6 ms·

[flagged]

by tiahura 11mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jrjeksjd8d 11mo ago
She was a child who resisted the fascist Franco regime and was subjected to torture. Is that better for you?
delichon 11mo ago
I can only hope I would have done the same in Franco's dictatorship. But I'd have expected prison rather than a convent.
- mothballed 11mo ago
  Parents don't want their kids executed or sentenced to life in prison because they ended up burning people to death. And there is no way to ensure arson only burns fascists. They were probably desperately looking for a way to save her from that. Can't say I'd have done the same choice, but it makes it more understandable.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- graemep 11mo ago
  Its not that simple. I do not know about Franco's Spain, but violent rebellion does not usually make things better. Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another.
  - impossiblefork 11mo ago
    Even when it's gone really badly, like the Russian revolution, the revolution was a huge improvement. 80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      I would not characterize the Russian revolution as 'better.' Under the czar successful farming resulted in high taxes. Under the communists, successful farming made you a kulak, you died / starved to death, and then everyone else did too.
      - impossiblefork 11mo ago
        Under the Tsar's total system 80% of the population were illiterate. Keeping normal people illiterate requires immense oppression. With the revolution Russia became much closer to a normal country.
    - HeinzStuckeIt 11mo ago
      The Russian Revolution you are probably thinking of is the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks. But the tsar had already been overthrown by the February Revolution earlier that year, and some of the initial steps towards improving Russian literacy like the drafting of an orthography reform were already accomplished under that regime. Russia may well have seen major strides regardless, and the Bolsheviks are widely seen as one of those revolutions that did more harm than good.
      - impossiblefork 11mo ago
        No, I mean the whole thing. I mean that the revolution was necessary. I don't think reforms of orthography were what mattered. What mattered was actually forcing people people to learn to read and also sending people out to teach them. I don't see pre-1918 Cryllic as much more complicated that post 1918 Cryllic, but then I am of course literate and a Swede, so the only thing I find unusual is the symbol of softness, which is probably much less of a problem if you actually speak Russian.
  - Aeolun 11mo ago
    > Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another. Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.
    - analog31 11mo ago
      >>>>> Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Empirically, no. "Popular dictator" is an oxymoron. The dictator is always focused on their own survival. They are never able to completely wipe out their opposition, and end up collaborating with the powerful, and repressing the weak, in order to retain power.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lkey 11mo ago
    Choosing to substitute a general principle instead of reading about the particular event as it happened 50 years ago... that likely informed the formation of that principle... When you have nothing to add, say nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac... Or have the courtesy to do the reading.
    - graemep 11mo ago
      A Wikipedia article would not give me sufficient knowledge to judge the effect of violent resistance. There was a fairly peaceful transition. Would teenagers throwing Molotov cocktails have helped or hindered this? Would peaceful protest or passive resistance have been better? I do not know. The general principle is more than adequate as a counter to the comment I replied to. You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship.
      - lkey 11mo ago
        Shorter you: I'd rather not learn things, even a little, before commenting. Did you even read the entire article? | You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship. No, one cannot. That said, there are people here that have made those decisions, and that are making them right now. It's strange that you have assumed of me that this could not be true. I will only say that I've made my decisions and my conscience is clear. What you can decide right now what your principles are. One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Whether it is most effective or not is a matter for organizers, historians, and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself.
        graemep 11mo ago
        What you are missing is that it could actually be harmful. You may have noticed that "fighting terrorism" often provides governments with an excuse for greater repression. Have you read the comment I replied to? it was saying that violence was definitely the right thing to do. > One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Without even considering the consequences? I believe that one of the criteria for morally justifying violence has to be that the consequences or using violence as better than any available non-violent alternative. I think that is a fundamental different of values. > and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself. I have lived in a country where 1) multiple groups of people were using violence to do what they considered to be fighting oppression, 2) I have come pretty close to bombs they planted, and 3) the end results not only included huge numbers of deaths, but also let the government get away with things such as disappearing journalists who opposed them. I am a lot less of an arm-chair observer than I guess you are.
DFHippie 11mo ago
Note, the article doesn't say that she threw molotov cocktails. She was put into induced comas, tied to a bed, kept in social isolation, etc. because she didn't want to live under her parents' control.
AllegedAlec 11mo ago
Yeah I don't think anyone thinks this was a good program, but saying someone performing acts of terrorism is just 'a free spirit' is a bit... BBC of them.
- estebank 11mo ago
  One person's terrorist against the Franco government is another person's freedom fighter against the Franco regime.
  - AllegedAlec 11mo ago
    "Mr Bin Laden was just a bit of a free spirit, until the Americans decided to kill him in the middle of the night"
BirAdam 11mo ago
