Dumb and Stupid Quotes Thread: Idiotic Source and Context are Key.
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Oh no !
It matters what specific parts of globalization you criticize for what specific reason.
In this case, it appears that simply referring to globalization's advocates as 'globalists' is enough to condemn oneself.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Yeah.
Who uses that word, and in what context ?
"The Left" (including me) was always critical of globilazitation because it encourages a race to the bottom in tax, labor and enviromental law, and 20 years after I started to rant about globalization, people who agree with the extreme right on almost everything start to rant about "globalism", and I've never seen one of those mofos make a case for a policy that would protect local environmental laws or threaten the profits of shareholders.
Well, an example would be right there at the top of the page.
The economic kind, yes.
It's possible they just don't enjoy being viewed as interchangeable units by the influential and powerful. That could be the reason.
I'm guessing your definition of extreme right is, 'doesn't think multiculturalism is utterly, completely good at all times and places.'
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Nice strawman, but no.
There are potential advantages and disadvantages to immigration, and there are too many variables to make a definitive judgement.
Doesn't really matter.
Asylum is a human right and we have an abundance of methods to exclude "those people" from politics.
There is no politically meaningful multiculturalism here. It's all virtue signalling from people who don't like multiculturalism and can't say what it is.
How about a compromise ?
I agree that the mythical "multiculturalism is always good" loons should be thrown into re-education camps, and you agree that people who unironically say "globalist" should be "reformed through labour".
How about that ?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I mean, you're taking a stand to denounce a liberal Jewish intellectual as a fork-tongued cosmopolitan. You must at least be able to appreciate why unqualified references to "globalism" land awkwardly.
All right then, the friendly Mr. Putin proposes to move Russians into Lithuania until ethnic Lithuanians become a minority. Is that okay?
I typed up a long response to this, but I'm thinking of just making it into a thread (better that we don't turn this one into another flamefest, anyway).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm not going to watch that.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
That could be an interesting scenario for a fantasy novel with Elves, Dwarves and Russians, but it would require an exceptionally creative and meticulous author to make it plausible.
Cool...
It's only a video of Crazy Bernie saying the same thing about a certain wealthy Jew. What're you scared of?
It's been a stunning success for the human species. There hasn't been a loser. So what failures are you referring to?
The failures of the American car industry, which were totally caused by evil (((globalists))) and not their own incompetence at designing a car that anyone wants.
To be serious though, wasn't NAFTA a big loss for a lot of people since companies just outsourced to Mexico?
To be serious though, wasn't NAFTA a big loss for a lot of people since companies just outsourced to Mexico?
Lexicus
Deity
Do you know the proportion of GHG emissions caused by shipping and air travel? just curious...
Do you know the proportion of the human population lifted out of extreme poverty? just curious...
There is a big difference between "a large majority of the world it better off with global trading" and "there have been no losers from global trading".
Lexicus
Deity
Aside from the fact that, as Samson has pointed out, this doesn't really support your claim which was "no losers", I don't know the answer to this question and neither do you. The UN's numbers are riddled with problems that make them largely useless; even taking their numbers as good, they constitute more of an argument for neo-mercantilist industrialization under the guidance of the Communist Party of China than for "globalization".
I agree that the numbers are really hard to interpret, and to assign causality is next to impossible, but the global poor have got a lot better off in the last couple of decades. The standard "elephant" graph, from Branko Milanovic at the world bank:
There is a dip at [2], and these people have got worse off. There are much fewer of them than at [1] who have got better off, and a lot of these are in China but also India and much of south east asia. These areas, particularly the later 2, really have gained from globalisation.
Last edited:
Moderator Action: Too late for that, I'm afraid. This thread should have minimum discussion in it, otherwise we end up with these issues each time.
