Don't forget the material basis for these shifts! While The Discourse of "practical" truangulating centrists tends to show this rightward path, it is because (1) they were already fundamentally reactionary, they tend to just use this logic as an excuse for why they tolerate far-right positions, and (2) the right is supported by the ruling class to address some of the "problems" it creates, like a marginalized underclass that wants enough income to feed their children, housing, and safety from violence.

The shift right is not driven simply by debate or ideology, but by the arenas where degradation in material conditions due to capitalism meet the ruling class' need to deflect blame to the marginalized (who they can reap larger profits from) to placate the less marginalized. Racism, nationalism, and extermination campaigns are created and maintained for the interests of capital, with the common people being pushed and prodded to fall in line with repeating the (usually ad hoc) new or recycled scapegoats and underclassrs. Wouldn't want you to point blame in the right direction!

The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don't approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.

FOSS has always been political. And usually fairly reactionary.

Yes because it is about, ultimately, making the major clients incompatible with vaultwarden on both a legal and technical level.

A likely outcome if they don't reverse course is a split where FOSS Nerfs fork the clients and have to maintain their own versions. That's the outcome Bitwarden wants. This reeks of a bazinga, "how dare they benefit from our work and take our users", which is hilarious for a FOSS ecosystem that almost universally benefits corporations with free labor.

You have asked the most important question in this topic. Privacy and security only have meaning when you develop a threat model or encounter a threat. With digital security it is usually pretty straightforward in that you don't want anyone else controlling your computer or phone and using it for their own ends. And a lapse in digital security can ruin attempts to secure privacy.

Privacy is where threat models should be developed so that you (1) don't waste time worrying about and working around nonexistent threats and (2) can think holistically about a given threat and not believe in a false means of privacy.

For example, if you are of a marginalized community, closeted, and in a very unsafe living situation, your main threat model might be getting doxxed and outed. To prevent this you should ensure that there is zero to no information that would link your real identity to an online identity and you should roll accounts to ensure small slipups can't be correlated. VPNs probably don't help in this threat model but they don't hurt either. A private browser does nothing in this situation. Securing your phone and not leaving it unlocked anywhere is good for this situation (sometimes privacy isn't really about tech but behavior). Using strong passwords that can't be guessed helps with this situation. Making a plan to move to a safe living situation so you can be out will resolve the threat entirely, though it may mean needing to think about new ones.

Notice that the government was not in this threat model and that it was more about violence towards the marginalized. Cis white guy techbros generally have nothing to worry about re: infosec and are just being enthusiasts or LARPers. Nobody is showing up at their house with a gun and the feds are not going to arrest you for having the most "centrist" political takes and actions available. The people that need to project themselves are those facing overt targeted marginslization or who take political action that the government wants to, or would eventually want to, suppress. For example, the US government labelled anti-apartheid groups as terrorist organizations and intimidated or jailed those they could identify. It has a habit of doing this to any advocacy groups that gain steam and actually pose a political threat to their opponents.

Even if you don't have a threat model, though, having good digital hygiene is useful in case one develops in the future. You may currently do political work that seems safe, and it is because it is not perceived as a threat. Let's say you help organize unions. But there have been times where organizing unions would mean you're targeted by the government and hired thugs and those times can easily return. If they have compiled a database of likely union sympathizers, will your name be in there? Maybe that's a risk that you just take. But maybe you should use good privacy practices so that you can go underground when needed.

The latter applies to the threatless cis white techbro "centrists". Such an individually may someday change politically or in their gender identity and having good practices would then pay off.

Remember when the libs here were saying only Russia does this and acting like it was beyond the pale?

I do because it was yesterday.

Capitalists will gladly repackage and sell anticapitalist stories if it will make them a profit.

It isn't all doom and gloom, though. These things emerge from the systems from their class interest that is most often expressed through self-intrrest. They will sell you the exact media that can help radicalize you as well as the cooption garbage. So an element of this does have the capacity to work against them.

If you tell someone to root for the uppity underdogs against empire it can at least be a useful for pointing out why they should not support an empire putting down a just resistance.

It appears that their bit is to act like they don't understand very simple memes.

It's a press release from the White House. Why would you need a journalist to stenograph it for it to become news?

