Congratulations Brazil !!

[luiz]

I bet Chavez has hundreds of rolls of tape just waiting to be hurled at opponents.

The problem of modern western capitalism is that it makes people's life so comfortable that spoiled kids whose biggest problem in life is deciding between a 4gb and a 250mb Xbox feel entitled to mock thousands of workers, most of them blue collar, who had to flee their country due to political persecution.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem of modern western capitalism is that it makes people's life so comfortable that spoiled kids whose biggest problem in life is deciding between a 4gb and a 250mb Xbox feel entitled to mock thousands of workers, most of them blue collar, who had to flee their country due to political persecution.

It's not them I'm mocking, Luiz.

(Edit: Also, am I the only one who catches the irony of the upper-middle-class engineer trying out a Third Worldist guilt-trip on the guy who works in a supermarket?)

 

[Godwynn]

It's not them I'm mocking, Luiz.4

(Edit: Also, am I the only one who catches the irony of the upper-middle-class engineer trying out a Third Worldist guilt-trip on the guy who works in a supermarket?)

We have nothing to lose but our chains, Traitorfish.

 

[plarq]

where is the money going? I mean, if stuff is expensive, the sellers are making money. Moreover, you just claimed above that they do have clients. So, how is the middle class disappearing?

As for Chavez' cleanup of PdV, good for Venezuela. Their managers and a portion of its technical layer were willing to sink the whole country in order to force a coup against the elected government, they failed, and were kicked out. Justifiably so. The technical caste there had grown too accustomed to unaccountable power and entitlement while the rest of the country saw very little of the oil money. But is so happened that the company was state-owned, and they were accountable to the state and the elected government. Their grip over the company over it had to be broken. Venezuela is well rid of that treasonous crew.

Strikers in the west are heroes, and in third world countries, traitors.

Glad you stand with Pinochet.

 

[innonimatu]

It's not them I'm mocking, Luiz.4

(Edit: Also, am I the only one who catches the irony of the upper-middle-class engineer trying out a Third Worldist guilt-trip on the guy who works in a supermarket?)

The upper middle class, really? You're being unjust, his parents only have 3 cars, they probably barely got by under the fascist dictatorship of Lula.
(I usually don't descend to personal attacks of this kind, but Luiz just made it fair game to reference posters' past comments on personal possessions)

And yes, I do think that strikes in vital sectors are treasonous, and that goes for any country. plarq, take your Pinochet cheap jab and shove it, I'm not advocating killing anyone. You can still do any kind of strike as far as I'm concerned, just don't expect to get away with retaining the job if you fail at getting your political goal. What is vital must be maintained, and that means replacing those who won't work.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Greenland is in the Americas?

Risk says so, so it is.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Pretty crappy really. Also the Merco Sur area is very protectionist (as far as goods from outside the common market go) so the cost of most items is much higher in Merco Sur places compared to world prices.

I hear getting current-generation video games costs an arm and a leg.

A friend of mine was in Brazil for a month a few months back and he said it wasn't unusual to pay $12 for even a fast food level meal; now imagine how those high prices must effect the living standards of Brazil's poor.

Please don't tell that's for one person.

 

[luiz]

It's not them I'm mocking, Luiz.

(Edit: Also, am I the only one who catches the irony of the upper-middle-class engineer trying out a Third Worldist guilt-trip on the guy who works in a supermarket?)

By saying that the persecution in Venezuela is limited to Chávez throwing rolls of tape on the opposition, yes, you're mocking them.

The upper middle class, really? You're being unjust, his parents only have 3 cars, they probably barely got by under the fascist dictatorship of Lula.
(I usually don't descend to personal attacks of this kind, but Luiz just made it fair game to reference posters' past comments on personal possessions)

Luiz made it fair game to reference poster's past comments? You usually don't descend to personal attacks? Did you read the post I was answering? Of course you did, you post the same crap all the time.

It's the same old story; I was making a serious and well-informed post that our radical revolutionary teenagers could not answer (because they can barely find Brazil or Venezuela on a map, let alone discuss its socio-economic realities with someone with extensive knowledge on both). So they descend to what they believe is some witty mockery. And I'm to blame for calling them out on it? Give me a break.

