That last polarisation and othering is odd, unnecessary, divisive and not generally representative of 39c3 talks nor the CCC.

Antifascism is a long tradition among humanists and European hackers and not related to "left-wing extremism".

Why do you find it necessary to discredit the message of that talk? What's the supposedly extremist message in there?

Fighting fascism is required of every person who wants to keep a working democracy, regardless of your fiscal policy ideas or how egoistical you want your government to represent you.

Democracy is what allows you to remove bad leaders/parties without having to fight a bloody revolution. Fascism yearns to remove that possibility. Hence anti-fascism being needed.

That being said: Which part of the talk did you find especially extremist?

Ah yes, the non-existent fascists that:

1. Marched openly as neo-Nazis in Charlottesville (2017), chanting "Jews will not replace us," resulting in the murder of Heather Heyer

2. Organize under explicitly fascist banners like Atomwaffen Division, The Base, Patriot Front, Blood Tribe, Golden Dawn, CasaPound, etc., all of which self-describe using fascist or Nazi ideology

3. Attempted to overturn a democratic election on Jan 6, 2021, including coordinated efforts by elected officials to submit fake electors and pressure state officials to "find" votes

4. Advocate ethno-states and mass deportations, including prominent figures calling for the removal of citizenship, voting rights, or legal protections from minorities (see CPAC speeches, "remigration" rhetoric in Europe, AfD platform language)

5. Celebrate or inspire political violence, from the Christchurch, El Paso, Buffalo, Halle, and Oslo attackers, all of whom explicitly cited fascist or white supremacist ideology in their manifestos

6. Promote leader-worship and elimination of dissent, e.g. calls to jail journalists, dissolve independent courts, criminalize opposition parties, or rule "by decree" (explicit in Hungary, echoed rhetorically elsewhere)

7. Attack independent media and academia as enemies of the nation, while advocating state control or punishment for ideological non-compliance

8. Receive normalization or support from sitting politicians, including endorsement, retweets, pardons, or refusal to condemn clearly fascist groups when given the opportunity

Calling this non-existent requires either ignoring explicit self-identification or redefining fascism so narrowly that only a 1930s uniform and a written and signed oath counts. But that definition isn't what any serious person would dare to bring to a discussion.

Meanwhile, "antifa" is not a party, not a centralized organization, has no manifesto, no leadership, no unified program, and no plausible path to state power. Are there idiots who claim the label antifa? Sure. But there are idiots in literally every subset of the population. Conflating street-level illiberal behavior with an actual authoritarian nationalist movement collapses basic political distinctions however.

I personally work as pentester and we're still doing a lot of manual work with AI simply as a better version of Google, but seeing the BOTS presentation I feel we can do better. Do you have any idea if anyone's working on something similar to Louie in pentesting space, or if Louie could work with pentesting workflows?

That is because with published recordings it often becomes purely performative, where people aren't actually interested in honestly engaging with each others thoughts, but instead (ab)using the recording as a stage to make a public statement. It essentially becomes a thinly veiled PR battle with multiple actors trying to control the narrative and the ones that prepared well (so not the general audience) tend to dominate the discussion. In my experience that is the opposite of a good discourse.

In the latter case the audience is only the audience that is already present and they are part of the discussion, if everything goes well a feeling of "we need to resolve this issue" is established, with a collective feeling emerging in the room. There is no guarantee that this happens and that there is a result, but in my experience (with well over 400 events) the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects.

How billions dieng to famine would be a good thing or culling the elderly and infirm?

Don't even know why I bother answering.

Indeed not HN standards. And if Joshua said killing people is good, I am interested in a full quote.

To extend your "full" quote: "The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-Organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way… I rather like the treatment Fascism gets in the Amazon Series ‘The Man in the High Castle’, which explores what would have happened if the Germans and Japanese had won the war: A society that tries to function as a brutal and ruthlessly efficient machine, eliminating all social and evolutionary slack. It is very dark, but not a flat caricature of pointless evil for its own sake."

Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:

"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring."