randomly choosing a random outgroup to collectively hate must be ironically funny sometimes(see: jokes about the fr*nch) Genuinely there is no other reason. sometimes people will create justifications/other explanations for it but really its just absurdist humor with a pinch of tribalism. edit: i should add though, usually this type of humor is meant to be ironic by most of its participants. the more i think about it, the more it seems this is more rude than funny.
Decentralize the shit out of this, please. Make sure their tech-heads know that the document itself is unkillable. It’ll always pop up somewhere else.
Ive mentioned in another comment that daily dumps of the wiki could be taken, making it relatively easy for anyone to just download the wiki's content and set it up on their own, but past that I would not know what to do. Mediawiki was not designed to be ran decentralized. It could maybe be ran federated, but I do not have the programming experience required to do that, and as far as I've seen it has not been done before.
> How do you get enough “reporters” to write the pages? Advertising on Lemmy and across the internet would be great, and additionally I might be able to contact the owners of the r/50501 subreddit to put something up.
> What does your vision of a topic look like? I dont feel I understand this question well, but my understanding of it is that it is asking for my vision of what coverage of certain topics will look like (If I'm wrong, feel free to elaborate) I think this from another comment is a pretty good explanation:
"One category could act encyclopedia/news-like, attempting to simply restate facts from an unbiased perspective(You might have one article that explains everything the current admin has done in relation to our nuclear arsenal, for example), whilst another category could act more like Wikipedia:Essays and essays/guides enjoyed/used by the community might be promoted to a third category of high quality guides and essays."
> How do you see this having an impact on these incidents?
In the past few weeks, a lot of whats happened has been expected. I expected the administration to go after free press, I expected the administration to go after trans people, I expected the administration to lay off thousands of workers and replace them with loyalists. These were all things I expected. It was the ways they happened, the speed by which they happened, and the unexpected(e.g; musk nazi salute) that really damaged my mental health and kept me paralyzed. I was overwhelmed from all the news coming from so many different angles, I couldn't actually think about what to do about it, I couldn't resist, and I could not even do preemptive work to protect myself from the future.
It is my belief that if past actions are calmly laid out together combined with planned future actions and analysis of rhetoric, resistors and potential victims(i.e everyone) of fascism can not only mentally prepare for the next steps of fascism, but can come up with new ideas for action against fascism, and can execute these ideas with themselves and their communities. This potentially combined with guides for what can be done to resist or be safe against fascism would absolutely be helpful imo.
> It would not be hard to set up, but I think spreading the word, then maintaining it (if it becomes a target) could be a huge amount of overhead. I like the concept, I’m just wondering if there is a lower threshold way to make this happen. (Different platform, lowering the scope, etc.)
Oh. absolutely. The more I look at this, the bigger of a project it seems. If the wiki were to large (or be a target as a result of being large) then by then I would have already amounted enough contributors to help with writing articles as well as administrating the wiki for the load on me to not be too unbearable. I see issues with starting the wiki, or keeping the wiki going if it turns out there are very little contributors. I'm thinking of lowering the scope, growing a decent stable community, then expanding the scope later when things show themselves to be mostly stable.
This post is mostly intended on gauging interest to see how many might contribute if I were to heavily advertise it as well as to see what people would find useful in such a wiki. If it turns out very little are interested, or very little say they would find it useful, then I will drop the idea.
I guess the biggest problem I see is that some content may be commentary or opinionated, and you’d probably want to enforce what opinions are acceptable
I can totally see this being a problem, and the way I see of fixing this is by creating different categories of articles. One category could act encyclopedia/news-like, attempting to simply restate facts from an unbiased perspective(You might have one article that explains everything the current admin has done in relation to our nuclear arsenal, for example), whilst another category could act more like Wikipedia:Essays and essays/guides enjoyed/used by the community might be promoted to a third category of high quality guides and essays.
I think it may be hard to nail-down the scope of the project, and stuff like what are acceptable forms of resistance to write about.
I see this as a problem, much more then the first problem of yours I covered. I personally do not outsource my moral systems to laws or believe that because something is illegal it is always bad, but I also do not know if I would like to cover direct action. I think that if(when) fascism gets worse, direct action will begin to become necessary(if it is not already) so I am leaning on allowing the coverage of direct action, just not the more illegal-to-cover forms of it until fascism gets worse/the wiki is more secure.
What can you do as an individual? not much. A community? Now we're talking.
Find people to fight fascism with.
Thanks for the suggestion... NSA?
I view "guys" and "dudes" as gender neutral but when its directed towards me i start feeling like shit
I don't think this speaks to how pathetic Americans are, but instead to how much the rich have us under their thumb.
We need to start working against atomization if we want things to get better, and I think this is/was a really good way to bring people together. Talk to the uninformed people in your life, be the healthy opposition to their beliefs that many people dont have. Make them understand who their real enemies are.
It is in the upper classes best interest that we close ourselves off, entering echochambers as we talk about how evil it is for someone to disagree with our own beliefs.
I would be skeptical of this, I haven't been able to find a source for it and most of its seems written in a way that creates the strongest emotional reaction in laypeople who don't know much about health insurance or chemo (e.g: me)
Bigots and Nazis arent Elementary School Bullies. These far-right lunatics are driven by a want to eradicate a minority from society, not a want for attention. You can't just choose to not give racists attention hoping that they will become less racist.
Ignore them, give them what they want and they will ask you for more. They will gladly compromise with you... before immediately moving the goalposts.
smh fake internet leftists