dokle god nastave da ih aktivno brane i promovišu. Problem je naravno što se gubi vreme na gluposti, ali ajd sad, moguće je da će se simpatizeri nacizma u međuvremenu malo umoriti.

[Dybuk]

"In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion"

That's why it probably is a duck. Or a nazi.

Eto, opet komplikuješ. Nekad stvari jesu onoliko jednostavne i očigledne kako se to na prva 3 pogleda čini.

Što se medija tiče, u naše doba info stižu tako brzo da ti moraš da donosiš zaključke by the minute, ili s onoliko informacija koliko ti je u datom trenutku dostupno. Tako funkcionise većina nas na dnevnom nivou, uostalom.

Ovo sam propustila:

Ispašće da ko šta nosi na tintari određuje dal je nazi ili ne, ja mislio da je nazi neko bez tetovaža koji actually ubija ljude po logorima, al ajd, idemo za onim šta nam mediji kažu.

Bukvališeš, ne znam zašto; biće for the sake of argument? Logori smrti i naciji na sreću više ne postoje u tom obliku, ali ovde se radi o sledbenicima ideologije, neo-nacistima. Rekao si sam negde, malo prevrednovano ali suštinski ista ideja o nadmoći bele rase nad ostalima, plus apdejtovano nekim tekućim stvarima koje ih žuljaju.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Nije bitno da li si nacista, ili simpatizer nacizma, ili branitelj čistote rase, ili šta god. Bitno je šta će se u budućnosti desiti sa društvom ako ti bude dozvoljeno da radiš to što sada radiš. Ako većina trenutne populacije ne želi takvo hipotetičko buduće društvo onda je opravdano za društvo da te spreči da radiš to što bi promenilo društvo.

koliko se ja sjeća, a možda griješim, problem je počeo jer su ti tvoji tzv antinacisti pokušali da uklone spomenik nekom južnjačkom vojskovođi

to je budalasto sa svakog normalnog stanovišta, jer po tom osnovu treba Platonove knjige spaliti jer je bio robovlasnik

dakle, ovdje za početak jedna strana treba da počne da poštuje nečije pretke, pa tek onda da se žali na rasizam

dođe Al Šarpton ili ko već i traži da država treba da prestane da finansira Jefferson Memorial, alo bre, oće li ko da našamara budalu?

Nači nije ni južnjački vojskovođa no jedan od liberalnijih očeva osnivača, jel Šarpton normalan uopšte?

hajde da su ovi kvazinacisti izašli na ulice jer su uveli neko zapošljavanje Afroamerikanaca, no glupi Šarpton i ekipa zamajavaju javnost a ne popravljaju finansijsku situaciju crnaca no se pačaju u neke vojskovođe

[Aco Popara Zver]

"In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion"

That's why it probably is a duck. Or a nazi.

Eto, opet komplikuješ. Nekad stvari jesu onoliko jednostavne i očigledne kako se to na prva 3 pogleda čini.

Što se medija tiče, u naše doba info stižu tako brzo da ti moraš da donosiš zaključke by the minute, ili s onoliko informacija koliko ti je u datom trenutku dostupno. Tako funkcionise većina nas na dnevnom nivou, uostalom.

Ovo sam propustila:

Ispašće da ko šta nosi na tintari određuje dal je nazi ili ne, ja mislio da je nazi neko bez tetovaža koji actually ubija ljude po logorima, al ajd, idemo za onim šta nam mediji kažu.

Bukvališeš, ne znam zašto; biće for the sake of argument? Logori smrti i naciji na sreću više ne postoje u tom obliku, ali ovde se radi o sledbenicima ideologije, neo-nacistima. Rekao si sam negde, malo prevrednovano ali suštinski ista ideja o nadmoći bele rase nad ostalima, plus apdejtovano nekim tekućim stvarima koje ih žuljaju.

Propustila si i najbitnije, al ajd sad kad te mrzi da čitaš do kraja

[Dybuk]

Haha, moguće, mada ja polemišem s tvojom teorijom da ovi naciji nisu naciji, ili da nema dokaza za to, zato čeripikujem citate

[mac]

Što se ne bi povremeno rotirali spomenici? Postoji ograničen broj mesta gde spomenik može da stoji, i među tim ograničenim brojem još je ograničeniji broj prominentnih mesta. Evo Njegoš je mudro i apokrifno odabrao drugi po visini vrh za svoj grob, za slučaj da u budućnosti najviši vrh bude slobodan za još vrednijeg i zaslužnijeg Crnogorca. Spomenici se bar lakše premeštaju od grobova.


Jeste malo glupo što se crnci sada bave celom pričom, ali bar nisu nikog ubili.

