Because it isn't about climate change; it's about punishing the West, especially the United States, for daring to be successful while other countries haven't been. There's an old saying: "scratch a Green, find a Red".
Yes, the Biden administration has blown trillions on Climate Change however, Climate Alarmists tell us that world temperatures are increasing. Thus, Biden wasted the money. China is still building coal fired power plants every week. Why is America committing economic suicide to pay for China's carbon footprint? Claw back that money and use it to fully fund Social Security for our seniors who can not afford this inflation.
Indonesian Professor Vedi Hadiz can't get job in Australian Universities without slandering his Founding Father Sukarno & talking shit about Pancasila (5 Guiding Principles) as pseudo-science? Well has he come up with anything genius so far that is better than Pancasila? You need to be a sellout Hadiz to work for our Barbaric Australian Coloniser? Have a bit of dignity!
Western states along with 4 pillars of the state and political parties always had only 2 "wings". One is "terrorist right" and the other is terrorist right paying "left"or "center". They don't even bother to hde it anymore.
The term "sovereigntist" will be seen as right-wing and problematic within about 5 minutes of being deployed. The "Sovereign Citizens" movement even hints at this.
Is that a substantial argument against it? To concede that point would be to conecede to the way politics is reduced to aesthetics, to what things look or sound like, rather than what they really are
El caso de Russell Jacoby puede perfectamente ilustrar el punto. Aunque sus primeras obras importantes fueron publicadas a principios de los ochenta, todavía ninguno de sus libros ha sido traducido al castellano. Tampoco, al parecer, ninguno de sus artículos, aunque quizás haya alguna excepción perdida en algún recoveco del ciberespacio que no hemos detectado. (Dicho sea de paso: asumimos el compromiso de paliar un poco este vacío en el futuro, con alguna traducción nuestra para Kalewche y/o Corsario Rojo: ensayos cortos publicados en revistas o páginas web, capítulos o extractos de sus grandes obras). Sería exagerado afirmar que Russell es un marginal: una definición absurda, tratándose de un profesor de la Universidad de California, por muy atípica que sea su trayectoria, que ciertamente lo es. Pero sus trabajos han tenido una difusión que parece no estar a la altura de la calidad y la importancia de su producción. En qué medida es esto debido a las punzantes críticas formuladas por Jacoby al mundillo intelectual es algo sobre lo que no podemos sino especular. Y aquí no lo haremos. Pero dejamos instalada la pregunta y la sospecha.
The mainstream left has gone off the rails. It’s abandoned its focus on material inequality in favor of weird, radical, esoteric, antiscientific theories about identity. And it seems to have decided that even moderate forms of civic nationalism are fascist.
I’m not trying to be a reactionary smart Alec by asking that to be clear, I think it’s an important question. But it’s hard to explore this without looking like a reactionary
Can a descendant of white settlers from the mayflower be now considered indigenous since he could trace their lineage back to people living in America for 400 years or does the fact he comes from settlers make him always a settler?
I don’t think anyone would call an Italian American for example indigenous to North America that would be ridiculous, I understand there’s a degree of subjectivity towards it
Indigenous refers to the people originally inhabiting the land in relation to this new settler colonial entity, that doesn’t mean that say the Iroquois people in the northeast US were always there and by that name, but they were originally there compared to these European settlers that came to North America to create new entities at the expense of the indigenous population
It's not a very interesting or relevant question. The people who daily make and remake a society are the people of that society. Indigeneity is best left to flora and fauna - those without consciousness and free will, who "belong" to a place.
I don´t know guys. "nobody talks about remote learning" "remote work is much less efficent." "nobody discusses tourism. Everybody hates on the tourists." So many wrong statements and no questioning that. I think you were very nice to this guest. To the detriment of your viewers. When I visited the Barceloneta quarter almost 10 yrs ago, the banners across the facades were explicitly pointing out the connections between tourists and rents skyrocketing. definitely pointing at the bigger pictue, not just bashing tourists. Much left to be desired :)
Fair, but I feel like the guys wanted to keep the conversation moving rather than get bogged down in points he would have likely had answers to. Although, just a point on your points, Barca is just one very specific example. An example where the local residents are pretty well off and think they don’t need tourism. Most parts of the world where there is tourism, there is a very explicit problem with tourists themselves. Think southern Spain (hatred of Brits), Turkish resorts that put up with drunk Russians, Thailand, Japan etc etc. Also, Barcelona was an afterthought, his main point seemed to be about tourists hating on other tourists. We’d all love to travel without everyone else there
@@HM-mw7cg See? much more discussion going on already here in the comments between us :) Shows that the topic is ripe. It´s presentation (and examination) really wasn´t, in my opinion. To your point(s): No, the residents of that tiny little Barceloneta-district aren´t well off. If an "air b´n´b-ified" rent drives you to the brink of financial collaps you are not well off. As for your second point: I disagree. Tourists hating on tourists came up, yes. And to me it´s a rather shallow thing. Maybe the one argument fitting the best into that class argument Mr. d'Eramo made. Either you´re kind of a snob and want to sepereate yourself from those who are in the same income-group, hence the same spot / resort / place as yourself. That would point towards (however mild a form of) self-hatred or denial about class; or you are part of the "hoard" of tourists, fully identifiyng with your class, as you mentioned in your example with brits and russians. They (to put it cartoonishly) shamelessly take advantage of their current favourable exchange rate / economic one-uppance over the host country, as in Turkey ie. Which takes me to the point of Mr. d'Eramo that imho was left really underexplored. He said, if I remember correctly, that the racism directed towards tourist is the same racism directed towards immigrants. He said: "They are always the tresspassers, coming into MY country, MY town." I couldn´t agree less. It´s comparing apples to oranges. And I think he contradicted himself, though constuctively, when he made the distinction: "one group comes to serve the inhabitants, the other comes to BE served by them." So... there´s that. It´s either a shallow argument of "strangers are bad" -which has nothing to do with tourism per se. Or it´s an argument about the economics of tourism in the context of capitalism - and I think he tried to argue the latter. Although somewhat inconsistent. To propose that immigrants experience the same racism as tourist do is flat out counterfactual. Or such an oversimplification that it yields no analytical surplus. I´m pretty sure he has loads of great points to make about that. Sometimes they got into it. Over the whole hour though, it was kinda rambling and felt like a missed opportunity. But that´s just me.