As for my family's possessions, I have nothing to deny or be ashamed of. Unlike our radical revolutionary teenagers, I don't claim to be a working class hero. I come from a succesful family, I am succesful myself, and I am proud of it. You won't see me mocking the less affortunate than I, though, like seems to be the norm among our self-proclaimed humanists.

And yes, I do think that strikes in vital sectors are treasonous, and that goes for any country. plarq, take your Pinochet cheap jab and shove it, I'm not advocating killing anyone. You can still do any kind of strike as far as I'm concerned, just don't expect to get away with retaining the job if you fail at getting your political goal. What is vital must be maintained, and that means replacing those who won't work.

So the airline strikers in Spain, so passionately defended by our resident revolutionaries, are traitors as well? The coal mine strikers in Thatcher's Britain, traitors? All the left-wing strikes against the military governments of Latin America in the 80's, paralyzing several strategical sectors, treason?

 

[luiz]

Please don't tell that's for one person.

Yep. A Big Tasty combo at McDonald's costs R$ 20 in Brazil. That translates to roughly 11.5 US dollars. If you're like me and need more food than that for lunch, you'll easilly end up paying 15 dollars for having lunch at McD's.

 

[Tahuti]

No. Poor people know very well when they are being screwed, when there is freedom of information. In most countries they don't have a say simply because they can't enforce their ideas on the elites. Poor people not having political consciousness is one of the dirtiest excuses authoritarian governments use to fend off pressure to democratise.

Lack of political consciousness is not an excuse to resist democratization, it is the reason why there is no pressure towards democratization. And you're right that freedom of information is key, but you generally have more information available if you have a certain amount of wealth.

Democracy is not a magical gateway to freedom, though; Turkey is fairly democratic but not free. Conversely, Monaco and Liechtenstein are relatively free but are highly autocratic as well.

I don't buy it. That's the standard argument that is always advanced, but from what I've seen, I don't find wealth to be correlated with political consciousness. Wealthy people are not necessarily more politically conscious. In fact, I think in some authoritarian societies in Asia (being more familiar with the region), a lot of political opposition is grounded in the less wealthy sections of society.

You've clearly misunderstood me, since I didn't say wealth is correlated with political consciousness, because otherwise the most wealthy would also be the most political consciousness. What I was trying to say is that a certain amount of wealth is correlated with an amount of education that is in turn key in providing political consciousness. As Alassius noted, information is most important, but I'll also add that you will need the means to access it before you can utilise it.

 

[innonimatu]

Luiz made it fair game to reference poster's past comments? You usually don't descend to personal attacks? Did you read the post I was answering? Of course you did, you post the same crap all the time.

It's the same old story; I was making a serious and well-informed post that our radical revolutionary teenagers could not answer (because they can barely find Brazil or Venezuela on a map, let alone discuss its socio-economic realities with someone with extensive knowledge on both). So they descend to what they believe is some witty mockery. And I'm to blame for calling them out on it? Give me a break.

Your claim was that people were being politically persecuted and forced to flee. Well, I have yet to see even the tiniest shred of evidence that anyone is feeling either Venezuela of Brazil due to political persecution, as opposed to leaving it in search for better wages many as people all over the world always do.

As for my family's possessions, I have nothing to deny or be ashamed of. Unlike our radical revolutionary teenagers, I don't claim to be a working class hero. I come from a succesful family, I am succesful myself, and I am proud of it. You won't see me mocking the less affortunate than I, though, like seems to be the norm among our self-proclaimed humanists.

I care nothing for either you possible shame or pride. Possessions were relevant because you claimed that you are somehow representative of south american views. I counter-claim that you may represent a small subset of the south-american population, the very upper middle class.
And Traitorfish's Xbox, how was that relevant, can we know?

So the airline strikers in Spain, so passionately defended by our resident revolutionaries, are traitors as well? The coal mine strikers in Thatcher's Britain, traitors? All the left-wing strikes against the military governments of Latin America in the 80's, paralyzing several strategical sectors, treason?

Air travel is still far from vital to Spain. Even despite the economic importance of tourism there. As for Britain and its coal miners, they did went too far and got what was coming to them: the british government took advantage of its recently found oil and gas to do away with a portion of its coal needs and reduce a dangerous over-reliance on coal. They had the right to strike, sure, but I also think that Thatcher as PM had the right to seek alternatives. Even if I disapprove many of those she went for, and her erratic economic policies in general.

 

[luiz]

Your claim was that people were being politically persecuted and forced to flee. Well, I have yet to see even the tiniest shred of evidence that anyone is feeling either Venezuela of Brazil due to political persecution, as opposed to leaving it in search for better wages many as people all over the world always do.

People in Venezuela were indeed being persecuted and forced to flee. Not in Brazil. The Venezuelan oil sector is controlled by a single state-owned company, PDVSA. When Chávez purged PDVSA in response to the strike, firing those with direct and even very indirect links to the strikes, he also made sure to blacklist them all, that is, they can't even work for service providers. That's why they had to leave their lifes behind (somtimes their family) and move abroad (nearly all to Houston-based companies). We're not talking about a handful of executive searchin for high pay, we're talking about 20 thousand workers, most of them blue collar, who got purged and blacklisted in their own country.

I care nothing for either you possible shame or pride. Possessions were relevant because you claimed that you are somehow representative of south american views. I counter-claim that you may represent a small subset of the south-american population, the very upper middle class.

But I did not claim at all to represent the general south-american view. I presented facts. A McDonalds combo costs the same for me or poorest of Brazilians, so does an apartment. The taxes we pay on all products we buy are the same. The conclusions are my own, the facts are objective reality.

And Traitorfish's Xbox, how was that relevant, can we know?

About as relevant as troll posts about rolls of tape.

Air travel is still far from vital to Spain. Even despite the economic importance of tourism there. As for Britain and its coal miners, they did went too far and got what was coming to them: the british government took advantage of its recently found oil and gas to do away with a portion of its coal needs and reduce a dangerous over-reliance on coal. They had the right to strike, sure, but I also think that Thatcher as PM had the right to seek alternatives. Even if I disapprove many of those she went for, and her erratic economic policies in general.

I'd say that air travel is quite vital, but I'll give you consistency points.

Still, would you call the coal strikers traitors?

 

[aelf]

What I was trying to say is that a certain amount of wealth is correlated with an amount of education that is in turn key in providing political consciousness.

Regardless, there's no proof of your assertion. Having more information/knowledge is favourable towards greater political consciousness, but saying that education is key to "providing" political consciousness is overstating it.

 

[Traitorfish]

By saying that the persecution in Venezuela is limited to Chávez throwing rolls of tape on the opposition, yes, you're mocking them.

So it's just one of those "I'm offended on behalf of people I've never met" things, is it? My, this Chavez fellah puts you out of whack- defending strikers, playing PC police... Next we'll see you trying to organise an Occupy Caracas.

It's the same old story; I was making a serious and well-informed post that our radical revolutionary teenagers...

Just for the record, I'm twenty two and self-supporting. The XBox which is such a big deal to you is being bought with money from my own pay-cheque (which I understand is what you free marketeers keep complaining there isn't enough of?). So, please, if you're going to get your bollocks so deeply twisted about "mocking", then at least do me the dignity of finding a stereotype that makes sense.

...could not answer (because they can barely find Brazil or Venezuela on a map, let alone discuss its socio-economic realities with someone with extensive knowledge on both). So they descend to what they believe is some witty mockery. And I'm to blame for calling them out on it? Give me a break.

So if I argue, I'm a know-nothing lefty, and if I don't argue, I'm a know-nothing lefty? Jeezo, there's no winning with you, is there? How exactly did you want me to respond?

You've clearly misunderstood me, since I didn't say wealth is correlated with political consciousness, because otherwise the most wealthy would also be the most political consciousness. What I was trying to say is that a certain amount of wealth is correlated with an amount of education that is in turn key in providing political consciousness.

Out of interests, what was the average level of education among the French sans cullotes in 1789?