And OP's description is good, it helps cut through the typical liberal mealy-mouthed framings that are, otherwise, the only ones you would ever hear.

You will understand why better when you take a look at who they say this to and who they don't.

This is not something that generally happens to white people speaking some French in the US. It does not raise the ire of this psychology. On the other hand, they love to target brown people speaking Spanish (almost exclusively, in fact). There is, naturally, spillover where white people speaking Spanish or brown people speaking Hindi would get targeted.

As others noted, and as these examples suggest, this is an instance of xenophobia and racism. Language is being used as a proxy, really, and provides a way for these people to unleash the frustrations they have been taught, societally, to have against them. Generally speaking, these are people that will call any brown person that speaks Spanish a "Mexican" regardless of their actual place of birth, where they were raised, or ethnic heritage.

But this is just a surfacr-level analysis. The next question is why they are taught to target people with xenophobia and racism. Why are there institutions of white supremacy? Why are their institutions of anti-immigrant sentiment? How are they materially reinforced? Who gains and who loses?

At a deeper level, these social systems are maintained because they are effective forms of marginalization. In the United States, racial marginalization was honed in the context of the creation and maintenance of chattel slavery, beginning, more or less, as a reaction to the multi-racial Bacon's Rebellion. In response, the ruling class introduced racially discriminatory policies so that the rebelling groups were divided by race, with black people receiving the worst treatment and the white people (the label being invented for the purposes of these kinds of policies) being told they would receive a better deal (though it was only marginally so and they were still massively mistreated). This same basic play had been repeated and built upon for hundreds of years in the United States. It was used to maintain chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and modern anti-blackness. It was used to prevent Chinese immigrant laborers from becoming full citizens and becoming a stronger political influence in Western states.

It was and is used to maintain the labor underclass of the United States, which also brings us to xenophobia more specifically. The United States functions by ensuring there is a large pool of exploitable labor in the form of undocumented immigrants. It does this at the behest of the ruling class - the owners of businesses - who have much more power to dictate wages and working conditions when it comes to this labor underclass. They make more money and have more control, basically. But this pissed off and pisses off the labor over class, as they have lost these jobs (or sometimes are merely told they lost them even if they never worked them). To deflect blame away from the ruling class for imposing these working conditions wages, the ruling class instead drives focus against the labor underclass itself, as if working that job for poor pay and bad conditions their fault. This cudgel should remind you of Bacon's Rebellion again: it divides up workers so that rather than struggle together they fight amongst themselves on the basis of race or national origin. The business owners are pleased, having a docile workforce to exploit.

So while racism and xenophobia are themselves horrific and what is behind the "Speak English!' crowd, it is really just an expression of the society created by this system that, by its very nature , pits workers against business owners while giving business owners outsized power (they are the ruling class, after all).

Another important element to this is imperialism and how imperialist countries carefully control immigration (it used to be basically open borders not that long ago). But I'll leave that for any follow-up questions you might have.

This is how the American system works. He's just not being classy about it.

Congressmembers do insider trading all the time and move into industry positions after they leave, having helped those exact industries (following the requests of their lobbyists). Congressmembers go straight to the top of boards for weapons manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

Regulators and other officials do the same thing. They cycle back and forth between the industries they're supposed to reign in and supposedly the job where they do reign them in. Work for the FCC -> work for a telecom -> FCC -> telecom.

In terms of the Supreme Court itself, it is an illegitimate body that has legitimacy only because the other two branches give it to them. Their major powers are not in the constitution and they have very few rules to follow.

You are right that gaining power to establish justice is what really matters, not "the rules" (which are always selectively applied). But it really depends on what you mean by the "good guys". If you mean Democrats, unfortunately they are also deeply embedded in this system and are not champions against it. They maintain power through the same kinds of industry connections and exit strategies and insider training. Their electoral apparatus is built on getting donations from companies and their executives so that they can buy ads and canvassers and phone bankers and data nerds to reach out and drive likely voters to turn out for them.

I've been in high-ish level Dem offices on various occasions. They put a lot of effort into shmoozing with donors and doing everything they can to get more money from likely donors. Big and small, though big get the most attention. The idea of building their base of power from the action of motivated grassroots individuals is rejected. And that's the only real base of power that is likely to reflect justice.

Militarized "aid" port no longer even serves its empty PR purpose