(Edit: this was meant as a reply to an apparently now-deleted (?) comment about why he deserves the anonymity of having his last name abbreviated).
He deserves it for the same reason a single mother raising a kid that gets involved in an armed robbery deserves it: basic human rights.
The idea of those is that they are universal and you'd have to have a very good reason to supersede them. If they are not universal, then they are just "suggestions" and then we end up with exactly the kind of society that this guy wanted.
And yes, being a major political actor is a good reason to lose that anonymity (which is also how it's handled in European media, there is no reporting on Angela M. or Emmanuel M.).
But this guy is a not a public figure in any reasonable sense any more. He's a stupid old guy that was one of the founding members of a extreme-right splinter party of a right-wing popular party in 1967. That party was banned in 1988. So it (and he) has not been relevant to anything for 35 years. He tried to become relevant with this stunt, fucked around and found out.
In fact, reporting on his full name is probably what he wants: publicity is what he was attempting to achieve, but anonymity is what he deserves (both as a basic human right and as punishment IMO).
Is he charged with a crime or did he do a stupid international venture that is a continuation on the theme of his ridiculous political movement? Do leaders of racist boomer political movements deserve anonymity? Why couldn't he keep it confined to VierChan?
Edit: were it the case that his privacy was of primacy, why did it explicilty link him to his little "movement"?
But in Europe that is not sufficient to lose the right to anonymity (and it shouldn't be, it's incredibly easy to get charged, no matter whether anything bad happened).
Do leaders of racist boomer political movements deserve anonymity?
He isn't a leader of anything. Hasn't ever been (even when he was a founding member, he wasn't the leader).
He is a nobody (as he should be). And as such he deserves anonymity, yes. Just because he tried to change himself back into no-a-nobody doesn't mean he has succeeded.
Why couldn’t he keep it confined to VierChan?
Nazis are gonna Nazi.
Edit regarding your edit: yeah, that seems pretty fishy. I don't think they should have mentioned it, but with enough inside knowledge you'd probably find him by just "84 year old right-wing extremist blogger from Austria". That is (fortunately) not a huge population. I suspect (and this is purely speculation) that the authors don't think he deserves anonymity (so they include enough information to find out who it is), but do think they shouldn't "advertise" his cause (so they make it easy to ignore who he is). Similar to how media outlets in the US have finally decided to not publish the names of mass shooters: there is very little public benefit in publishing it and a very real risk of it encouraging others.
In case you're not joking: It's very common in Europe to abbreviate the last name of non-public figures when reporting on them. So it's a kind of anonymization.
On the other hand: that guy was the founding member of a party, so could be argued to be a (minor) public figure. But I guess this specific report is not directly tied to that "work" of his, so it could be considered in the private sphere.
As much as I hate DeSantis, I don't think calling for the murder of a U.S. politician (and governor) on social media is a smart move.
NSA agents, if you're reading this, I don't condone any of this!
But for the sake of the discussion: it was a weird comment for several reasons:
Come back with guns: why leave in the first place, then? They could have just legally purchased guns in Florida and use them for whatever OP implied, without leaving at all.
A situation involving migrants with guns would just make Florida republicans say "See? These people are dangerous and shouldn't be here. DeSantis was right!"
That's why I found the comment weird. But come to think of it, it's quite stupid too.
I think what they're trying to say is that immigrants should go there to do the job but instead immigrants are only going there with guns. Typical republican propaganda.
Nope. Too bad, they knew what they were buying. That they convinced themselves the value they attributed to it would remain or increase is entirely on them. The fact that so many others saw it through a realistic lens means they had the same ability and chose not to.
But that said, the proceeds for them should also get clawed back and 100% put toward scam identification education. Neither side in this one should walk away enriched.
That's the whole point of legitimate auction houses like Sothby's. They pay experts to provide some legitimacy and sanity.
It's one thing for me to say that a kids finger painting is worth 50k, it's a different thing for a trained art appraiser at an auction house to set that price.
Sotheby sets the initial prices and provides estimates of value. They were supposed to be the responsible adult in the room. Now if they values them at say $1000 and they sold for 100,000k that's on the buyer. If the value was set for 80k and it sold for 90k that's a different story.
This is the part about wealthy people that I just love. If muh investment pays off, f-off society, I was smart and made a wise investment. I deserve to keep 100% of the proceeds. But when things go south, "Save meeeeeeeeee, you [society/regulators] shouldn't have let me go through with it". Then we're back to the socialism they say they hate so much and that they lobby their own money to deny to the common folk.
Digging into the numbers a bit more, I've noticed a disturbing trend. Felony charges against presidents has skyrocketed shortly after we had our first black president. I'm just looking at the numbers and asking questions #factsnotfeelings
No, they don't. We had Brexit. It was a smörgåsbord of stupid like that.
"We want freedom of movement cancelled so EU folks can't come in here, "followed by "What do you mean we don't have freedom of movement and can't just live in Spain?"
