Tumgik
#prevent radicalization
terrorismvictimsday · 1 month
Text
Building resilience of communities to prevent radicalization to terrorism.
Member States have the primary responsibility for countering terrorist acts, including in building resilience of communities against radicalization to terrorism. The Security Council recognizes that acts of terrorism are most effectively prevented and countered through a comprehensive approach that includes actors from all sectors of society.
The objective of the open meeting is to convene a broad range of experts to discuss experiences, identify the latest trends, and share best practices on building community resilience to prevent and counter radicalization to terrorism. The open meeting will also provide an opportunity to strengthen collaboration with all relevant United Nations bodies and stakeholders in line with Council resolution 2617 (2021).
In addition, the open meeting will help to foster understanding of the issues and challenges posed by the use of use of new and emerging technologies, including AI, for terrorist purposes, as well as explore ways to build resilience to terrorism through the use of these technologies.
Watch the Open meeting of the Counter-Terrorism Committee - Building resilience of communities to prevent radicalization to terrorism.
Tumblr media
0 notes
destielmemenews · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
source 1
361 notes · View notes
yugiohz · 7 months
Text
i also think it's ooc for all might to keep a neutral stance when it comes to endeavor it doesn't make sense but then again it absolutely does make sense for one supercop to pretend he doesn't see another supercop be a domestic abuser
49 notes · View notes
aleksanderscult · 8 days
Note
What is this comparison? Of course a centuries old dude is going to be more detached from his humanity than teenagers? I don't even mind people calling him evil or whatever but what is this argument 'he is older than them, he should be softer than them' bro it's the opposite. If Nikolai or Alina live on for centuries they would also be crueler.
According to these kind of people, you need to be pure and kind all the time otherwise you're not worthy of sympathy (+ the narrative also needs to excuse your actions so that the readers can feel better about defending you to others *side eyeing Nikolai and Kaz*).
*sigh* I wish you were right about him, antis. Really. Instead we have a traumatized man that created a home for his fellow Grisha, is unable to control his feelings after he met Alina, usurped a rapist and willingly goes through excruciating pain to create soldiers that will minimize the casualties of his army.
(and after he got resurrected he still thought about his people and about what would happen with the upcoming war against Fjerda)
16 notes · View notes
queerism1969 · 2 years
Text
Your safety is more important than someone else’s feelings. If you ever get a bad vibe from someone, do what you can to distance yourself from them. It’s better to be wrong than to be a victim.
247 notes · View notes
Text
this article starts by talking about how the Black Brute is a way of manufacturing consent for racial apartheid in the american south. rape, especially mass rapes or lurid claims about particularly gruesome rape, are mainstays of atrocity propaganda used to manufacture consent for indiscriminate violence, invasion, and most importantly, ongoing brutality as apart of an oppressive regime. tuskegee institute investigations on lynching say that around 25% of lynchings were said to be done as punishment for rape or attempted rape. but we have strong reason to believe that number is falsely inflated. for atrocity propaganda, there need be no victim. it is largely fueled by second and third hand accounts or outright, conscious lies.
but then, the article conflates exceptional incidents - like white people making up black perpetrators to cover up their own commission of a crime - with endemic racial propaganda used to manufacture consent for racist regimes, putting the cart before the horse. it gives three examples: charles stuart, a man who claims a black man ambushed he and his pregnant wife, shot his wife in the head and raped her, and then attacked charles (but left him alive); susan smith, a young mother who claimed a black man carjacked her and in the process kidnapped her two sons; and mabel hallam, a white woman who in 1908 claimed a black man had raped her, to cover up an extramarital affair. charles stuart had actually shot his wife for insurance money and susan smith later admitted to drowning her own sons. in all three of these cases, the accusation of black criminality resulted in consequences for individual innocent black people and the black community at large. they also negatively affected the way individual white people responded to and treated individual black people in their community. but these are deviant behaviors. focus on what are extraordinary situations do a disservice to our understanding of how racial violence, or sexual violence, operates in the overall scheme of oppression.