Perhaps the modern world has softened the term fascist dictator by using it for regimes to which it only partially applies. The generalissimo used forced labor not unlike the DPRK, made widespread use of concentration camps, and was quite fond of executing dissidents. All religions other than Catholicism were outlawed and all political parties were outlawed. Why would opposition to a murderous dictator be a bad thing? It isn’t as though the protestors/rioters/rebels were the ones escalating the situation. The government was already killing people. This could easily be viewed as justified violent opposition in the pursuit of stopping more murder.
Aeolun 11mo ago
Isn’t that relatively normal? They’re really easy to make. The ‘throw molotov cocktails’ are mentioned in the same sentence as ‘hand out leaflets’, which makes me feel the surrounding people were generally not panicking about the fire. Hard to say without reading the book though.
- NooneAtAll3 11mo ago
  no throwing molotov cocktails is in NO way "normal"
  - layer8 11mo ago
    Under a dictatorship it ought to be.
    - usrnm 11mo ago
      "Killing people I don't like is ok" is not a very nice line of thinking
      - hitarpetar 11mo ago
        > Killing people I don't like is ok it's so sad that the allies killed so many Axis soldiers in WW2 right? wasn't very nice :(
        josefx 11mo ago
        Sadly the article doesn't paint them as heroic: > and when the police turned up, scatter in every direction. Whoever they set out to burn alive was very likely defenseless.
      - aaomidi 11mo ago
        I hope you never experience living in a fascist society.
      - TylerE 11mo ago
noelwelsh 11mo ago
Do you think "My mum was a 17-year-old free spirit - so she was locked up and put in a coma" could perhaps be the words of the person they interviewed? Could this perhaps by why it is written in the first-person? Where in the article does the BBC claim she was an "ordinary free-spirited girl"? What do you believe the purpose of this article is? Do you think it is advancing a policy agenda, in which case which policies is it advocating for? Or is it perhaps just documenting what happened and the impressions of those effected by what happened?
- ToValueFunfetti 11mo ago
  The BBC has editorial control over their headlines. The wording in the article is unclear and it may not be a mischaracterization. But, assuming that it is, 'someone lied to us and so we put it into our headline' is not a defense that turns bad journalism into good.
  - Latty 11mo ago
    It's an obvious quote, unless you think people are going to misunderstand and think that the BBC as a publication is talking about it's mother somehow. Quotes are generally well understood to be the view of the person giving it, not the publication.
    - ToValueFunfetti 11mo ago
      I think people are going to expect the BBC to validate the correctness of quotes that they elevate into headlines. The interviewee didn't decide that that quote should be a headline, that's a creative choice by the BBC. By putting it there, they are implying that it is an accurate description of the story that follows. Is that incorrect?
      - noelwelsh 11mo ago
        The quote: 1. Indicates this a human interest story 2. Is by definition of an accurate representation of the words of the person they are quoting 3. Is a reasonable overview of a complex story, given we understand that "free-spirited" is subjective and that, again, this is a human interest story and conveying the feelings of the people involved is part of the point.
wkjagt 11mo ago
I spent some time in Northern Ireland in 2001 (Derry mostly). At one point there was a sudden fire in the back yard of the youth hostel I was staying at. When I mentioned it, the owner of the youth hostel said "it's just a Molotov cocktail".
crazygringo 11mo ago
I think there are points on both sides. I think you're right that the BBC is being irresponsible in putting "my mum was a 17-year-old free spirit" in the headline -- even though it's a quote, it does imply a level of BBC editorial agreement with the characterization. It makes her sound like she was just an innocent hippie or something. On the other hand, this wasn't vandalism for vandalism's sake. It was political protest against a dictatorship. It's not like she was engaging in criminal acts for the fun of it or for personal gain, so the snippet you choose is similarly misleading without the context of why.
- scoofy 11mo ago
  Violence isn’t speech. Calling Molotov cocktailing a street “protest” is absurd. It’s effectively armed conflict.
  - 7jjjjjjj 11mo ago
    Armed conflict against fascist dictators is a good thing.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Where did I say anything about speech? Were you under the impression that protests are inherently non-violent? Violent protests are absolutely a thing. That's why "non-violent protest" is a term. And of course it's armed conflict. But the point is that it's armed conflict against a fascist dictatorship killing over 100,000 civilians by most estimates -- which is what makes it considered legitimate violent protest by many people.
  - arp242 11mo ago
    > It’s effectively armed conflict. How do you think Franco got in power? By peacefully using his free speech rights and persuasive speeches? How do you think he stayed in power for all those decades? Do you think some people's free speech rights and avenues of protest might have been a teensy tiny bit curtailed?
rayiner 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Jtsummers 11mo ago
  > Just the continued normalization of antisocial people as somehow being the victims of society instead of being the ones perpetuating harm on society. Opposing an actual fascist dictatorship isn't particularly "antisocial". Unless your definition of "social" is blind obedience even as your family members and friends are harmed, killed, or disappeared by the government.
DonHopkins 11mo ago
[flagged]
GeoAtreides 11mo ago
[flagged]
- youdunnowhat 11mo ago
  [dead]
- lkey 11mo ago
  Gaddafi was not a communist. The Chinese State's actions w.r.t. the Uyghurs in undoubtedly a genocide. The Tankie angle misleading, "Han supremacist" would be more accurate. Calling anyone supporting Franco a 'tankie' is so ahistorical it beggers belief. Please try to understand the words you use, lest you rob them of all meaning. I'd suggest replacing 'tankie' with 'partisan'.
  - GeoAtreides 11mo ago
    fair enough. I used it as a synonym for "Westerner (or West resident) supporting authoritarian regimes (of all colors)"
lkey 11mo ago
A) She was still a child. Her parents had full control over her. B) She was imprisoned, and tortured, as the article discusses. C) What POV would you prefer? D) This was Franco's Spain, what do you imagine yourself doing at a time like that?

