In my everyday life the only ones bringing up woke positions are right nut jobs that complain about 'everything being woke'.
So no, I personally don't experience much annoyance by 'woke policy'.
Both can be true:
The US tried to arm protesters via the Kurds to provoke a civil war paving the way for destabilization of Iran in the long run and possible intervention (with the Kurds not being willing to pass on the weapons as they got betrayed by Trump not that long ago).
And at the same time the peaceful protesters in Iran were murdered by the theocracy fearing for its power... possibly enhanced should the regime have gained knowledge of the planned US weapon deliveries.
Saw a post few hours ago that apparently the feds are massively stocking up on ,,less lethal" chemical weapons... I guess that translates to tear gas etc. So the crackdown might be coming, maybe after he manipiulated the midterms and still lost.
Let's see how creative the GOP gets blaming someone else (not climate change) for the upcoming water shortage.
I basically agree with you.
However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.
In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly... The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.
f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.
I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature... which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.
Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them... a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.
If they aren't contributing to our community and, on the contrary, only extract wealth which is then used to corrupt and manipulate our cooperation... what exactly is the point of wanting to keep them?
Makes sense. If nothing else is available, we have to work with what we have.
And thank you for the clarification. To clarify my point: I am not saying that Brexit was an absolute economic disaster... but that some wealthy Brexit supporters benefited disproportionately compared to the average citizen and therefore pushed forward the populist campaign that ultimately led to the exit.
Yes it's normal and usually makes sense. In this particular case, however, it distorts the data basis, as the UK GDP is valued higher than the two eurozone countries due to the very high reference exchange rate.
And I said 'you' because you could have chosen other normalizations as well... yielding a different picture.
For example you could normalize by annual % growth of GDP.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2024&locations=GB-DE-FR&start=2007
(Side note: Thanks for the source, this database is amazing!)
Some aspects that come to my mind:
- Is the safety of Sigapore exclusively liked to strict drug regulation or aren't there many other confunding factors which might have an even bigger influence?
- Given we see this approach as successful and therefore legitime (assuming that in 1 the policy is the main/only driving factor): Would this be applicable to other countries? Singapore is a verry wealthy city state... comparing it to a country like Britain with more area, less population desity and also lower ecomonic performance per area seems missleading. Prosecution becomes more difficult and costly the bigger the area gets I guess.
All-in-all if the approach is sucessful for Singapore: Excellent! Accunsing other countries with different prerequisites of failing on this basis seems to be nonsense as comparing countries and societies in a single aspect while ignoring the gaszillion other factors at play itself is a pointless approach besides populism.
GardenGeek
joined 3 months ago
I’d say everyone does stupid things from time to time. Powerful people can only shield themselves from the consequences of their foolish actions for so long—until they do something so incredibly stupid that the disaster becomes spectacular and inevitable... and that’s how they go down in history.