[Meho Krljic]

Nije bitno da li si nacista, ili simpatizer nacizma, ili branitelj čistote rase, ili šta god. Bitno je šta će se u budućnosti desiti sa društvom ako ti bude dozvoljeno da radiš to što sada radiš. Ako većina trenutne populacije ne želi takvo hipotetičko buduće društvo onda je opravdano za društvo da te spreči da radiš to što bi promenilo društvo.

koliko se ja sjeća, a možda griješim, problem je počeo jer su ti tvoji tzv antinacisti pokušali da uklone spomenik nekom južnjačkom vojskovođi

to je budalasto sa svakog normalnog stanovišta, jer po tom osnovu treba Platonove knjige spaliti jer je bio robovlasnik

Razume se,ali nije da je to sa spomenicima izolovan slučaj, evo pa samo u Crnoj Gori imaš proteste zbog spomenika Vojvodi Mirku Petroviću i proteste Hrvatske zbog spomenika Puniši Račiću. I jedno i drugo su nekakva istorija, al nekima je nedopustivo da se slave ljudi koji su ubijali u ime ideologije koja im nije prihvatljiva.

Znam, znam, ovo su novi spomenici, ali i spomenik generalu koji je uklonjen iz Šarlotsvila nema baš mnogo veze sa erom koju predstavlja, podignut je tek pola veka kasnije i izraz je dakle, mentaliteta drugog vremena.

To ja svakako jebeno i nezgodno pitanje koje nisam siguran da je iko jednostavno rešio. Ako mi u Srbiji i dalje ne umemo da se odlučimo da li je Nedić mučenik koji je spasao masu ljudi iz hrvatske ili prezira dostojni kolaboracionista koji je pomogao u pogromu jevreja (a bio je malo jedno malo drugo) ja ne znam da li možemo sa lakoćom da pričamo o tome da li neki spomenik treba čuvati (jer to je istorija i ne treba j ebrisati ma koliko politički nekorektna bila) ili rušiti (jer ako ima ljudi kojima je važan spomenik vojskovođe koji se bukvalno borio za pravo da ima robove, da li smo zaista raskrstili sa rasizmom) i kako tu preko noći naći za sve zadovoljavajuće rešenje.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Što se ne bi povremeno rotirali spomenici? Postoji ograničen broj mesta gde spomenik može da stoji, i među tim ograničenim brojem još je ograničeniji broj prominentnih mesta. Evo Njegoš je mudro i apokrifno odabrao drugi po visini vrh za svoj grob, za slučaj da u budućnosti najviši vrh bude slobodan za još vrednijeg i zaslužnijeg Crnogorca. Spomenici se bar lakše premeštaju od grobova.


Jeste malo glupo što se crnci sada bave celom pričom, ali bar nisu nikog ubili.

sama sudbina te je dovela do toga da spomeneš najispremještaniji spomenik/grob za koji znam

prevazišao i Tucovića, što ga Vučko napokon petnaesti put premjesti

[lilit]

u sred vijenice

[Aco Popara Zver]

Razume se,ali nije da je to sa spomenicima izolovan slučaj, evo pa samo u Crnoj Gori imaš proteste zbog spomenika Vojvodi Mirku Petroviću i proteste Hrvatske zbog spomenika Puniši Račiću. I jedno i drugo su nekakva istorija, al nekima je nedopustivo da se slave ljudi koji su ubijali u ime ideologije koja im nije prihvatljiva.

Znam, znam, ovo su novi spomenici, ali i spomenik generalu koji je uklonjen iz Šarlotsvila nema baš mnogo veze sa erom koju predstavlja, podignut je tek pola veka kasnije i izraz je dakle, mentaliteta drugog vremena.

To ja svakako jebeno i nezgodno pitanje koje nisam siguran da je iko jednostavno rešio. Ako mi u Srbiji i dalje ne umemo da se odlučimo da li je Nedić mučenik koji je spasao masu ljudi iz hrvatske ili prezira dostojni kolaboracionista koji je pomogao u pogromu jevreja (a bio je malo jedno malo drugo) ja ne znam da li možemo sa lakoćom da pričamo o tome da li neki spomenik treba čuvati (jer to je istorija i ne treba j ebrisati ma koliko politički nekorektna bila) ili rušiti (jer ako ima ljudi kojima je važan spomenik vojskovođe koji se bukvalno borio za pravo da ima robove, da li smo zaista raskrstili sa rasizmom) i kako tu preko noći naći za sve zadovoljavajuće rešenje.

Razlika između CG i SAD je što u drugoj možeš da staviš kakav god spomenik, a u CG ne možeš nego samo onaj koji odgovara vlasti. Sam si iznio dokaz za to. Samim tim, ne mogu da se porede.