[flagged]

by tiahura 11mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

jrjeksjd8d 11mo ago

She was a child who resisted the fascist Franco regime and was subjected to torture. Is that better for you?

delichon 11mo ago

I can only hope I would have done the same in Franco's dictatorship. But I'd have expected prison rather than a convent.

mothballed 11mo ago
Parents don't want their kids executed or sentenced to life in prison because they ended up burning people to death. And there is no way to ensure arson only burns fascists. They were probably desperately looking for a way to save her from that. Can't say I'd have done the same choice, but it makes it more understandable.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
graemep 11mo ago
Its not that simple. I do not know about Franco's Spain, but violent rebellion does not usually make things better. Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another.
- impossiblefork 11mo ago
  Even when it's gone really badly, like the Russian revolution, the revolution was a huge improvement. 80% illiteracy. I think revolutions almost always go well because you usually have to be really terrible to cause one to happen.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    I would not characterize the Russian revolution as 'better.' Under the czar successful farming resulted in high taxes. Under the communists, successful farming made you a kulak, you died / starved to death, and then everyone else did too.
    - impossiblefork 11mo ago
      Under the Tsar's total system 80% of the population were illiterate. Keeping normal people illiterate requires immense oppression. With the revolution Russia became much closer to a normal country.
  - HeinzStuckeIt 11mo ago
    The Russian Revolution you are probably thinking of is the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks. But the tsar had already been overthrown by the February Revolution earlier that year, and some of the initial steps towards improving Russian literacy like the drafting of an orthography reform were already accomplished under that regime. Russia may well have seen major strides regardless, and the Bolsheviks are widely seen as one of those revolutions that did more harm than good.
    - impossiblefork 11mo ago
      No, I mean the whole thing. I mean that the revolution was necessary. I don't think reforms of orthography were what mattered. What mattered was actually forcing people people to learn to read and also sending people out to teach them. I don't see pre-1918 Cryllic as much more complicated that post 1918 Cryllic, but then I am of course literate and a Swede, so the only thing I find unusual is the symbol of softness, which is probably much less of a problem if you actually speak Russian.
- Aeolun 11mo ago
  > Most violent revolutions end up replacing one dictatorship with another. Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Anyway, it kinda makes sense to me that the people advocating for change through violent means don’t suddenly stop being violent when they get to power.
  - analog31 11mo ago
    >>>>> Don’t those new violent dictators also tend to be more aligned with the people revolting? Empirically, no. "Popular dictator" is an oxymoron. The dictator is always focused on their own survival. They are never able to completely wipe out their opposition, and end up collaborating with the powerful, and repressing the weak, in order to retain power.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- lkey 11mo ago
  Choosing to substitute a general principle instead of reading about the particular event as it happened 50 years ago... that likely informed the formation of that principle... When you have nothing to add, say nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democrac... Or have the courtesy to do the reading.
  - graemep 11mo ago
    A Wikipedia article would not give me sufficient knowledge to judge the effect of violent resistance. There was a fairly peaceful transition. Would teenagers throwing Molotov cocktails have helped or hindered this? Would peaceful protest or passive resistance have been better? I do not know. The general principle is more than adequate as a counter to the comment I replied to. You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship.
    - lkey 11mo ago