the article compares these cases to the use of willie horton, a man who committed violent crimes while on furlough during his life sentence (without the possibility of parole) for murder, in george h.w. bush's campaign for president. bush used willie horton in campaign ads to smear his opponent as "soft on crime," yes. but more importantly, bush (and the republican party) invoked the idea of a black predator to manufacture consent for destructive "tough on crime" policies that eroded the rights of the accused and the incarcerated, including many that resulted in the dehumanization of people behind bars for years to come and that would contribute to the crisis of deaths in county jails we experience today. that is not an individual act of deviancy, that's an example of the kind of propaganda endemic to a racial capitalist carceral state, that propaganda which informs the decision of people like stuart, smith, and hallam to do what they did. not the other way around.
that is also why atrocity propaganda, whether during wartime, under apartheid, under colonialism, or racial authoritarianism, also trafficks in extremes. see this description of such propaganda used by both sides during the first world war:
Tumblr media
while white people who do create imaginary black predators to evade punishment for a crime or wrongdoing they've committed deserve condemnation, someone who murders their pregnant wife or their young children is already going to be condemned. in 1908, even a woman who has committed infidelity will be punished for her actions. but racism - nor sexism, nor colonialism, nor apartheid, nor the war machine - is not defined by the particularly exceptional acts of a minority of people. what defines these is the mundane, what evades our attention because it is woven into the fabric of society. racial narratives, like those about women or gay people or other oppressed groups, are created from the top down. they do not have grassroots origins. for propaganda to be effective it has to prey on real, and realistic, fears. it will not abandon the realm of reality; it often is concerned with that those things that do happen. men, regardless of race, rape women. in war, civilians are often killed and children are not spared. people do rob other people, often while armed, and robberies can become violent to the point of murder. there have been a number of carjackings in which children have been in the vehicle (one just happened in houston a few weeks ago!). but propaganda distorts reality for the purpose of dehumanization of the enemy (black people, hamas, the german empire, imperial japan, saddam hussein's iraq, etc); the point is for you, the target, to endorse - implicitly or explicitly - violence you otherwise would not. many white southerners thought lynching was brutal, but necessary. the invasion of iraq was brutal, but necessary. dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was brutal, but necessary. and so on. it is far more insidious than an individual using racist stereotypes to cover up a crime.
*i also want to say that rape accusations for the purpose of lynching should not be treated as though they are rape accusations like we understand them. it is true that women's rights have been used to manufacture consent in modern contexts, but that's not what they were doing. rape accusations were about the maintenance of "racial purity." rape, though an everyday part of life under the regime of male supremacy for white and black women alike (and all women under patriarchy) was often characterized as a uniquely savage behavior (operating under the cheney rule, of course: "we aren't savages, so if we do it, it's not rape"), especially when done to respectable women. so, white, married with children, virginal, middle or upper class, etc. the racial patriarchal regime in the american south also heavily policed white women's sexuality, as they were seen as the preservers of racial purity (this was also given as justification for the denial of white women's bodily autonomy, and still is!) (this is also not exclusive to white people). while white men were allowed so-called dalliances (often, actually, rape) with black women and to father mixed race children, white women were not allowed to even speak casually to black men outside of a rigid social script and in limited situations. surely, some lynchings involved the false claim of a specific white woman, but we have more reason to believe that the majority of claims of rape used to justify lynchings were entirely fabricated or regarded scenarios that could not reasonably be described as rape or attempted rape (including those involving consensual relationships in which both parties denied rape was taking place). some claims could also be retroactively associated with rape after particularly brutal lynchings and in the wake of anti-lynching backlash, which was happening all this time.
