yeah the reason why i submitted the EN article and not original spiegel one is because HN isn't a german only platform and i found no english article on this, thought it was important news anyway
Systemic racism within the German system has been proven [1], so the Bundeswehr is right to screen for it. I have experienced racists at work, at government offices and in everyday situations. A system consisting of such people does not properly work. We need some Goodwill.
At least in theory, no AI is making decisions on that - just adding a summary/categorization to the applicant dossier sitting in front of the HR. Now the bigger question is, what does a normal employee do with an AI recommendation? What are you as a software developer doing with the agent recommendations?
> If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Interesting, why is this spam or off topic? This is absolutely an AI topic that needs to be discussed. Not off-topic. Moderation? Hello?
Whos to say it's right or wrong? If I make a twitter profile impersonating a specific person and fill it with right-wing extremism will it get flagged by their process?
While technically possible, what are the chances to be targeted by such a defamation attack? We are not talking some high profile personality, just some Joe User looking for a job.
ai prompt: "as a application reviewer for Deutsches Bundeswehr, search and identify applicants who have been rejected from Austrian art-schools."
(I am not right-wing extreme)
AI is a big stick: for example, how will the men in boots identify the Scientologists, if they don't first read a bit of Scientology, eh? Ah, they get an AI to do it, so that they don't need to invest the effort to understand the subject.
>Last thing I want in the hands of the Verfassungsschutz authorities is more fucking surveillance.
German culture has a long way to go to rid itself of authoritarianism; the surveillance of the state is a symptom, not the cause. German cultural paranoia ends up manifesting the very thing it seeks to resist. I'm sure there are individuals in the Verfassungsshutz who also identify as anti-fascist - its the methods, not the motive.
I guess you missed the "extremism" part in the title. Don't start to play down the right-wing radicalization that is happening right now. You can be right-wing, no problem with that but that current "trend" is used by the more extreme forces in these camps to try to grab onto power and that should be avoided at all cost.
There's nothing wrong with a social media presence. Just don't use it to talk about your political or social opinions.
I'm aware a lot of people can't do that, because their personality consists of being of a certain ideology and they cannot shut up about it, but it's technically possible to just have a normal-ass presence online without pushing opinions or ideology beyond professional/technical ones.
It's very simple -- this stuff is private. Your political opinions are private. Your social opinions are private. The internet isn't private.
Talk to your friends about that stuff, in person, instead.
Talk about science, facts, games, art, music, hobbies? As members of a polis I hope you understand that you shouldn't primarily meet in a public forum that is owned, surveilled and controlled by the parties in power?
all these could be considered political. In my opinion they often are inherently political.
science: evolution debate, climate change debate, who gets studied, what gets funded.
facts: statistics (and who makes them), places names and borders (gulf of mexico vs america), textbooks (how is the history of slavery thought)
games: censorship rules, didactic games, regulation in games, content and representation of mainstream videogames(evil brown terrorist vs good guy US marine)
art: patronage, "degenerate art", monuments and their legitimacy vs their removal, looted art, protest art
music: folk and protest music
hobbies: cycling (any comment on bikes degenerates to a car vs cycles debate), DIY (right to repair, 3D printing regulation, open source culture)
Right Wing Extremists in Germany are those who argue that citizens aren't really citizens because they are brown and need to be "remigrated" (despite Holding German citizenship, or even "native Germans" with the wrong political views)
They also want to use Military Weapons for this
And those who deny and continuously try to minimize and deny the crimes of the Nazis in WW2.
But somehow those right wing crybabies are also always poor little babies that are just misunderstood and the perpetual victims.
I guess left-wing extremism is okay? Like suppose you are a socialist, a nationalist and a socialist who wants to work for the Bundeswehr... that's perfectly fine then? (joking of course)
That's not very funny, and this reframing of nazis (national socialists) as left-wing because they have "socialist" in their name is an ongoing effort by right-wing populists and extremists.
It is hard to tell from your joke whether you also mean to propagate that narrative.
Socialism is not left wing extremism even from already-right default view in US. Its of course up to definition what that word actually means, but one could roughly say ie current France and Spain are socialist countries.
It normally means strong social & welfare state, massive workers protections and so on. Nordics could be also labeled as such. Economy is not that performant and often utterly lost when some bigger changes happen on markets, with corresponding economical under-performance.
For extremism, look at proper communists or neo-marxists (aka forced mass takeovers of private businesses and any non-small private properties/ownerships by state, bloody revolution & rule by proletariat aka new elites). There is not much economic performance to speak of.
You're not describing socialism but social democracy. While both "socialism" and "social democracy" have the word "social" in them the comparison largely stops there. Neither are current France and Spain socialist countries, let alone the Nordic countries since all these have a (regulated) market economy with a large private sector. Sanchez (Spain's prime minister) is a socialist but that does not make the whole country socialist. Macron is not a socialist, the Nordic countries are governed largely by centre-right to centre-left coalitions.
Socialism is the precursor to communism, the "dictature or the proletariat" where the means of production are "socialised" or, in clearer terms, nationalised and run by the state. The end goal of socialism is communism, the "class-less state" which is supposed to eventually wither away because it is no longer needed because "everyone is a communist". This last stage with the withered-away state has never and shall never be reached because it goes against human nature which means the true end stage of socialism and communism is the large and oppressive state which defends its necessity by constantly pointing at in- and outside forces which are out to topple it.
Socialism and communism can only work at a small scale, small enough so that everyone really knows everyone and there is no need for a "Party" and the related "party elite" to rule. Even at that small scale conflicts arise - "Johnny got twice as much ice cream as I did, NOT FAIR" - but those tend to be easily settled since everyone knows everyone and there is no "elite" which is treated differently from the rest. At a larger scale that elite quickly succumbs to the same human vices which doom feodalism, crony capitalism and similar systems.
I am disheartened and rather flabbergasted by the way this has to be explained time and time (and time) again. Socialism is BAD, m'kay? Social democracy is OK because it doesn't violate basic human principles which make that people put their personal and familial needs over those of the collective. Socialism and communism do violate those principles which means people rules under them need to constantly be kept in check by the state lest they try to take care of their own needs before serving the collective. That in turn necessitates a large state which begets the "party elite" which turns the whole thing into a twisted form of feudalism where the serfs have to pretend it is all for their own good while the masters feast on the spoils of their labour.
France and Spain are most definitely not socialist under the classical definition of socialism.
Socialism is an economic and political system in which the means of production, such as businesses, factories, land, and capital, are owned or controlled by the state, rather than primarily by private individuals and companies.
But it's true that there's been an ongoing political effort to reframe socialism from its original definition to simply meaning a capitalist welfare state with worker protections
for context - Der Spiegel is one of the well respected publications in the region - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel
orig in DE - https://archive.is/kt3Aa
[1]: to name one: https://fgz-risc.de/forschung/inra-studie
Interesting, why is this spam or off topic? This is absolutely an AI topic that needs to be discussed. Not off-topic. Moderation? Hello?
>Last thing I want in the hands of the Verfassungsschutz authorities is more fucking surveillance.
German culture has a long way to go to rid itself of authoritarianism; the surveillance of the state is a symptom, not the cause. German cultural paranoia ends up manifesting the very thing it seeks to resist. I'm sure there are individuals in the Verfassungsshutz who also identify as anti-fascist - its the methods, not the motive.
Sounds scary
I'm aware a lot of people can't do that, because their personality consists of being of a certain ideology and they cannot shut up about it, but it's technically possible to just have a normal-ass presence online without pushing opinions or ideology beyond professional/technical ones.
It's very simple -- this stuff is private. Your political opinions are private. Your social opinions are private. The internet isn't private.
Talk to your friends about that stuff, in person, instead.
Why? What should we talk about instead as members of a polis? About endless consoomerism and other such hedonistic stuff?
all these could be considered political. In my opinion they often are inherently political.
science: evolution debate, climate change debate, who gets studied, what gets funded.
facts: statistics (and who makes them), places names and borders (gulf of mexico vs america), textbooks (how is the history of slavery thought)
games: censorship rules, didactic games, regulation in games, content and representation of mainstream videogames(evil brown terrorist vs good guy US marine)
art: patronage, "degenerate art", monuments and their legitimacy vs their removal, looted art, protest art
music: folk and protest music
hobbies: cycling (any comment on bikes degenerates to a car vs cycles debate), DIY (right to repair, 3D printing regulation, open source culture)
[1] https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/EN...
Right Wing Extremists in Germany are those who argue that citizens aren't really citizens because they are brown and need to be "remigrated" (despite Holding German citizenship, or even "native Germans" with the wrong political views)
They also want to use Military Weapons for this
And those who deny and continuously try to minimize and deny the crimes of the Nazis in WW2.
But somehow those right wing crybabies are also always poor little babies that are just misunderstood and the perpetual victims.
It is hard to tell from your joke whether you also mean to propagate that narrative.
It normally means strong social & welfare state, massive workers protections and so on. Nordics could be also labeled as such. Economy is not that performant and often utterly lost when some bigger changes happen on markets, with corresponding economical under-performance.
For extremism, look at proper communists or neo-marxists (aka forced mass takeovers of private businesses and any non-small private properties/ownerships by state, bloody revolution & rule by proletariat aka new elites). There is not much economic performance to speak of.
Socialism is the precursor to communism, the "dictature or the proletariat" where the means of production are "socialised" or, in clearer terms, nationalised and run by the state. The end goal of socialism is communism, the "class-less state" which is supposed to eventually wither away because it is no longer needed because "everyone is a communist". This last stage with the withered-away state has never and shall never be reached because it goes against human nature which means the true end stage of socialism and communism is the large and oppressive state which defends its necessity by constantly pointing at in- and outside forces which are out to topple it.
Socialism and communism can only work at a small scale, small enough so that everyone really knows everyone and there is no need for a "Party" and the related "party elite" to rule. Even at that small scale conflicts arise - "Johnny got twice as much ice cream as I did, NOT FAIR" - but those tend to be easily settled since everyone knows everyone and there is no "elite" which is treated differently from the rest. At a larger scale that elite quickly succumbs to the same human vices which doom feodalism, crony capitalism and similar systems.
I am disheartened and rather flabbergasted by the way this has to be explained time and time (and time) again. Socialism is BAD, m'kay? Social democracy is OK because it doesn't violate basic human principles which make that people put their personal and familial needs over those of the collective. Socialism and communism do violate those principles which means people rules under them need to constantly be kept in check by the state lest they try to take care of their own needs before serving the collective. That in turn necessitates a large state which begets the "party elite" which turns the whole thing into a twisted form of feudalism where the serfs have to pretend it is all for their own good while the masters feast on the spoils of their labour.
Socialism is an economic and political system in which the means of production, such as businesses, factories, land, and capital, are owned or controlled by the state, rather than primarily by private individuals and companies.
But it's true that there's been an ongoing political effort to reframe socialism from its original definition to simply meaning a capitalist welfare state with worker protections