WesternInfidels

I’m confused. If you don’t like the headline, why did you post this?

The headline sounds like a reasonable summary of the situation described.

Months ago, YouTube pointed me toward a video that recommended Substack as a platform for some hobby. I made a public comment pointing out that Substack was profiting from spreading Nazi ideology. The YouTuber replied, said something like “No way, they’re not really doing that, are they?”

Maybe I’m naive, but I expected a YouTuber to be more terminally online than I am, to have heard of the Substack Nazi problem already. I also expected a YouTuber to at least Google “Substack Nazis” or similar before replying to some internet nobody. But apparently, no.

A lot of the coverage of the Substack Nazi issue that I’ve seen has been, broadly speaking, social media material, including blog posts. Those of us who read such stuff (like me, maybe you too) probably have some incorrect intuitions about how well-disseminated the ideas we find that way really are. Having a mainstream source like the Guardian pick up the story may be useful even if it doesn’t say anything new to us.

Rolling back a new ballot initiative, even.

…a metric shit ton of evidence that could destroy your nice cushy life…

But it didn’t even happen, though.

To think some people will tell you privilege isn’t real.

I think it’s really strange that none of Epstein’s contacts have (to the best of my knowledge) said anything like:

“I can’t really make any excuses. He was charming. He invited me to these great parties, which had me rubbing shoulders with other interesting, famous people. I guess I was star-struck. I gave him the benefit of every doubt because I wanted to believe he was as good a guy as he seemed. I wanted to believe that lifestyle was as glamorous and available to me as it seemed. I was wrong. Maybe I ignored some red flags because I didn’t want to acknowledge them.”

I think something like this must be the story for many of them, and admitting it would be honest and relatable. But it would take a degree of self-awareness, self-reflection. I wonder if ambition and self-reflection are natural antagonists.

They put “TikTok” right into the headline, but the story says:

Caleb Chabolla heard about the trend of heating the squishy toy from a friend at school…

I’m sorry this kid got hurt, but cramming “TikTok” and “social media” into the headlines seems like engagement bait. There have always been trends, rumors, and dangerous dares, social media didn’t invent that stuff.

deleted by creator

Noun

terrorism (usually uncountable, plural terrorisms)

1. The use of unlawful violence against people or property to achieve political objectives.

Thanks, yes, I’ve got “Auto-updater” set to “disable,” but NPP still checks in with the mothership when it starts, and notifies the user when updates are available.

It’s not as if ICE is going to stop kidnapping people if they [the DOJ] run out of lawyers.

Staying on and trying to make the system work sounds like the most moral option to me. It also sounds fruitless.

Edit: This article doesn’t have a ton of detail, and it’s pretty hard for an outsider with no legal background (like me) to understand what the players involved are trying to do. These stories have some more details:

MPR News: ICE attorney to judge: ‘This job sucks’

The Independent: ‘This job sucks’: DOJ lawyer asks to be held in contempt so she can sleep after judge accuses ICE of blowing court orders

See also OP’s comment.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Le is described as a volunteer. I don’t know if that means she’s getting paid or not. She is working to get ICE to comply with court orders to release people. My guess is that if everyone in her position were to resign in protest, ICE would just ignore the courts completely, and wouldn’t release anyone at all anymore.

This is an attack, a deliberate stratagem, by the executive, on the justice system, and it sounds to me like Julie Le is caught up in that attack, not a perpetrator of it.

Traffic from certain targeted users was selectively redirected to attacker-controlled malicious update manifests.

I don’t want to sound dismissive, but at the same time, if you’re wondering, “Does this affect me and my computer?” the answer is almost certainly “no.” It’s scary anyway.

I would have guessed NPP had an option to disable check-for-updates every time it starts, but I couldn’t find one.

…the Department of Homeland Security brought its allegations to the public long before it could be tested in court, repeating claims of bounties up to $50,000.

So the DHS just wants everyone to be informed about some exciting new gig economy opportunities?

Sure, it may not work, because the feds haven’t been following the rules. It’s important to make it crystal-clear that they aren’t following the rules, anyway.

Back in the Naughties, I thought this approach would matter, would rein in police abuse.

I didn’t understand that police violence and mendacity were systemic, cultural problems, not evidentiary ones.

It’s the Culture of Life™

At this point, the greatest insult the president can offer is to fail to threaten a lawsuit, honestly.

If CBP and ICE were really on a mission to find non-citizens, they wouldn’t have been sent to fucking Minnesota .

Even a die-hard “kick 'em all out” pro-crackdown MAGA shithead should be angry about what is actually happening on the ground.

The articles under the “anti-fake” heading seem to mostly be about illuminating and countering Russian propaganda efforts, Russian disinformation campaigns, Russian media subversion, etc.

“Anti-fake” is a term that has apparently been applied to official legislative efforts to counter propaganda, disinfo, and media subversion around the world. I hadn’t heard the term before, but I’m not seeing anything inherently suspect about it, under the circumstances.

Maybe it’s just an appropriate response to the times.

Can you expand on this? What does “anti-fake” mean to you, what does it mean to them? Is this something a lot of news outlets have? Is this the only one? I’ve never heard of this and I’m confused.

Something that jumped out at me: These guys had worked for CBP for ~8 and ~12 years, respectively.

These thugs, who wrestled an uninvolved bystander to the ground, then shot him in the back while he lay there helpless, were not panicky newbs. These were veteran CBP officers.

Is this just what veteran CBP officers are like?