23 notes · View notes
torgawl · 8 months
Text
i'm so in love with wrio. that man is the embodiment of mercy and compassion. he is so... human. despite the deep disdain for atrocious acts that hurt others, especially acts that remind him of his own pain and traumas, he is able to keep himself in check and hold on to his values. despite being so proactive in fixing the wrongdoings of people that actively harm those under his care and assuring that everyone is supported in the best way possible; despite knowing he could have not controlled other people's hearts once they were in too deep in their own sins, he still feels helpless and incompetent. he recognises he cannot fully empathise with those who have been hurt for he has not experienced what they have and he understands that some wounds might not be able to heal even with all the attention and efforts, or at least not that easily. and it pains him. his whole life he's been trying to protect others. all his hard work during his time at the fortress and taking over it's administration has granted him the power and resources to actually change lives in a more restorative way, with a bigger amplitude than just the people who he's close to. yet he's only human. and not everyone wishes to be saved. and he doesn't hold back from breaking his own rules if means he is guaranteeing the best outcome for the greater good, for the well being of all of those he's sworn to protect. and although he earned himself a respectable title and even got used to being referred to in that way, he doesn't see people at the fortress as innmates but as equals. he never stopped being the little boy that was sentenced to live over a decade of his life there. and he is so good at what he does and he is so successful at restoring people's hopes in life, at giving them a second chance to become who they want to be, that there's people who actually want to stay there. he is the literal personification of turning your own pain into goodness, into love. love for community and love for others. he found meaning in making the world a better place and i just think that's really fucking beautiful.
24 notes · View notes
jennifersbod · 2 months
Text
i don’t have the gene mutation i was really scared of! 🥰
12 notes · View notes
tostonera · 1 year
Text
This is obvious but just in case, women should always always trust their gut when it comes to men. I don’t care if he’s your family or someone you completely trust, even if the gut feeling is so small you have to speak up or at least keep an eye out. Similarly if a woman came up to you because of her gut feeling and you weren’t entirely convinced, be sure to let her know when she was right. I don’t care if it happened years ago, she deserves to have that extra reassurance that she can trust herself and that her gut feeling was right. I take this very seriously and it’s very important because sometimes simply just listening to yourself is what ends up protecting you, don’t take that away from other women.
48 notes · View notes
automatisma · 4 months
Text
Yesterday a friend of mine was working at a liberalism conference and within the first ten minutes of it (titled "Are we... too many for this world 🥺?") he indeed concluded that we are at least one conference of liberals too many.
6 notes · View notes
chillwithnea · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
☁️ http://instagram.com/gardenofnea ☁️
measuring our worth on numbers, productivity and physical appearance is a wonderful game that some of us are playing, isn't it? 😛
your desires, hopes and dreams are already alive within you. action flows from your state/energy/being. i'm writing this bc i'm fed up with trying, seeking, and forcing. let's practice together and see what will happen 🌊
11 notes · View notes
hard--headed--woman · 10 months
Text
gay men be like what? are you joking. i do not have male privilege nor do i suport the patriarchy. what the hell are you saying you dumb fucking cunt. i hope you get raped like you deserve you whore
15 notes · View notes
plinkcat-gif · 5 months
Text
this textbook for my illustration class is funny as hell. not sure if this was the point but i am actually never going to fucking touch the illustration industry if this is what it’s like
3 notes · View notes
whetstonefires · 2 years
Note
i saw your reblog of lesbianincelsnape’s post, i really want to hear your thoughts on how dumbledore and snape are similar
Oh! Sure, why not. 😂 I'll do my best.
So the position I'm adopting here is basically that Dumbledore is secretly a lot like Snape.
Specifically, the person Snape was, at that crucial juncture in his life when Dumbledore stepped up as his patron, reminded Dumbledore so much of himself at the parallel point in his own life it was like getting punched in the stomach every time he looked at him.
(I've also said elsewhere I think he was probably jealous that Voldemort and Lily were separate people. Like!)
The extremely vital point in Albus Dumbledore's backstory that gets neglected an astonishing amount is: his father went to Azkaban for anti-muggle hate crimes, and never came out.
But it wasn't really a hate crime. It was an honor killing, or vigilante justice. It was revenge for an assault on his daughter that could not be prosecuted thanks to the Statute of Secrecy.
The Dumbledore family was destroyed by 1) muggles and 2) the government. And then their mom died.
And that's where Grindelwald found him. Recently out of school and recently orphaned, brilliant and isolated and embittered, all his lauded potential being squandered on having to stay home and care indefinitely for his disabled sister. And knowing exactly who to blame. This is an alienated youth.
Aberforth was 100% correct to come over all 'what the fuck Rousseau you're just going off with this asshole to chase your weird dreams and leaving us?' although dueling about it was obviously foolish, but it's not surprising Albus could be radicalized at that point, even without factoring in the crush.