 

[luiz]

So it's just one of those "I'm offended on behalf of people I've never met" things, is it? My, this Chavez fellah puts you out of whack- defending strikers, playing PC police... Next we'll see you trying to organise an Occupy Caracas.

Who said I never met them? I actually personally know many Venezuelans who got blacklisted and had to move abroad. For personal reasons I know a lot of people on the oil sector.

But I am not offended, I was just pointing out that you were essentially making fun of people going through very considerable duress. It's like when that other socialist humanist luminaire, aelf, responded to the OP about 36 christians being slaughtered in Nigeria with the following remark: "poor Christians, always being persecuted. They need Jesus to save them". Am I personally offended? Of course not. Will I call him out on all the humanism contained in that simple remark? Yes I will.

Note that I could say the same about Chávez's effects on left-wingers: here they are mocking black-listed blue collar strikers and even calling them traitors.

And if you read the thread you'll note that I was not even defending their actions (which were justified, even if misguided), I was just pointing out that what happened in Venezuela was not "capital flight", it was very much "regime fleeing". Whether Chávez's purge is justifiable or not does not change the fact that everything I wrote is correct.

Just for the record, I'm twenty two and self-supporting. The XBox which is such a big deal to you is being bought with money from my own pay-cheque (which I understand is what you free marketeers keep complaining there isn't enough of?).

Good for you, enjoy capitalism.

So if I argue, I'm a know-nothing lefty, and if I don't argue, I'm a know-nothing lefty? Jeezo, there's no winning with you, is there? How exactly did you want me to respond?

Nope, I expect you to argue with, eh, arguments, not stuff like "Chávez is throwing rolls of tape at the opposition". That is kind of a give-away for not knowing about the subject.

 

[aelf]

It's like when that other socialist humanist luminaire, aelf, responded to the OP about 36 christians being slaughtered in Nigeria with the following remark: "poor Christians, always being persecuted. They need Jesus to save them". Am I personally offended? Of course not. Will I call him out on all the humanism contained in that simple remark? Yes I will.

All satirists must actually believe what they write, then!

 

[Traitorfish]

Who said I never met them? I actually personally know many Venezuelans who got blacklisted and had to move abroad. For personal reasons I know a lot of people on the oil sector.

But I am not offended, I was just pointing out that you were essentially making fun of people going through very considerable duress. It's like when that other socialist humanist luminaire, aelf, responded to the OP about 36 christians being slaughtered in Nigeria with the following remark: "poor Christians, always being persecuted. They need Jesus to save them". Am I personally offended? Of course not. Will I call him out on all the humanism contained in that simple remark? Yes I will.

Note that I could say the same about Chávez's effects on left-wingers: here they are mocking black-listed blue collar strikers and even calling them traitors.

And if you read the thread you'll note that I was not even defending their actions (which were justified, even if misguided), I was just pointing out that what happened in Venezuela was not "capital flight", it was very much "regime fleeing". Whether Chávez's purge is justifiable or not does not change the fact that everything I wrote is correct.

So what is basically happening is that you have a semantic disagreement with me over the use of the words "flee" and "regime", and because I didn't care to pursue this line of debate, but instead made a few dismissive remarks about your anti-Chavez zeal, I'm to be regarded as a hypocrite? Tediousness itself...

And I never called anyone a "traitor". I generally don't use words that have no meaning.

Good for you, enjoy capitalism.

Trite.

Nope, I expect you to argue with, eh, arguments, not stuff like "Chávez is throwing rolls of tape at the opposition". That is kind of a give-away for not knowing about the subject.

When were we ever arguing about this? My original comment was that talking about "fleeing from Chavez regime" is hyperbolic, and you made some claims about black-listing, the implication being that this made such talk reasonable. When did that become A Serious Debate?

 

[Joecoolyo]

All satirists must actually believe what they write, then!

Satirizing deadly bombings in Nigeria?

You must be one funny guy!

 

[aelf]

Satirizing deadly bombings in Nigeria?

You must be one funny guy!

You didn't read the thread, I take it?

 

[Joecoolyo]

You didn't read the thread, I take it?

I skimmed it.