      Shorter you: I'd rather not learn things, even a little, before commenting. Did you even read the entire article? | You should not assume that is what you would do if you lived in a dictatorship. No, one cannot. That said, there are people here that have made those decisions, and that are making them right now. It's strange that you have assumed of me that this could not be true. I will only say that I've made my decisions and my conscience is clear. What you can decide right now what your principles are. One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Whether it is most effective or not is a matter for organizers, historians, and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself.
      - graemep 11mo ago
        What you are missing is that it could actually be harmful. You may have noticed that "fighting terrorism" often provides governments with an excuse for greater repression. Have you read the comment I replied to? it was saying that violence was definitely the right thing to do. > One of mine is that resistance against a violent authoratarian state, including violent resistance, is morally justified. Without even considering the consequences? I believe that one of the criteria for morally justifying violence has to be that the consequences or using violence as better than any available non-violent alternative. I think that is a fundamental different of values. > and arm-chair quarterbacks like yourself. I have lived in a country where 1) multiple groups of people were using violence to do what they considered to be fighting oppression, 2) I have come pretty close to bombs they planted, and 3) the end results not only included huge numbers of deaths, but also let the government get away with things such as disappearing journalists who opposed them. I am a lot less of an arm-chair observer than I guess you are.

DFHippie 11mo ago

Note, the article doesn't say that she threw molotov cocktails. She was put into induced comas, tied to a bed, kept in social isolation, etc. because she didn't want to live under her parents' control.

AllegedAlec 11mo ago

Yeah I don't think anyone thinks this was a good program, but saying someone performing acts of terrorism is just 'a free spirit' is a bit... BBC of them.

estebank 11mo ago
One person's terrorist against the Franco government is another person's freedom fighter against the Franco regime.
- AllegedAlec 11mo ago
  "Mr Bin Laden was just a bit of a free spirit, until the Americans decided to kill him in the middle of the night"

BirAdam 11mo ago

Perhaps the modern world has softened the term fascist dictator by using it for regimes to which it only partially applies. The generalissimo used forced labor not unlike the DPRK, made widespread use of concentration camps, and was quite fond of executing dissidents. All religions other than Catholicism were outlawed and all political parties were outlawed. Why would opposition to a murderous dictator be a bad thing? It isn’t as though the protestors/rioters/rebels were the ones escalating the situation. The government was already killing people. This could easily be viewed as justified violent opposition in the pursuit of stopping more murder.

Aeolun 11mo ago

Isn’t that relatively normal? They’re really easy to make. The ‘throw molotov cocktails’ are mentioned in the same sentence as ‘hand out leaflets’, which makes me feel the surrounding people were generally not panicking about the fire. Hard to say without reading the book though.

NooneAtAll3 11mo ago
no throwing molotov cocktails is in NO way "normal"
- layer8 11mo ago
  Under a dictatorship it ought to be.
  - usrnm 11mo ago
    "Killing people I don't like is ok" is not a very nice line of thinking
    - hitarpetar 11mo ago
      > Killing people I don't like is ok it's so sad that the allies killed so many Axis soldiers in WW2 right? wasn't very nice :(
      - josefx 11mo ago
        Sadly the article doesn't paint them as heroic: > and when the police turned up, scatter in every direction. Whoever they set out to burn alive was very likely defenseless.
    - aaomidi 11mo ago
      I hope you never experience living in a fascist society.
    - TylerE 11mo ago

noelwelsh 11mo ago

Do you think "My mum was a 17-year-old free spirit - so she was locked up and put in a coma" could perhaps be the words of the person they interviewed? Could this perhaps by why it is written in the first-person? Where in the article does the BBC claim she was an "ordinary free-spirited girl"? What do you believe the purpose of this article is? Do you think it is advancing a policy agenda, in which case which policies is it advocating for? Or is it perhaps just documenting what happened and the impressions of those effected by what happened?

