The data covers the work of organisations HazteOir and CitizenGO, comprising documents which date from 2001 to 2017 like spreadsheets of donors and members, strategy and planning documents, letters, financial charts and legal and training documents. HazteOir was first founded in 2001 in Spain to campaign for right wing values, in 2013 it founded CitizenGO to spread its work beyond Spanish speaking countries.
Here is the link: https://wikileaks.org/intolerancenetwork
Removed by mod
Today, 5th August 2021, WikiLeaks publishes “The Intolerance Network”
104 week old news is still news I guess.
So has WikiLeaks decided there is evil on both sides which needs to be exposed? Well that’s new.
Removed by mod
Because in most of the world conservative values have become “what’s best for me,” and progressive values have become “what’s best for us”
And that “they’re all the same” argument doesn’t really work well. Sure, at the base they’re the same because they preach values, but at least in the US only one side was trying real hard to undo medical protection for issues like abortion and banning books that they don’t want to have to explain to their kids.
Because in most of the world conservative values have become “what’s best for me,” and progressive values have become “what’s best for us”
What’s best is subjective. Initiatives against coal, guns, religion, cars, etc… aren’t what’s best for Conservates.
Liberals asserting their values are what’s best for everyone doesn’t make it so.
Is it subjective if data tends to say otherwise and it still gets ignored?
Also, I’m not saying liberal ideals are best for all, however they tend to take into consideration other groups that those rules would effect. And no, I’m not saying that’s true all the time either.
My point again is I’m only seeing one group actively fight against medical protections, banning books, and ignoring science in the name of corporate value.
Is it subjective if data tends to say otherwise and it still gets ignored?
Yes. Because you can argue things like reduced guns will lead to reduced deaths, and therefore it’s an objective good, but that relies on neglecting things like cultural ties.
The stupid thing is the second you start talking about gun bans effecting Native hunting culture suddenly there’s respect and understanding.
Sorry I’m not really explaining myself well but I gotta get back to work.
Yes but if the data also shows that a more thorough background check before allowing a person to purchase a gun results in lower deaths, shouldn’t that be considered too?
Data adds to support your argument. It doesn’t make the argument. It’s too easy to cherry pick information as you’ve shown.
Out of curiosity, how is the argument to ban guns different from the argument to ban access to fetal abortion practices?
The ban on guns is heralded as the beginning of the end if passed, but abortions seem to be the same unless they’re explicitly banned.
The deal is that they’ve got this data about a network of right-wing campaigning organizations, and so they’re publishing it.
Go ahead and gather 17,000 documents from left-wing campaigning organizations, you can publish those too.
gather 17,000 documents from left-wing campaigning organizations, you can publish those too
Yes, and in case you’re not a media organization you could just leak the documents to them :-)
The deal here simply is that they released documents about right-wing organizations for all others to see and investigate.
And, yes, left wingers and a lot of others do exactly the same thing.
deleted by creator
“Intolerance network” is such a good descriptor in this case.