Niko ne sprečava Afroamerikance da u Sijetlu podignu spomenik žrtvama Roberta Lija. S druge strane, u CG ne možeš da digneš spomenik žrtvama Mirka Petrovića.

Ovdje se propušta kakav totalitet nameću tzv ljevičari, a bruje o totalitarizmu na čijoj ivici zapravo oni igraju. Tamo je odavno propagirano da je Federalna država samo okvir za mnoštvo utopija, odeš u Luizijanu i živiš po svojim pravilima, po kojima bi te u Ilinoisu vjerovatno strpali u zatvor. Ali kad ti namećeš zakone Sijetla na čitavu teritoriju SAD, to je već totalitet sada, a totalitarizam u najavi.

Time sam iskoristio onaj zakon kojem ne znam ime, prema kojem će se fašizam neminovno spomenuti u internet raspravi!

[akhnaton]

Ali dokle ide integracija?Postoji li neka granica iste, da npr.integrisani ne mogu da nameću svoja pravila ponašanja  društvu u kome su se integrisali?Snajka mi priča u Kanadi gomilu primera kako Arapi nameću svoje. U kancelarijama zatiču Kurane na stolu. Njen kolega sa posla se hvali kako je intervenisao u školi da njegovo dete ne mora slušati božićne pesmice. Već komentarišu kako žene (ne) treba da se oblače, da se ne pije akohol, itd. Čak mi je rekla da se na nekom poslovnom sastanku dodatno čekalo 20 minuta da počne, jer su dvojica unutra-klanjala. Dokle to ide?Sad hipotetički, postavljam pitanje, bi li hrišćanima smelo i pasti na pamet da traže slične stvari saobrazno svojoj veri, u Arabiji, Iranu, Afganistanu?

To jeste integracija po volji "progresivne" bulumente. To je PC. Jer, prava integracija bi bila protumačena kao nametanje supremacije. Zamulti kulti. O tome se radi. U jednom mom ranijem postu sam rekao, da ni jedna Kultura domaćin koja je držala do sebe u stvari nije propala. Da je slušala sadašnju elitu čiji CPU ima bag ko Pentium onomad, mi bi smo i dalje klackali Hamurabijev zakonik, ili bi se sporovi rešavali tako što bi zainteresovane strane stavljale ručicu u vatru, pa ko se ne opeče, nije kriv. Živeli bi smo u kolibama, pisali bi malo sutra i tako to. jednom rečju propale bi. To čeka i našu civilizaciju. Ne branimo je. Prosto je mrzimo i pokazujemo svoju slabost. PC lomi odbranu. Što se tiče Afganistana, Saudije, ostalih tutmraka, prosto oni nisu PC. Samo mi moramo da budemo PC, u protivnom smo naci, faši, bigoti, beli supremacisti, seksisti, muške šovinističke svinje... dodaj pridev po volji.

[mac]

Time sam iskoristio onaj zakon kojem ne znam ime, prema kojem će se fašizam neminovno spomenuti u internet raspravi!

Nije fašizam nego nešto drugo, što nećemo imenovati, da bi rasprava mogla da se nastavi.

[Aco Popara Zver]

ma jeste fašizam!

Mišel Fuko gejčina, ako je neko bio homo onda je to on, lijepo je reko "fascism in us all"

ono što vidim ovdje je i dalje "fascism in others"

još čekamo neki napredak

[Аксентије Новаковић]

ali sumnjam da je to dalje direktan put u zazivanje etničkog čišćenja, slavljenje holokausta itd.

Не, него је то пут одбране сопственог опстанка.








Јер опстанак је угрожен због ових




Такви спроводе левичарске хипно-мантре којима се набија осећај имагинарне кривице белим људима:
- Ви сте криви за све што вам се дешава.
- Ви сте криви за све што вам се дешава
- Ви сте криви за све што вам се дешава
- Сваки ваш отпор је узалудан

Такав вид хипно-мантрања и набијања осећаја имагинарне кривице белима је на делу свуда, и ево једног од примера из Европе (срамотна изјава новог председника Француске, у којој је невине жртве исламског тероризма малтене назвао кривцима за сопствену смрт).

[Dybuk]

Time sam iskoristio onaj zakon kojem ne znam ime, prema kojem će se fašizam neminovno spomenuti u internet raspravi!

Close: Godwin's law

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Da li bi stajao među tim ljudima, a da ne deliš njihova uverenja, eto tako, vidiš takvu gomilu pa došao dizblejiš? Ja ne bih.

Вероватно ти овакво друштво више одговара. 