ToValueFunfetti 11mo ago
The BBC has editorial control over their headlines. The wording in the article is unclear and it may not be a mischaracterization. But, assuming that it is, 'someone lied to us and so we put it into our headline' is not a defense that turns bad journalism into good.
- Latty 11mo ago
  It's an obvious quote, unless you think people are going to misunderstand and think that the BBC as a publication is talking about it's mother somehow. Quotes are generally well understood to be the view of the person giving it, not the publication.
  - ToValueFunfetti 11mo ago
    I think people are going to expect the BBC to validate the correctness of quotes that they elevate into headlines. The interviewee didn't decide that that quote should be a headline, that's a creative choice by the BBC. By putting it there, they are implying that it is an accurate description of the story that follows. Is that incorrect?
    - noelwelsh 11mo ago
      The quote: 1. Indicates this a human interest story 2. Is by definition of an accurate representation of the words of the person they are quoting 3. Is a reasonable overview of a complex story, given we understand that "free-spirited" is subjective and that, again, this is a human interest story and conveying the feelings of the people involved is part of the point.

wkjagt 11mo ago

I spent some time in Northern Ireland in 2001 (Derry mostly). At one point there was a sudden fire in the back yard of the youth hostel I was staying at. When I mentioned it, the owner of the youth hostel said "it's just a Molotov cocktail".

crazygringo 11mo ago

I think there are points on both sides. I think you're right that the BBC is being irresponsible in putting "my mum was a 17-year-old free spirit" in the headline -- even though it's a quote, it does imply a level of BBC editorial agreement with the characterization. It makes her sound like she was just an innocent hippie or something. On the other hand, this wasn't vandalism for vandalism's sake. It was political protest against a dictatorship. It's not like she was engaging in criminal acts for the fun of it or for personal gain, so the snippet you choose is similarly misleading without the context of why.

scoofy 11mo ago
Violence isn’t speech. Calling Molotov cocktailing a street “protest” is absurd. It’s effectively armed conflict.
- 7jjjjjjj 11mo ago
  Armed conflict against fascist dictators is a good thing.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Where did I say anything about speech? Were you under the impression that protests are inherently non-violent? Violent protests are absolutely a thing. That's why "non-violent protest" is a term. And of course it's armed conflict. But the point is that it's armed conflict against a fascist dictatorship killing over 100,000 civilians by most estimates -- which is what makes it considered legitimate violent protest by many people.
- arp242 11mo ago
  > It’s effectively armed conflict. How do you think Franco got in power? By peacefully using his free speech rights and persuasive speeches? How do you think he stayed in power for all those decades? Do you think some people's free speech rights and avenues of protest might have been a teensy tiny bit curtailed?

rayiner 11mo ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers 11mo ago
> Just the continued normalization of antisocial people as somehow being the victims of society instead of being the ones perpetuating harm on society. Opposing an actual fascist dictatorship isn't particularly "antisocial". Unless your definition of "social" is blind obedience even as your family members and friends are harmed, killed, or disappeared by the government.

DonHopkins 11mo ago

[flagged]

GeoAtreides 11mo ago

[flagged]

youdunnowhat 11mo ago
[dead]
lkey 11mo ago
Gaddafi was not a communist. The Chinese State's actions w.r.t. the Uyghurs in undoubtedly a genocide. The Tankie angle misleading, "Han supremacist" would be more accurate. Calling anyone supporting Franco a 'tankie' is so ahistorical it beggers belief. Please try to understand the words you use, lest you rob them of all meaning. I'd suggest replacing 'tankie' with 'partisan'.
- GeoAtreides 11mo ago
  fair enough. I used it as a synonym for "Westerner (or West resident) supporting authoritarian regimes (of all colors)"

lkey 11mo ago

A) She was still a child. Her parents had full control over her. B) She was imprisoned, and tortured, as the article discusses. C) What POV would you prefer? D) This was Franco's Spain, what do you imagine yourself doing at a time like that?