- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Burbok
Analene Baerbock
Analena Burbok
Berbok
Kaja Kalas
Roderick Kiesewetter
Wtf. They managed to mispell Annalena Baerbock four different ways, and they also mangled Kaja Kallas and Roderich Kiesewetter. They had no issue spelling Bundestag or Bundeswehr however. Do they hate all these people or did the writer lose a bet of some sort?
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.
Lol
This can kill; I know someone who died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to a clogged exhaust. It ventilates away if the vehicle is in motion but they were idling.
That’s actually quite good promotion for me: If russia goes to this lenghts to depress support for the greens, they are doing something right. If Putin doesn’t want them to be in power, I very well would like to have them there
Of course, but that’s because you know it was the russians. The average voter might think the Greens and/or their voters are dumb/assholes, that “Russia did it” is just an excuse, and therefore shouldn’t vote them
Right-wing tabloid Bild picked up the story in December when the Russian connection wasn’t known. So yeah.
Too bad you can’t do this to cyber trucks.
They would not get a Straßenzulassung or operation permit in Germany anyway for safety reasons.
The damaged vehicles often had stickers with the image of the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, as well as the slogan “Be greener!”. That’s why investigators initially assumed that climate activists or Greens supporters were behind the foam attacks.
I don’t get why they would assume the attackers were Greens supporters when it was cars with stickers supporting the Greens that were being damaged?
edit: Yes, the phrasing of the quote I included in this post did give me the idea that they were targeting cars that already had bumper stickers supporting the Green candidate.
The saboteurs also put those stickers there.
It’s translated as be greener which can be seen as an endorsement but the way it’s written in the original german is rather accusatory. The stickers are also ugly and have a smug image of the green candidate.
Thanks
Is this a genuine question?
I assume the people who damaged the vehicles were also the ones who put the stickers on the car, or atleast that’s what the investigators assumed.
don’t get why they would assume the attackers were Greens supporters
You are assuming that Fascists are thinking. Their Alternative Media will do anything to frame the greens as bad.
As I said once already: You dont save a rotten plant by watering it. The same way you don’t save a fascist with facts and Logic. They only listen to guillotines, fire throwers and a machine gun beside a wall.
The stickers were placed by the attackers.
I too was confused by the phrasing of the article.
Thanks for idea!
Great idea for revenge on those that drive reckless in your neighborhood. I need to start following those drivers in my hood who go 60 in a 30
I think sugar in the gas tank is more effective and easier
Most vehicles now have locking fuel covers, don’t they?
Check the Tyre Extinguishers
Can they come and do it around here to all the cars with twatty exhausts?
If you plug a loud muffler with foam they will just cut it off and run open pipes.
Good. Easier for the next lot of foam to get to the engine.
Removed by mod
The idea of hurting the Green Party in the elections as well as depressing support for environmentalism in general appeals to you, does it?
Pretty interesting.
If that’s the interpretation you walk away with, you may be beyond repair.
Spray foam is cheap. Dirt cheap. The idea that it can be used in interesting ways; I’ll take it.
Honestly looking at Russian espionage and interference techniques seems like a good starting point for any citizens who want to oppose their government’s actions. Anti-Trump Americans might want to take notes.
For just $4.99, you can have a tool that can functionally disable any number of things:
They literally found the people who did it, and found the trail of evidence that led to the Russians, and the explanation for why they didn’t want the Greens in power.
I think what they’re saying is “I may not agree with why they did it where they did, but I can imagine reasons and places where the tactic would be a good thing.”
idk, I can’t think of any use apart from “giving enviromentalists a bad image”, except for it being a minor inconvenience. Salt in the fuel is way more inconvenient :)
Nobody said you have to pin it on environmentalists.
No, but there aren’t many people that could serve as scapegoats for messing with combustion cars as easily as them
Why would a tactic that’s deliberately designed by successful professionals to depress support for environmental causes, for pretty obvious reasons if you take a look at it, be a good thing to employ?
The tactic disables vehicles. If a vehicle needs to be disabled, and expanding foam is handy, Bob’s your uncle.
No it doesn’t. This tactic disables vehicles for a few minutes, until someone fixes it, and is likely to produce a permanent opposition in the person whose vehicle was minorly vandalized to anything activist or environmental.
Green Party people getting elected, and then enacting policies which curb emissions or reduce dependence on ICE vehicles, disables vehicles.
Of course, if you were talking about some other kind of activism which is designed to more permanently disable certain vehicle for certain specific reasons, there are a lot more semi-permanent ways of doing it than this. This is tailor-made to be useless and annoying, which is why the Russians liked it so much, and made sure to leave a card by the Greens taking credit for it.
Removed by mod
I’m truly fascinated to find someone out here saying, “Nothing to see here! Please disperse.”
I had interpreted the same way as them too lmao
Removed by mod
What a load of crap.
The Greens are under attack from every other party like no other, and are polling very stable.
You should also know that the person you’re talking to was talking up the Greens in the US, saying that it makes perfect sense for people to support them instead of Democrats and saying we needed to reform things to try to get them in power, back when that was the electoral message that would produce a particular impact on the electorate. It’s only in Europe that they have nothing good to say about the Greens. They also contrasted Trump’s environmental policies favorably to Biden’s, who they said was causing all kinds of environmental problems.
https://ponder.cat/comment/332122
For all I know that user may indeed be sus, but not because of those comments, which don’t say what you claim they say:
-
The first comment wasn’t “talking up the Greens;” it was accusing the Democratic Party of disregarding leftists. It did not say that people should not vote for Harris; it only explained why they might make that choice. Furthermore, it cast that schism between leftists and Democrats as a bad thing that would lead to disaster, which is the opposite of advocating for it. Especially in retrospect, his criticism of the Democrats was correct, and so was his prediction that Harris would move further right and then lose.
-
The second comment did not say that Trump’s environmental policies were better than Biden’s; it said that the pandemic was a good example of degrowth. At most it was a fatalistic “the outcomes under Trump will be better for the climate because he’ll fuck everything up so bad that the whole economy will grind to a halt” sort of argument.
-
In the third comment, he was arguing against protest-voting for third-party candidates under our current first-past-the-post voting system.
Frankly, I think @federalreverse@feddit.org acted hastily and should double-check your “research.”
You’re right in that the comments weren’t talking up the US Greens specifically and I did act a little hastily. However, I did also look at the things they post, they are pushing very different narratives in quick succession and they’re trolling a lot, especially in comments. This is a selection of just posts:
- anti-Kennedy Jr: https://lemmy.world/post/24958175
- implicitly pro-third party meme (post-election!): https://lemmy.world/post/21714462
- election manipulation meme (pre-election): https://lemmy.world/post/21402404
- Harris low-key demotivation copypasta: https://lemmy.world/post/20997757
- “Gay guy” third party (likely just humor with no real kernel of truth): https://lemmy.world/post/20259569
- weird pro-Trump article (maybe posted ironically): https://lemmy.world/post/17554165
- pro-Biden Pepe (probably an edited Republican meme): https://lemmy.world/post/17050406
- unmarked anti-Republican AI image: https://lemmy.world/post/16449278
Both the election manipulation and the AI flag-truck meme I find rather irresponsible, especially when posted without comment. Similar for the pro-Trump article which in my eyes really needs commentary.
However, their comments don’t follow a single pattern, they are apparently not always trolling, and they do consistently say they’re from Texas.
Anyway, unbanning, I guess. Thanks to you too.
Don’t get me wrong: for all I know, maybe a ban is justified. I just didn’t think those particular comments previously cited were enough to do it, and I’m glad you investigated further.
What I said was:
- “the person you’re talking to was talking up the Greens in the US” - Third link, “it might be nice if we had real proportional representation - party ballots and larger congressional delegations - such that voting for a Green or Libertarian or Reform party ballot means you might actually be sending someone who shares your views to the assembly”. There was none of this concern trolling about “The Green Party has been doing far too good a job of sabotaging itself … Lay voters are not going to be inspired to vote for your bloc on the grounds that Russia is being very mean and unfair to you.”
- “saying that it makes perfect sense for people to support them instead of Democrats” - Same citation as previous point
- “saying we needed to reform things to try to get them in power” - Third link. That was the point about proportional representation. There was none of this “too good a job of sabotaging itself”. It was just well-intentioned attempts at reform to help them to get into office, instead of kicking them when they’re down for failing to get into office. And then, in the Europe, it’s reversed, where the Greens are the ones who get kicked if they’re doing a bad “job” getting into office, instead of that meaning they need help because they’ll do good things if they get in.
- “They also contrasted Trump’s environmental policies favorably to Biden’s” - Second link. Yes, they described Trump’s plan as “degrowth,” and raised specific misleading criticisms about Biden’s IRA, which had had plenty of time to come into effect and start dropping emissions by the time they wrote that. Now that we have Trump’s actual policy changes to compare that claim to, claiming he’ll do degrowth looks even more fucking ridiculous than it did before, as long as you’re not trying to give him credit for Covid degrowth. Do you want citations? I can probably give you ten for absolutely tectonic climate fuck-ups he’s been trying to make happen in the last month. He’s already been firing crucial climate scientists. No one at Exxon is getting degrowthed.
- “who they said was causing all kinds of environmental problems” - Second link. They blamed Biden for the fact that extraction is still rising as it always is, which I guess is fair if incomplete, and then turned around and airily dismissed the IRA as nothing of consequence. The IRA was the single biggest action any American president has ever taken on the climate, by almost a factor of 10, and it’s already reduced emissions. Of course, now that Trump is running around cancelling pieces of it left and right, its future impact is heavily in doubt. Thanks.
I think that’s every piece of my statement, and where it is supported in the links I gave. Your summaries are also wrong in places, I think, but mainly I want to focus on where every piece of what I said is backed up somewhere in the citations I gave, instead of getting into an extended tit-for-tat.
-
Talking them up in the US makes perfect sense if you are a Russian bot, because it steals voters from Democrats and makes it more likely for the GQP to win
deleted by creator
They literally found the specific people who did it, and found the trail of evidence that led to the Russians, and the explanation for why the Russians didn’t want the Greens in power.
It’s also fascinating to me that the Russians are for people voting for Greens, in places where they can’t gain power, and against it in places where they might actually come to power and enact some of these extremely-sensible policies that are on their web site.
They literally found the specific people who did it, and found the trail of evidence that led to the Russians, and the explanation for why the Russians didn’t want the Greens in power.
Yeah, I have as much trust of the German government as I do the Russian government. The idea that someone working in the GRU or whatever is trying to do regime change by texting people asking them to spray foam in people’s exhaust pipes is absurd. If I believed they actually did this, I would not be able to take the Russian CIA seriously.
If you like this idea, you might like the idea of putting salt on fuel (if you manage to get to the fuel tank); it makes the fuel filter fill qickly and choke, so no fuel passes to the engine, and it’s way harder to solve than some cheap foam on the exhaust.
I support climate direct action, even if Russians are doing it
This isn’t helping stop oil or achieve climate action, this is precisely to keep the people who wanna stop oil and take climate action out of goverment lmao
That’s a shit take. This is a false flag operation to discredit the climate activists scene and not some sort of environmentalism.
Anything to stop oil is helping us
But this is not helping to stop oil, this is helping those who try to stop people from stopping oil.