[Meho Krljic]

Pa kome ne odgovara više društvo žena koje šalju poruke o tome da se treba suprotstaviti zlostavljanju i tome kako se daje pristanak za snošaj od društva ljudi koji slave holokaust i pozivaju na svete ratove???

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Što se tiče genocida nad  kavkazoidima, sasvim je moguće ovo što se dešava smestiti pod definiciju genocida. Svi elementi su tu.: Nasilno raseljavanje (doseljavanjem i promenom etničke i kulturalne sredine). Oduzimanje egzistencije otpuštanjem.. Naravno, za sada nema konc logora za belce, ali ne brinem se, biće ih, navikli su Hazjaninci da prave gulage., mada im ne trebaju, dovoljno je promene rasnu i etno kulturalnu strukturur, dehumaniziju belce i puste leminge da odrade svoj deo posla.  Gledajući mržnju prema svemu kavkazoidnom,  samo čekam dan kada će se raspomamljeni šasui okrenuti i protiv ostataka kolevke ljudske civilizacije... Kada to urade, počinje kraj.

Први логори су и прављени за Беле људе, и Бури су први затварани у логоре.
Спремни су и ФЕМА сандуци за Беле који се не буду покорили.
Крај је већ почео, све је Орвел лепо описао.

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Pa kome ne odgovara više društvo žena koje šalju poruke o tome

Порука коју жена што носи PROUD SLUT натпис је да је она ПОНОСНА ДРОЉА.

Коме одговара друштво жене која "поносно" истиче да је ДРОЉА???

Слично се у сличном раствара.

[Aco Popara Zver]

o marš u kurac više i s teme i s foruma, sve zajedno s klonovima, počev o akmojtona pa nadalje, čibe!

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Протерати и Трампа.
Куш.

[Aco Popara Zver]

marš u kurac i jebo te tramp, curik u jazbinu odakle si ispuzo

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Што си нервозан Бато?
А, да, сутра је Преображење, црвено слово, па енергије са Сунца ударају у такве попут тебе.

Удахни дубоко и почни да бројиш.
Смирује.

[Aco Popara Zver]

mršukurac i vodi akhmojtona klona sa sobom, bagro bre

[angel011]

Time sam iskoristio onaj zakon kojem ne znam ime, prema kojem će se fašizam neminovno spomenuti u internet raspravi!

Nije fašizam nego nešto drugo, što nećemo imenovati, da bi rasprava mogla da se nastavi.

Sam Godvin je rekao da u izvesnim slučajevima možemo, i treba, da pominjemo naciste. Onda kad to ima smisla.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/08/inventor-godwin-s-law-says-it-s-fine-call-charlottesville-rioters-nazis

[Aco Popara Zver]

Upravo Benon odletio iz Trampove administracije. Sabrati dva i dva...

[Аксентије Новаковић]

ljudi koji slave pozivaju na svete ratove???

Љупки левичарски другови и другарице, са најљупкијим позивима на величанствени свети расни рат...

[akhnaton]

mršukurac i vodi akhmojtona klona sa sobom, bagro bre

Nisam ja ničiji klon... Ja sam ja, a on je on. To što on govori ne govorim I ja. Ako se neko osetio uvređenim, sažaljevam slučaj.Nisam PC. Ajd zdravo, imam pametnija posla nego da se raspravljam oko toga dal veći imaju crnci ili belci. O








Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L21 using Tapatalk

[Аксентије Новаковић]

[Aco Popara Zver]

Nisam ja ničiji klon.

kako možeš da budeš nečiji kad nisi ni sav svoj? Ajmo liječenje malo

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Срушићу Сједињене Америчке Државе тако што ћу финансирати црначке групе мржње. Ми ћемо их ставити у менталну замку и натераћемо их да за све криве Беле људе.
Црначка заједница је најлакша за манипулисање.

Џорџ Сорош, септембар 2014.г.

[Meho Krljic]

Ovu izmišljotinu sa Sorošem već smo dotakli na drugom topiku ali evo, udobnosti radi i ovde link:

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-bring-down-us/


Dalje:

Pa kome ne odgovara više društvo žena koje šalju poruke o tome

Порука коју жена што носи PROUD SLUT натпис је да је она ПОНОСНА ДРОЉА.

Коме одговара друштво жене која "поносно" истиче да је ДРОЉА???

Слично се у сличном раствара.

Pa, ja ću ponovo reći: ako imaš da biraš između žene koja izjavljuje da je ponosna drolja (a drugde smo već objasnili poente ovakvog iskaza i kako se uklapaju u širi kontekst diskursa o rodnim pravima) sa jedne strane i ljudi koji izjavljuju da su druge rase biološki inferiorne i da ih treba eksploatisati i istrebiti sa druge strane, nekako ne vidim dilemu. Ljubav ka promiskuitetu (simbolička) i ljubav prema genocidu (stvarna) - da, stvarno da se čovek zamisli šta je od ta dva gore.