Quite honestly, the real reason for many of our problems is the failure of the center left and right. This has given rise to the far left and right. But just to clarify: ordinary people, the majority of whom are quite moderate (left or right), are not far right. There is a tendency to tar everyone with the same brush. It goes something like this: you don't agree with me so you must be far right.
Also, the arguments have failed to update with a changing reality. Like I’ve always been very pro-immigration. But in the past few years in Britain, net immigration has exploded and now vastly outstrips the housing supply. So I’ve started arguing against more immigration. But many mainstream left-wingers still follow the line _“Immigration is good and if you oppose it, you must be a crypto-fascist.”_
Caring about your country is not far right. People like you and videos like this are the problem. You can't label everyone who disagrees with you as far right.
In most of the World the Left haven't been given a sniff of power in over 40 years. Longer in a lot of palces. Where it has, and where sanctions haven't been immediately slapped on them for it, the Far Right haven't managed to get much of a foothold. However, most places we merely have so-called Centrists posing as the Left. It's these that have failed, and it's that failure that has led to the rise of the Far Right in these Countries. Nothing to do with the Left because the Left haven't been allowed anywhere near power in these Countries. Centrists posing as the Left while appeasing the Far Right is the problem, not the Left.
It’s obvious you don’t understand communism if you think it’s a threat given that it literally saved us from the scourge of Nazism, which has been liquidated in the United States through things like project paperclip. But you’re better than all of that and then because you have the privilege of living in the world taken for granted. Communists will not even bother with lowly RU-vidrs podcasters like you- there are bigger fish to fry
Do you live among fascists,? It is as if this conversation does not consider the danger. My next door neighbor pulled a gun on me because I told him I was afraid of climate problems and asked if he thought we should come up with mutual plans in case of an emergency.
Why is it that for the nth time, so many people come out at the second round to BLOCK Le Pen? Not once, not twice, not 3. Started when her father lost at the second round against Chirac by more than 70%. Is it because she scares the shit out of many groups who usually do not vote unless threatened, and have zero say in how France is run? Is it because she explains France economical troubles by scapegoating those who have absolutely no say in the way it is run? Mustache man did exactly the same thing in the 1930's. She considers immigrants people descendants of parents who were french for 5, 6 generations, died in WWs. Le Pen hides under some bla bla fasciste undertakings. Those who are scapegoated do not care about EU elections, because Le Pen can do nothing within EU. Only the USA can influence EU. Nobody else. But will never win the elections to control the police and the judiciary inside France.
TOLSTOI ON WAR AND PEACE DEFINITION OF FRENCHMAN!!? A Frenchman's self-assurance stems from his belief that he is mentally and physically irresistibly fascinating to both men and women.
It’s romanticism, idealizing something you know very little about. It’s a result of state propaganda - Soviet Union a world power and this somehow brings meaning to the suffering brought by the regime, and a result of older generation reminiscing about their youth and contrasting it with the 90s exacerbated by the state again which emphasizes how bad the 90s were and how Putin came and solved everything, which is quite a Russian phenomenon as most of them simply rode out the decade, which is not to say was easy, but a strongman was not necessary for it to end.
youth, post-Soviet? 32 years later? it was considered rude to mention ww2 as early as 1956 (remember Hungarian counter/revolution), but here were are talking about USSR).
the crime is not showing in schools about the acts of terror, about statistics on how many humans suffered and died under the soviet dictatorship; how to ask others to forget about stepan bandera, while not doing the same with other figures in the country; according to internal figures, more than 39 million perished, a lot during the great patriotic war, but not all of them, cannot heal without recognition about all the crimes; and the criminals are removed from the streets, no statues, put them in a museum with photos that make you vomit, for the young to remember about how evil will strike you again, if you do nothing.
