Difficult to say. One possible area to look into is formerly colonized nations that have experienced very strong economic growth in the last 30 years. What do you think?
Would Brazil be a good example? I believe colonialism ended over 200 years ago and they've seen pretty strong growth in the last ~25 years. How would you rate their attitude towards modern colonialilsm?
What about South Africa? Or is that a bad example. Their consistency on the topic of imperialism is interesting to say the least.
Does this hold true even if these countries (often times the population at large, not just the leadership) are avid supporters of imperialism and brutal occupations?
You ask for reparations for colonialism, while at the same time supporting russia's genocidal, imperialist invasion.
I did say "mere propaganda". I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.
It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜
What made you think I don't know this?
I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.
And I wouldn't discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.
And the incumbent doesn't need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.
I wouldn't discount VOA as mere "American propaganda". I read articles by them in multiple languages (while recognizing the source) and they offer are far more nuanced take than most nominally independent private US-based news sources (I am not talking about just Fox News); at least from my experience of living in the US for several years.
Compare the tone and style of this article with a similar article from a private US entity.
That's true everywhere though. No one is expecting anyone to be some a superhuman. But there is a time and place for everything. Or otherwise you're going to keep losing and there could potentially be disastrous outcomes (de facto loss of democracy is not off the table IMO, it is common for authoritarians who come to power by democratic means to solidify their rule in their second term - you don't even need Trump to go for a 3rd term as long as the system remains).
From my perspective (and I could be wrong), the democratic party has not had the initiative in almost quarter of a century. Last time was Obama, but he turned out to be a shallow oligarch shill. I lived in the US during Bush/Obama. If they wanted to they could have passed normal comprehensive government healthcare coverage. The US healthcare sector is deeply corrupt [*], they could have used that to their advantage by publicly pressuring individuals who were undermining this goal in a explicit. Or what about the fact that not a single finance executive went to jail during the Great Recession?
Don't get me wrong, it's easy to lecture people (our country has it's own deep rooted issues), but inflection points don't just happen without any action.
And I will speculate that Trump's second term will be a good opportunity to hit this inflection point.
- When I lived in the US, I was curious why so many hospitals are "non-profit" and yet the system works didn't seem to have any "non-profit" principles. From the research I did, it turns out the "non-profit" piece is a tax fraud scheme, many hospitals system only do nominal "non-profit" work. Another area is drug pricing; clearly captured by oligarch interests. I will speculate the health insurance industry is also rife with corruption and general malicious intent.
I never said anything about validity. Let me quote myself:
This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You’re not happy with that, don’t vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It’s as simple as that.
I didn't mean to imply all people treat their vote as an endorsement. That's my mistake, I wasn't clear. I was saying that a lot of people vote tactically and do not treat their vote as an endorsement.
You can have a different posture, but the fact remains that people are complex and they can (and should) switch between committed voting and tactical depending on the situation. If you don't take the tactical approach, then it is reasonable to hold one responsible not taking part in the voting process.
I would argue faith in the government is based on delivery of results and the ability to show a measure of courage. And I get the impression the "undermine faith in government" piece has already been implemented as a very effective polemic by the US far right for decades. If the government is corrupt, you need to openly say it and show how you're going to change this and make it better (and why people should vote for you).
The situation with the supreme court judge succession is a joke. A sign of complete ineptitude and laziness. It would be better if the judge was bribed to time the succession for the benefit of the far right; you would at least have a cause, effect, solution cadence.
One other issue that I personally noticed is the lack of willingness to speak openly about issues among the US centre right/moderates. To my knowledge, only Bernie Sanders and some other junior politicians are willing to openly use the term oligarch. Why is it like that? Elon Musk is an American oligarch. Tim Cook is an American oligarch. Why all the hush-hush and meekness?
With respect to the article, why wasn't there a public condemnation of the judge? Something along the lines of:
"Ginsburg will go down in a history as a self-absorbed, ivory tower snob that supported and enabled oligarchic plutocracy and the rise of authoritarianism."