Ali da se malčice odmaknemo od nivoa rasprave za osnovnoškolce, evo šta electronic Frontier Foundation kaže na ime odluke raznih servisa na internetu da otkažu usluge Daily Stormeru. Možda najvažnija poenta u tekstu: "Have a process, don't act on the headlines."


Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is "dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism." Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare's CEO: "Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power."

We agree. Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today's protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP's voice was the one attacked. 

Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't. 
What Happened? 
Earlier this week, following complaints about a vitriolic and abusive Daily Stormer article on Heather Heyer—the woman killed when a white nationalist drove a car into a crowd of anti-racism demonstrators—GoDaddy told the site's owners that they had 24 hours to leave their service. Daily Stormer subsequently moved their domain to Google's domain management service. Within hours Google announced that it too was refusing Daily Stormer as a customer. Google also placed the dailystormer.com domain on "Client Hold", which means that Daily Stormer's owner cannot activate, use or move the domain to another service. It's unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain permanently. Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, subsequently dropped them as a customer.

We at EFF defend the right of anyone to choose what speech they provide online; platforms have a First Amendment right to decide what speech does and does not appear on their platforms. That's what laws like CDA 230 in the United States enable and protect.

But we strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That's because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world. And at EFF we see the consequences first hand: every time a company throws a vile neo-Nazi site off the Net, thousands of less visible decisions are made by companies with little oversight or transparency. Precedents being set now can shift the justice of those removals. Here's what companies and individuals should watch for in these troubling times.
Content Removal At the Very Top of The Internet
Domain registrars are one of many types of companies in the chain of online content distribution—the Internet intermediaries positioned between the writer or poster of speech and the reader of that speech. Other intermediaries include the ISP that delivers a website's content to end users, the certificate authority (such as Let's Encrypt) that issues an SSL certificate to the website, the content delivery network that optimizes the availability and performance of the website, the web hosting company that provides server space for the website, and even communications platforms—such as email providers and social media companies—that allow the website's URLs to be easily shared. EFF has a handy chart of some of those key links between speakers and their audience here.

The domain name system is a key part of the Internet's technical underpinnings, which are enabled by an often-fragile consensus among many systems and operators. Using that system to edit speech, based on potentially conflicting opinions about what can be spoken on the Internet, risks shattering that consensus. Domain suspension is a blunt instrument: suspending the domain name of a website or Internet service makes everything hosted there difficult or impossible to access. The risk of blocking speech that wasn't targeted is very high.

Domain name companies also have little claim to be publishers, or speakers in their own right, with respect to the contents of websites. Like the suppliers of ink or electrical power to a pamphleteer, the companies that sponsor domain name registrations have no direct connection to Internet content. Domain name registrars have even less connection to speech than a conduit provider such as an ISP, as the contents of a website or service never touch the registrar's systems. Registrars' interests as speakers under the First Amendment are minimal.

If the entities that run the domain name system started choosing who could access or add to them based on political considerations, we might well face a world where every government and powerful body would see itself as an equal or more legitimate invoker of that power. That makes the domain name system unsuitable as a mechanism for taking down specific illegal content as the law sometimes requires, and a perennially attractive central location for nation-states and others to exercise much broader takedown powers.

Another lever that states and malicious actors often reach for when seeking to censor legitimate voices is through denial-of-service attacks. States and criminals alike use this to silence voices, and the Net's defenses against such actions are not well-developed. Services like Cloudflare can protect against these attacks, but not if they also face direct pressure from governments and other actors to pick and choose their clients. Content delivery networks are not wired into the infrastructure of the Net in the way that the domain name system is, but at this point, they may as well be.

These are parts of the Net that are most sensitive to pervasive censorship: they are free speech's weakest links. It's the reason why millions of net neutrality advocates are concerned about ISPs censoring their feeds. Or why, when the handful of global payment processors unite to block certain websites (like Wikileaks) worldwide, we should be concerned. These weak links are both the most tempting, and most egregiously damaging places, to filter the Net.