It wouldn't be really surprising, just disappointing, if Grindelwald had led with much more blatantly evil rhetoric than 'we will tear down this broken system with all its hideous injustices and erect a new one where we will personally ensure justice and rule over the muggles for their own good' and still gotten him.
But regardless. First he was that brilliant, embittered, horribly lonely young englishman signing himself away on a charismatic figure's fascist agenda. And then he was the slightly older, broken young man whose selfish choices had killed a young woman he loved, but had failed to care for properly.
Dumbledore despised the first one but he respects the sentiment of remorse enough to be able to sympathize with the second. He's built his whole identity from that point in his own life.
Which gets him right in that weird mental spot he's clearly got, where he wants to believe in redemption more than anything but also believes people can never really change. And that he, for example, can't be trusted to attempt major reforms to society or government considering the circumstances of his original resolution to unfuck the system.
So although Snape doesn't know it they've got this super complicated relationship where Dumbedore identifies with him a lot, and alternately cuts him inappropriate amounts of slack and is Very Weird And Passive-Aggressive With Him because of it.
What's most interesting here is that while he did usher the guy into the life choice that had ultimately allowed him to feel like he was doing something meaningful without grasping too outrageously at power (without any apparent understanding of the differences of context and psychology that stopped teaching from being fulfilling for Snape in the same way, or of the ways this could be bad for students) Dumbledore did not seriously pressure Snape to adopt his specific coping mechanisms.
Is this because he understood that this would be inappropriate and unhelpful, or more broadly unethical, or because he lacked the introspective awareness to realize that he had e.g. spent the last 70 years in a weird internal war with his 20-year-old self? Who can say.
Interesting that the result was that Snape just stayed that exact person for the rest of his life though.
55 notes · View notes
lem0nademouth · 7 months
Text
“how did they not know they were talking to nazis!!!”
y’all. that’s the point. i promise you wouldn’t know either. in fact, many of you talk to nazis regularly and willfully ignore very obvious signs that they are nazis.
someone who has never met a Jewish person or knows nothing about the history of Zionism or Israel or the Diaspora (so, most goyim) probably thinks they are doing the right thing when they are told that they are attending a march against genocide. they (understandably) will not question the potential bigotry they might encounter espoused by people at that event, and they certainly won’t have the instinct to be on the lookout for fascists. and when well meaning but still uneducated people mingle with malicious bigots, they become targets for recruitment. thats. the. whole. point.
this is why i am BEGGING the goyische left to examine the role they play in the rise of radical antisemitism. nazis know they can find people who are primed to believe anything so long as it is framed as being morally correct or justified in far left spaces. and then all they have to do is 1. frame Jewish people as the morally corrupt opposition, and 2. make hating Jewish people sound like the morally superior opinion. extremism is extremism is extremism in every direction and it uses the exact same tactics every time.
so if you find yourself saying something that sounds a hell of a lot like far right rhetoric with some key words swapped out, think about it. propaganda is still propaganda, no matter who says it.
3 notes · View notes
frankbelloriley · 1 year
Text
Suffocating to death in a locked tube lost at sea is an awful nightmare, and then you find out that they all paid 250K for the opportunity to be locked in a tube, and you realize “okay, this is a fate that no ordinary person should be worried about happening to them,” and then you find a news clip from a couple years ago where the guy is piloting the sub with a Logitech Playstation 3 controller and think, “shouldn’t one of those superrich guys seen that and said, ‘you know what, I’m rich enough to eat the 250K, I’m not going in that thing” especially after signing the “we’re not responsible if you die” waiver, and then you find out the company responsible was sued by a former employee who pointed out all the safety issues that might result in something like this happening because it was cheaper to fire him instead of actually addressing all the problems he pointed out and the event becomes closer to tragedy, and then you find out one of the five passengers aboard is the CEO of the Honda Odyssey Death Tube Company whose last thoughts will be knowing what went wrong is exactly what he was told would go wrong and chose to do nothing about it and he’s going to die with four of his victims, and you realize it’s the speediest of Bioshock speedruns.
6 notes · View notes