"All immigrants gone!" followed by "why are there no cheap immigrants anymore for working in the field and drive trucks?"
"Close the borders!" and "Why is there suddenly this long line and why do we need custom checks and passports?"
"After we made it more difficult for foreigners to come here, we have less tourists. Somebody do something!"
"When we said you can't fish here, we meant we can still fish over there."
"Yeah, I know we cancelled all cooperation but we really would like the subsidies to continue."
You can keep going. There were enough predictions that this was exactly what would happen, it was ignored in emotional flurry, ideologies and name calling. Of course there is a lot of "why didn't anyone warn us?" afterwards. I conclude they're not really thinking, just mostly reacting emotionally and going along with the peer group who has a very high "F U I got mine" content.
See, this is how people end up being in favour of eugenics.
It's not that stupid people exist, it's that they keep being stupid, and bafflingly self-destructive, even after their stupidity is demonstrably demonstrated to them.
I'm in favour of education. There was a time when people lacking education strived to close the gap and become a better version of themselves. I'm not sure how we lost that, but I want it back. I'm not only talking about school. People went to classes after work, read about new stuff and invested into themselves.
Is it possible that some of these Super PACs are bankrolling black GOP candidates in order to influence and leech away black folks' support for democrats?
The tin foil hattiness of that question is obvious, but somehow it makes more sense than black people joining/supporting the GOP.
I'm kind of torn on this. In a "Leopards ate my face way," the people who voted him in are getting what they voted for. But overall, I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad piece of legislation, from the little of it mentioned here. Obviously it's pretty messy to suddenly change something like this retroactively. But going forward, it seems pretty fair at face value.
This being DeSantis, I assume there's something nasty going on behind the scenes that I haven't figured out yet. Agreeing with him makes me feel all kinds of icky.
I've seen a lot of heated debate on the matter on a lot of sites. To me, it's just an example of people not thinking ahead when they vote for certain candidates. The right wing is very men's rights and very against policies that favor women, like alimony, so something like this new law really shouldn't have been a surprise. That's my hot take anyway
I am not sure i am fully for alimony. Like child support? Definitely. But alimony is the argument that the spouce, almost exclusively women, are due a certain life style they enjoyed when married at the cost of the one who is working for it. The argument being that a spouse would stay in an abusing relationship because of the fear of losing quality of life. And that assuming that the spouse foregoes a career to raise children is left with low job prospects, and the state would rather not shoulder the burden of a social safety net. And so the working spouse has to pay.
Thats how its been argued to me anyway. I find it not very persuasive. No one is due a quality of life at the expense of other’s. If you divorce, you should toil for your own quality of life. And there should be a comprehensive safety net for those who are too old to hold a job, or can not find one.
There's something to say for it if one party gave up work to become a stay at home parent I guess. You're at a pretty severe disadvantage if you need to enter the job market with a significant gap in your resume. So if you consider marriage a contract wherein one person put themselves at a disadvantage to raise the children o the condition that the other would in turn provide for the both of them, you could argue that they're entitled to some form of compensation when that contract is broken. Whether that compensation should be indefinite I leave on the table.
That’s not at all how it was argued to me, and I also find it unconvincing. I think it makes sense when a couple together makes a decision that one person won’t work to take care of the home or kids. Fifteen years later if they divorce, the working person is further in their career than they would have been if they’d had to take off time for sick days and more parenting activities (or if they’d had to think about doing their own dry cleaning and packing their own lunches), while the other person is further behind in their career than they were when they left the workforce, and they won’t ever really be able to get back on track. I think alimony makes sense to balance those effects, and if the effects are permanent, I think it should also be permanent. I don’t think it should be 40% of a paycheck (unless that’s actually substantiated by the couple’s financial situation), but whatever makes sense for the couple’s relative incomes.
My thought is that it’s based on the life style that the provider…provides. And maintaining that expectation of having the same quality of life is absurd, especially concerning that the providers will definitely not be able to maintain that quality of life for themselves. Especially in the case of a childless marriage, the other spouse was never removed from the work force unless they chose to be. And the provider may have been happy to sacrifice their life style at the time, but to force it on them after a divorce is wrong to me. And even if there was a child at one point, but has since become an adult i don’t see how one who was working a career should be on the hook for another forever. This basically prevents the one who pays from moving on to make another family due to financial constraints.
I guess where I disagree is that the working parent presumably benefits from the non working parent’s labor. They decide together how their lives look, agree together that less income is worth it for the other benefits of the person staying home, and then afterwards the partner who stayed home has permanently lowered earning potential. Those are fine decisions to make together, but if you split up, the parent who kept working financially benefits and the other is fucked. I don’t think the goal should be to maintain the same lifestyle, because that is going to be impossible (though if there are kids, their lifestyles should change as little as possible), but trying to equalize their changed earning potentials makes sense to me.
Leopards Ate My Face
Top