The firmest, most consistent, defense these potential weak links can take is to simply decline all attempts to use them as a control point. They can act to defend their role as a conduit, rather than a publisher. And just as law and custom developed a norm that we might sue a publisher for defamation, but not the owner of a printing press, or newspaper vendor, we are slowly developing norms about who should take responsibility for content online. Companies that manage domain names, including GoDaddy and Google, should draw a hard line: they should not suspend or impair domain names based on the expressive content of websites or services.
Have A Process, Don't Act on the Headlines
Other elements of the Net risk less when they are selective about who they host. But even for hosts, there's always a risk that others—including governments—will use the opaqueness of the takedown process to silence legitimate voices. For any content hosts that do reject content as part of the enforcement of their terms of service, or are pressured by states to secretly censor, we have long recommended that they implement procedural protections to mitigate mistakes—specifically, the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability. The principles state, in part: 

   
• Before any content is restricted on the basis of an order or a request, the intermediary and the user content provider must be provided an effective right to be heard except in exceptional circumstances, in which case a post facto review of the order and its implementation must take place as soon as practicable.
• Intermediaries should provide user content providers with mechanisms to review decisions to restrict content in violation of the intermediary's content restriction policies.
• Intermediaries should publish their content restriction policies online, in clear language and accessible formats, and keep them updated as they evolve, and notify users of changes when applicable.

These are methods that protect us all against overbroad or arbitrary takedowns. It's notable that in GoDaddy and Google's eagerness to swiftly distance themselves from American neo-Nazis, no process was followed; CloudFlare's Prince also admitted that the decision was "not CloudFlare's policy." Policies give guidance as to what we might expect, and an opportunity to see justice is done. We should think carefully before throwing them away.

It might seem unlikely now that Internet companies would turn against sites supporting racial justice or other controversial issues. But if there is a single reason why so many individuals and companies are acting together now to unite against neo-Nazis, it is because a future that seemed unlikely a few years ago—where white nationalists and Nazis have significant power and influence in our society—now seems possible. We would be making a mistake if we assumed that these sorts of censorship decisions would never turn against causes we love. 

Part of the work for all of us now is to push back against such dangerous decisions with our own voices and actions. Another part of our work must be to seek to shore up the weakest parts of the Internet's infrastructure so it cannot be easily toppled if matters take a turn for the (even) worse. These actions are not in opposition; they are to the same ends.

We can—and we must—do both.

[akhnaton]

Nisam ja ničiji klon.

kako možeš da budeš nečiji kad nisi ni sav svoj? Ajmo liječenje malo

Hmm, a gde? U nekom letovalištu zatvorenog tipa uz šarene pilule? Neće da može. Žao mi je.

[akhnaton]

Ovu izmišljotinu sa Sorošem već smo dotakli na drugom topiku ali evo, udobnosti radi i ovde link:

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-bring-down-us/


Dalje:

Pa kome ne odgovara više društvo žena koje šalju poruke o tome

Порука коју жена што носи PROUD SLUT натпис је да је она ПОНОСНА ДРОЉА.

Коме одговара друштво жене која "поносно" истиче да је ДРОЉА???

Слично се у сличном раствара.

Pa, ja ću ponovo reći: ako imaš da biraš između žene koja izjavljuje da je ponosna drolja (a drugde smo već objasnili poente ovakvog iskaza i kako se uklapaju u širi kontekst diskursa o rodnim pravima) sa jedne strane i ljudi koji izjavljuju da su druge rase biološki inferiorne i da ih treba eksploatisati i istrebiti sa druge strane, nekako ne vidim dilemu. Ljubav ka promiskuitetu (simbolička) i ljubav prema genocidu (stvarna) - da, stvarno da se čovek zamisli šta je od ta dva gore.

Ali da se malčice odmaknemo od nivoa rasprave za osnovnoškolce, evo šta electronic Frontier Foundation kaže na ime odluke raznih servisa na internetu da otkažu usluge Daily Stormeru. Možda najvažnija poenta u tekstu: "Have a process, don't act on the headlines."


Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is "dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism." Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare's CEO: "Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power."

We agree. Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today's protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP's voice was the one attacked. 

Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't. 
What Happened? 
Earlier this week, following complaints about a vitriolic and abusive Daily Stormer article on Heather Heyer—the woman killed when a white nationalist drove a car into a crowd of anti-racism demonstrators—GoDaddy told the site's owners that they had 24 hours to leave their service. Daily Stormer subsequently moved their domain to Google's domain management service. Within hours Google announced that it too was refusing Daily Stormer as a customer. Google also placed the dailystormer.com domain on "Client Hold", which means that Daily Stormer's owner cannot activate, use or move the domain to another service. It's unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain permanently. Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, subsequently dropped them as a customer.

We at EFF defend the right of anyone to choose what speech they provide online; platforms have a First Amendment right to decide what speech does and does not appear on their platforms. That's what laws like CDA 230 in the United States enable and protect.