It is considered poor tone to speak ill of the dead, but then again, Ginsburg is not among us and she won't care. Her relatives won't be happy, but they will manage.
I am not saying I have all the answers or that my approach is compatible with broad American sensibilities (I lived there, so I recognize how controversial the above-mentioned quote would be), but it's not like the centre-right's strategy has had any real success since maybe Obama's first term more than a decade ago.
Without understanding the particulars of US legal matters, it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the US judiciary is deeply corrupt. Maybe not in a day to day manner, but in a broader "subservient to oligarchs" sense.
In my country, we also have supreme court members getting bribed by oligarchs and judiciary groupings that act to protect their interests while working as a for hire team for the highest bidding oligarchs (similar to the American "Federalist Society"). Sure, in the US the whole process is done with a bigger focus on PR; lot's of pomp and word salad about "interpretation of the constitution", but I personally did not find that in any way convincing when I lived in the US. Seemed like a ruse for plausible deniability and keeping the plebs from asking too many uncomfortable questions.
The bigger question, that I was discussing with my American friend, is why the main US opposition party (that claims to oppose of excesses of the far right) does not take a serious approach to corruption in the judiciary. Specifically we were discussing the supreme court succession late in Trump's 1st term. There is almost a surrealist, comedic quality to the whole thing. It is unlikely a political force can get anywhere with such a myopic approach.
Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.
I was refering to your claim that tactical/pragmatic voting is somehow related to a deep philosophical commitment to utilitarianism which in turns is how you get Hitler. People don't vote tactically out of some deep commitment to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism of course has its own set of problems, the stuff about Hitler in context of tactical voting is a ridiculous stretch; very condescending as well.
I don't deny the possibility of US turning into a essentially a non-democratic oligarch state. If anything, research suggests authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means, tend to solidify their rule in their second term if there is no pushback from society. So in a sense I agree with you.
Where I don't agree with you are your justifications for not voting. As I said originally, I think the only fair reasoning is if there is nationwide protest to highlight the illegitimacy of an election/regime. Otherwise, there is no point in not voting.
No, I am basing this on real life experience. I.e. How I and many people vote and voted in my country, as well as other European countries that I follow.
This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You're not happy with that, don't vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It's as simple as that.
I don't know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.
I can't speak for the nuances w.r.t Harris, Trump and US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine.
I can with full confidence say that not voting is definitely not going to achieve anything. The only justified case would be an attempt to highlight the illegitimacy of the voting process if there are no options at all. It's relatively common for people to vote tactically on a consistent basis, although of course it's understandable when people lose motivation to vote when they feel there are no good options.
I just didn't think they would do it formally (de jure).
Wow, they are really going to do it, aren't they?
I am aware of that. And I am also aware of the dynamics of their GDP carbon intensity.
Do you really think if India and China were given $1 trillion a year each they would suddenly stop their expansion of coal power generation or even use a majority of that sum to combat climate change?
I don't have any issues with helping countries combating climate change (financially or otherwise), I do have issues with the "global south" framing.
Is China part of the global south? India?
They are both building out a massive amount of coal powered plants and will continue doing so because it suits their interests. You think giving India and China $1 trillion a year each will change this dynamic?
I can understand specific bi-lateral initiates (or even structured multi-lateral ones). But the whole "global south" discussion is extremely simplistic.
I think it's worth taking a more nuanced view on the "global south" vs. "global north" discussion. A lot of the leadership of the "global south" doesn't believe in climate change and they have no interest in any kind of good faith actions on this issue. Why would you give them money with such an attitude?
Unfortunately this is really just the EU's version of "thoughts and prayers".
Austria's Raiffeisen bank still has not left russia after almost 3 years of full scale war.
And let's not forget how Merkel greenlighted Nord Stream 2 right after the beginning of the war; the invasion of Crimea.
