Authoritarians are thriving currently precisely because of such narratives as this great replacement bs, designed to sow division and promote xenophobia and nationalism.
No, you didnt. You basically said illigal immigration is bad because its illegal. You didnt include positive effects, like economic contribution. That positive conclusion about immigration is scientific consensus btw. Its easy to find if you dare to observe it.
I’m liberal so I believe in governmental regulation which includes legal immigration and labor rights. I believe illegal immigrants shouldn’t be exploited by private businesses and citizens should be paid a living wage.
Add a "well integrated illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship" and you would contradict your first comment about illegal immigrants being harmful. What legallity is, is not written is stone.
If you’re a conservative capitalist that would sound good but I’m liberal. My understanding of government and liberalism is consistent with that of people like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. What you’re suggesting, by their standards, is a paradox.
Is either Noam Chomsky or Bernie Sanders a liberal, though? It sounds like you're very confused about what you believe - almost like a conservative's straw man idea of a liberal.
In the US “liberal” is often used as a short hand for “left wing”, Isaiah Berlin calls it ‘negative liberty’. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a ‘libertarian socialist’ and Bernie Sanders describes himself as a ‘democratic socialist’, both of these political stances are left wing, some would says “far left”.
Do you think that observation gives immigration enforcement agencies a right to execute citizens who are exercising their rights, and then completely lie about it?
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is authorized to use deadly force by the Department of Homeland Security only when an officer has a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
A tank is designed for war. Infrastructure is designed to serve some other utility. Claiming it should also be hardened against (cyber) war is acknowledging that there is an aggressor performing an attack of war, not that the infrastructure is failing the utility it was designed for.
It's fine to have this view that software should be defect free and hardened against sophisticated nation-state attackers, but it stretches the meaning of "defect" to me. A defect would be serving to fulfill that utility it had been designed for, not succumbing to malicious attackers.
okay, so you think just attaching PLCs to an rs485-to-ethernet adapter and connecting it straight unauthenticated to the internet, and then calling it a day is simply perfectly reasonable, since "well.. cant expect to harden against cyber warfare!! no defect!!!" ?
because this is the kind of stuff infrastructure things do, along with MANY other things. Im sure not all infrastructure does it, but plenty do.
This is not hardening, its BASIC security. any scriptkiddie from same country could find it and cause problems.
How far would you say they should go to stop domestic script kiddies from messing with it? and if script kiddies from other countries mess with it, is it now cyber warfare?
Well, your unsourced assertions sound dramatically incompetent, but the linked article says the Russian cyberattack on Ukraine in 2015 was the first malware caused blackout, and the titular event of the article failed to cause harm, which kind of paints a different picture.
I’ll therefore decline to comment on your assertions. I will acknowledge it’s time to consider Russian interference as expected if you are designing an internet connected system, fine, but it looks like it’s non trivial to fatally compromise these systems already.
depends on what you mean by fatally compromise, much infrastructure across europe, and I would strongly think the US aswell(allthough here I am only familiar with 1 example), it is absolutely trivial to atleast temporarily disable and possibly bring some harm for anyone unauthenticatedly.
I am not saying whether russians are doing it or not, im just saying that its not just victim blaming, and that anyone operating with this level of security is grossly negligant and should be severely punished as criminals
no, thats not the same. If you for example leave your front door open, and the insurance finds out, do you think they will be doing "victim blaming" ?
so lets turn this logic around on those megacorps that leaks personal data, suppose they run an open postgres or mongodb with ALL the customer data, no password or default password, on the open ipv6, is it victimblaming to go after them for this? after all, its the big bad criminals that stole the data?
the truth of the matter is that yes, the ones that take the data are criminals, but so are the one that doesnt take proper pracautions.
Have you actually seen how these infrastructure things operate? many of them have open scada systems directly coupled to the internet. Many of them have sms gateways that just accepts messages from _ANY_ phone number to issue shutdowns.
I know because I have been brought in to look at some of those things as a consultant
I don’t understand your question. I’m assuming you are asking about the part “Europe deserves”. It’s simple really - for decades now Europe has been relying on US for military support. It’s a cardinal sin to do so if one wants an equivalent seat at the negotiating table. But the EU just can’t agree amongst themselves. Mercosur takes 30 years, India defence agreement has taken 20. The warning signs were there during 2016 but conveniently brushed. EU either acts together for the common good even if they don’t like something or continues to be bureaucratic, irrelevant old person. It’s slow agony at the moment.
The EU couldn't agree amongst themselves because the US (and its biggest vassal, the UK when it was in the EU) did everything to prevent such agreement.
We'll see what the States that were the most against any form of common European defense will do now that the US has proven unreliable. And if they are still under the delusion that the current US policies will go away, then it's time for Two-Speed Europe.
Don't blame this on the UK. UK leave vote was a few months before the 2016 election, so the timing is convenient. But let's not pretend that it was anything but complacency (that was shattered by Trump) is to blame here.
I disagree, Europe has not been ”relying” on US military support.
It is true that most(not all, for example Switzerland, Finland Poland all have excellent militaries) European countries have been underfunding their military in stark contrast to the war mongering nation across the Atlantic, but I would not call that “relying on”, just a delusion that we lived in an eternal peace.
FWIW I served my country Sweden for three years, including a tour in Kosovo and another in Afghanistan. I have been against this recklessness for as long as I can remember.
Also, the EU is hardly irrelevant, stop the hyperbole…
This stuff goes back to Yalta, so just forget parotting these ideas. The US never wanted Europe to be self reliant concerning security, up until Trump and the Paypal mafia. Fortunately De Gaulle gave the Americans the finger during his presidency because he knew better. Not being on the losing side meant that Framce wasn't under US "protection" and could develop their own nuclear program and military hardware, as opposed to Germany (and Japan).
Please do not mix up the mention of the USA with your view on the current administration, and also your view of the many silent servicemember who will have strong opinions about a few things.
Because "the EU" is not a country. It is a bloc. People that speak lf EU here are very delusional about what it is, and seemingly never understand its function.
People speak of the EU as if it was going to be as nimble as a unified country with a single government structure. It is not. It is a bloc composed of 27 countries each with its own government structure, interests, budgets, industries, culture, and so on.
Also - defense. The EU has no army. Each of its 27 countries have their own separated armies, and make their own decisions.
In a post WW2 scenario, where most of Europe needed to rebuild, outsourcing defense to an ally was a correct decision (especially considering that escalating power in the preceeding decades only led to war).
Perhaps the current state of affairs lead to a more federalized EU, who knows.
reply