But we strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That's because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world. And at EFF we see the consequences first hand: every time a company throws a vile neo-Nazi site off the Net, thousands of less visible decisions are made by companies with little oversight or transparency. Precedents being set now can shift the justice of those removals. Here's what companies and individuals should watch for in these troubling times.
Content Removal At the Very Top of The Internet
Domain registrars are one of many types of companies in the chain of online content distribution—the Internet intermediaries positioned between the writer or poster of speech and the reader of that speech. Other intermediaries include the ISP that delivers a website's content to end users, the certificate authority (such as Let's Encrypt) that issues an SSL certificate to the website, the content delivery network that optimizes the availability and performance of the website, the web hosting company that provides server space for the website, and even communications platforms—such as email providers and social media companies—that allow the website's URLs to be easily shared. EFF has a handy chart of some of those key links between speakers and their audience here.

The domain name system is a key part of the Internet's technical underpinnings, which are enabled by an often-fragile consensus among many systems and operators. Using that system to edit speech, based on potentially conflicting opinions about what can be spoken on the Internet, risks shattering that consensus. Domain suspension is a blunt instrument: suspending the domain name of a website or Internet service makes everything hosted there difficult or impossible to access. The risk of blocking speech that wasn't targeted is very high.

Domain name companies also have little claim to be publishers, or speakers in their own right, with respect to the contents of websites. Like the suppliers of ink or electrical power to a pamphleteer, the companies that sponsor domain name registrations have no direct connection to Internet content. Domain name registrars have even less connection to speech than a conduit provider such as an ISP, as the contents of a website or service never touch the registrar's systems. Registrars' interests as speakers under the First Amendment are minimal.

If the entities that run the domain name system started choosing who could access or add to them based on political considerations, we might well face a world where every government and powerful body would see itself as an equal or more legitimate invoker of that power. That makes the domain name system unsuitable as a mechanism for taking down specific illegal content as the law sometimes requires, and a perennially attractive central location for nation-states and others to exercise much broader takedown powers.

Another lever that states and malicious actors often reach for when seeking to censor legitimate voices is through denial-of-service attacks. States and criminals alike use this to silence voices, and the Net's defenses against such actions are not well-developed. Services like Cloudflare can protect against these attacks, but not if they also face direct pressure from governments and other actors to pick and choose their clients. Content delivery networks are not wired into the infrastructure of the Net in the way that the domain name system is, but at this point, they may as well be.

These are parts of the Net that are most sensitive to pervasive censorship: they are free speech's weakest links. It's the reason why millions of net neutrality advocates are concerned about ISPs censoring their feeds. Or why, when the handful of global payment processors unite to block certain websites (like Wikileaks) worldwide, we should be concerned. These weak links are both the most tempting, and most egregiously damaging places, to filter the Net.

The firmest, most consistent, defense these potential weak links can take is to simply decline all attempts to use them as a control point. They can act to defend their role as a conduit, rather than a publisher. And just as law and custom developed a norm that we might sue a publisher for defamation, but not the owner of a printing press, or newspaper vendor, we are slowly developing norms about who should take responsibility for content online. Companies that manage domain names, including GoDaddy and Google, should draw a hard line: they should not suspend or impair domain names based on the expressive content of websites or services.
Have A Process, Don't Act on the Headlines
Other elements of the Net risk less when they are selective about who they host. But even for hosts, there's always a risk that others—including governments—will use the opaqueness of the takedown process to silence legitimate voices. For any content hosts that do reject content as part of the enforcement of their terms of service, or are pressured by states to secretly censor, we have long recommended that they implement procedural protections to mitigate mistakes—specifically, the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability. The principles state, in part: 

   
• Before any content is restricted on the basis of an order or a request, the intermediary and the user content provider must be provided an effective right to be heard except in exceptional circumstances, in which case a post facto review of the order and its implementation must take place as soon as practicable.
• Intermediaries should provide user content providers with mechanisms to review decisions to restrict content in violation of the intermediary's content restriction policies.
• Intermediaries should publish their content restriction policies online, in clear language and accessible formats, and keep them updated as they evolve, and notify users of changes when applicable.

These are methods that protect us all against overbroad or arbitrary takedowns. It's notable that in GoDaddy and Google's eagerness to swiftly distance themselves from American neo-Nazis, no process was followed; CloudFlare's Prince also admitted that the decision was "not CloudFlare's policy." Policies give guidance as to what we might expect, and an opportunity to see justice is done. We should think carefully before throwing them away.

It might seem unlikely now that Internet companies would turn against sites supporting racial justice or other controversial issues. But if there is a single reason why so many individuals and companies are acting together now to unite against neo-Nazis, it is because a future that seemed unlikely a few years ago—where white nationalists and Nazis have significant power and influence in our society—now seems possible. We would be making a mistake if we assumed that these sorts of censorship decisions would never turn against causes we love. 

Part of the work for all of us now is to push back against such dangerous decisions with our own voices and actions. Another part of our work must be to seek to shore up the weakest parts of the Internet's infrastructure so it cannot be easily toppled if matters take a turn for the (even) worse. These actions are not in opposition; they are to the same ends.

We can—and we must—do both.

Pa već smo se digli sa tog nivoa, sada smo srednjoškolci i brucoši. Samo pratimo gender study...

[Dybuk]

Ukrala s internjeta



a kad smo kod baklji

[mac]

Nema slika, samo tekst "Please update your account to enable 3rd party hosting. For important info, please go to www.photobucket.com/p500".

[Dybuk]

Baš čudno, meni se lepo prikazuju. Kakvi smarači i secikese!

Fala mac, probaću ponovo da postujem....



vidi li se?

[Meho Krljic]

Vidi se, vidi se.

Mada bi zanimljivo bilo da i prodavci oružja u izlog stave nastpis u stilu "nemojte ovim da ubijate dobar i častan svet, idioti!"

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Mada bi zanimljivo bilo da i prodavci oružja u izlog stave nastpis u stilu "nemojte ovim da ubijate dobar i častan svet, idioti!"

Најзанимљивије би било када би по бензинским пумпама у Србији стајали натписи типа :

"Цигани - немојте бензином да поливате беспомоћне Србе и да их спаљујете, јер бензин томе не служи!".

[Аксентије Новаковић]

In these countries, in the so-called democracies, its people is by no means the main focus of attention.
What really matters is exclusively the existence of this group of 'democracy makers.'
That is, the existence of a few hundred giant capitalists who own all the factories and shares and who, ultimately, lead the people.
They are not interested at all in the great mass of people.
They are the only ones who can be addressed as international elements because they conduct their business everywhere.
It is a small, rootless international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace...
They can suppress us.
They can kill us if you like, but we will not capitulate!

[Stipan]

Најзанимљивије би било када би по бензинским пумпама у Србији стајали натписи типа :
"Цигани - немојте бензином да поливате недужне Србе и да их спаљујете, јер бензин томе не служи!".

Iliti, " Benzin time ne dobija na kvalitetu"?

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Nisam ja ničiji klon.

kako možeš da budeš nečiji kad nisi ni sav svoj? Ajmo liječenje malo

Hmm, a gde? U nekom letovalištu zatvorenog tipa uz šarene pilule? Neće da može. Žao mi je.

Ali da se malčice odmaknemo od nivoa rasprave za osnovnoškolce

Pa već smo se digli sa tog nivoa, sada smo srednjoškolci i brucoši. Samo pratimo gender study...

Have you ever met a crazy, insane feminized man?
How do they act like?
Did you ever analyze them?
They will follow you and persecute you, they will make up stories and lies about you – but at the same time – will say that you lie constantly and disregard everything you say with an immediate ad hominem attack.
They will play the victim all the time, no matter what they have done – they will completely ignore the evil which they have done, the intentional harm they have caused – they have no regard for damage which they might have left behind.
They can't live without you, but want to kill you.
They want to bring about their own personal victory by making you jealous, they wish to see you angry and mad but, at the same time, want some kind of authority to immediately punish you if you happen to lose your cool.

[Meho Krljic]

A neka naši čitaoci presude koga ovo opisuje?

[Stipan]

http://youtu.be/-gfIgA-PYyQ

[Аксентије Новаковић]

ponosna drolja (a drugde smo već objasnili poente ovakvog iskaza i kako se uklapaju u širi kontekst diskursa o rodnim pravima)

Не, него смо на теми "Феминистички кутак" објаснили да феминисткиња која себе "украси" натписом "поносна дроља" може бити само дроља, и ништа друго до тога.

Такође смо објаснили да "поносна дроља" феминизам није и не може бити никаква "борба против злостављања", већ  "поносна дроља" феминизам представља регрутни центар за улазак у свет порно индустрије.

Напослетку, за такве тврдње смо дали и конкретан пример поткрепљен сликама, и оличен у лику и (не)делу феминистичке "поносне дроље" Louise Rosealme, која је у свету порно индустрије познатија као Venus Rosales.

На томе се не бих више задржавао, јер нема потребе небројано пута показивати и доказивати једну те исту ствар на коју "поносна дроља активисти" упорно жмуре.

Mada bi zanimljivo bilo da i prodavci oružja u izlog stave nastpis u stilu "nemojte ovim da ubijate dobar i častan svet, idioti!"

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Гуд бај, антифа...