By asking questions i mean asking foreigners, say on this board, about their perspective.
You will be tempted to claim that you - liberal Americans - are attentive of the outside world and curious about the things people in foreign countires do, particularly their politics.
And my point is going to be: Yes, and no.
Yes, in that you spend time on hearing and reading about affairs in foreign countries.
No, in that you are not actually asking people from those countries the relevant questions.
So you, for example, read newspaper articles about elections in country xyz.
And you watch those late night shows with frequent talk about foreign countries.
But you don't truly let these strange people actally speak.
The newspaper articles you read are written by Americans most of the time, or by a British person reluctantly visiting the country in question, often someone who doesn't speak the local language.
Sometimes its a partisan from that country contributing infrequently or even just this one piece and they are little more than a tool of editorial direction.
Effectively it's either about the weird/bad things the people in that foreign land have, or about the good thing they have and you don't, supposedly because Republicans.
I'll demonstrate the difference. We'll do it with late night, because, hey, you may as well be entertained.
You see what i'm saying here:
It's one thing to have Americans (and some imported Brits and Canadians) talk about the things that are relevant to the funny foreigners.
It's a wholly different thing to have the weird foreigners talk about things that are relevant to you or things that are relevant to everybody and listen.
Let's look at the consequence of engaging the outside world in this fashion:
You have just spent over 3000 posts debating this confirmation process with the two-and-a-half conservatives on this board. Last thing i witnessed your attempt to paint some Portuguese socialist on the internet as a Trumpist. Surely a valuable use of your time.
At one point, i suppose somewhere in the first thousand posts, i tried to bait you into letting me tell you about how the surpeme court of my stupid country is literally a sorkinesque phantasy in the real world. You didn't bite and that's fair.
But let's go closer to home...
This is Beverley McLachlin.
It's her retirement party.
Maybe you've heard her name before.
It probably wasn't here. Her name was used twice on this board in this decade: Once just now, and once in 2013. Also by me.
That's arguably ironic because she has been the Chief Justice of Canada while Trump was elected. She was also Chief Justice of Canada when the old WTC was still up.
Canadians also happen to have undertaken a series of reforms of their Supreme Court and have arguably one of the best ones on the planet.
You could ask them about it.
Or you can go another thousand posts relitigating brewski appointments on that dude's calendar.
No problem. You just say: "Oh none of that applies to us anyway, because we have Republicans and they break the rules..." etc. I deem it possible that you were allready halfway through saying something to that effect this very moment.
Which one will be more useful to you?
Which one will be more fun?
You will be tempted to claim that you - liberal Americans - are attentive of the outside world and curious about the things people in foreign countires do, particularly their politics.
And my point is going to be: Yes, and no.
Yes, in that you spend time on hearing and reading about affairs in foreign countries.
No, in that you are not actually asking people from those countries the relevant questions.
So you, for example, read newspaper articles about elections in country xyz.
And you watch those late night shows with frequent talk about foreign countries.
But you don't truly let these strange people actally speak.
The newspaper articles you read are written by Americans most of the time, or by a British person reluctantly visiting the country in question, often someone who doesn't speak the local language.
Sometimes its a partisan from that country contributing infrequently or even just this one piece and they are little more than a tool of editorial direction.
Effectively it's either about the weird/bad things the people in that foreign land have, or about the good thing they have and you don't, supposedly because Republicans.
I'll demonstrate the difference. We'll do it with late night, because, hey, you may as well be entertained.
Beware John Oliver is cursing:
I hope you can see (with the possible exception of Le Pen) none of the dozens of French persons cited got to actually speak in any meaningful way.
Considering the educational overtone of the piece and the length of 18 minutes that's odd, isn't it?
For contrast:
He mocks him with the fake French accent and he obviously disagrees and with him but none the less Noah let's the actual ambassador of France not just speak, but potentially break through your frame.
Spoiler :
Considering the educational overtone of the piece and the length of 18 minutes that's odd, isn't it?
For contrast:
Spoiler :
You see what i'm saying here:
It's one thing to have Americans (and some imported Brits and Canadians) talk about the things that are relevant to the funny foreigners.
It's a wholly different thing to have the weird foreigners talk about things that are relevant to you or things that are relevant to everybody and listen.
Let's look at the consequence of engaging the outside world in this fashion:
You have just spent over 3000 posts debating this confirmation process with the two-and-a-half conservatives on this board. Last thing i witnessed your attempt to paint some Portuguese socialist on the internet as a Trumpist. Surely a valuable use of your time.
At one point, i suppose somewhere in the first thousand posts, i tried to bait you into letting me tell you about how the surpeme court of my stupid country is literally a sorkinesque phantasy in the real world. You didn't bite and that's fair.
But let's go closer to home...
Spoiler :
This is Beverley McLachlin.
It's her retirement party.
Maybe you've heard her name before.
It probably wasn't here. Her name was used twice on this board in this decade: Once just now, and once in 2013. Also by me.
That's arguably ironic because she has been the Chief Justice of Canada while Trump was elected. She was also Chief Justice of Canada when the old WTC was still up.
Canadians also happen to have undertaken a series of reforms of their Supreme Court and have arguably one of the best ones on the planet.
You could ask them about it.
Or you can go another thousand posts relitigating brewski appointments on that dude's calendar.
No problem. You just say: "Oh none of that applies to us anyway, because we have Republicans and they break the rules..." etc. I deem it possible that you were allready halfway through saying something to that effect this very moment.
Which one will be more useful to you?
Which one will be more fun?
