fuck yes stacey go off. She makes me wish I still lived in Georgia so I could have voted for her (before I remember how much I hated living there
)
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
General News Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GatoDelFuego
- Start date
- Status
)
Does anyone want to talk about Venezuela's crisis... at all?
Common blames are Venezuela's over spending and that the oil price dropped.
Other blames include Venezuela's crude oil is so heavy, it's almost solid and cannot flow through pipes, and thus Venezuela needs to import thinners from other countries.
However, I think oil price is pretty much controlled by large corporations, so I think the mega rich at least plays a part in this crisis.
Also, why can they not transport the oil as it is? What are the technical difficulties?
Common blames are Venezuela's over spending and that the oil price dropped.
Other blames include Venezuela's crude oil is so heavy, it's almost solid and cannot flow through pipes, and thus Venezuela needs to import thinners from other countries.
However, I think oil price is pretty much controlled by large corporations, so I think the mega rich at least plays a part in this crisis.
Also, why can they not transport the oil as it is? What are the technical difficulties?
No one cares about Venezuela?
I do, but it's very difficult to take a stance about it (my country decided to stay neutral-- well maybe that's the best choice). We all know Maduro isn't a saint yet he is the legitimate leader of an indipendent country. I don't think we have the right to interfere with that, simply put. It's up to the people, bar extreme cases in which they would be doomed without external aid. Not to mention all the shadows and economical implications of supporting the liberal Guaidò who clearly is just another puppet ready to sell out its own country's resources and assets to foreign vampires. I hope neither side will 100% prevail, maybe a third political figure coming out of nowhere and replacing Maduro (while preserving his political principles) would be the best thing for Venezuela.
Venezuelan oil has a higher viscosity. What does that mean? Well, imagine a bottle of shower gel and a bottle of water, if you tried to empty those bottles which one would empty faster? This is definitely a real problem and not something people are making up.
What this means is that Venezuelan oil is more difficult and slower to transport through oil pipelines. This alone already increases the costs, but the higher viscosity also makes it worse for refining it, Venezuelan oil is less suitable for fuel usage, so it requires a costlier transformation process. As for “why not transport it as it is”... well sure you can but that’s also slower and more expensive than using pipelines.
Something not many people realize is that in many industries transportation and logistics are what drives prices up.
So to sum up, Venezuelan oil is simply worse than the one extracted in other places, so it’s only worth buying when the price of better quality oil is very high. It’s a bit like the situation in America with fracking, it’s very expensive and only worth using when regular oil prices skyrocket.
It’s also worth noting than in general, oil prices have been driven by the suppliers (oil-producing countries) and not the consumers (big corporations), so it doesn’t make much sense to blame them in this case.
Ok, I dont want to get political for too long, but PLEASE tell me how you could make such an ignorant post. Maduro was never a legitimate leader, holding onto power by barring MANY people from voting, appointing his yes men all throughout the government, and use of military and police to kill innocent protesters. Maduro is by every definition of the word, a dictator. He has been starving his people, killing his people, and threatened to incarcerate any political opposition. Maduro is a tyrant, and the now illegitimate leader of venezuela. But he is GOING to be removed soon, and good riddance on that waste of space.
If I cant change your opinion, thats ok. End of the day, your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But for christ sakes, research the things you talk about, even if only like 10 minutes. You look like an absolute idiot by saying what you have.
As far as I'm concerned, these accusations only come from English sources, so they may be biased.
I'd like to know if there are Spanish sources that say the same (preferably from other South American countries)
Because I know that English sources sometimes flat out tell lies. It relies on the fact that most English speakers know very little outside the English world.
For example, nearly all English sources portrayed the Rohingya Muslims as "innocent", and called Myanmar's action "genocide".
In reality, Rohingya Muslims had killed many Buddhists in Myanmar and other Asian countries before.
It's not "genocide", it's revenge.
Living in the SynthwaveToday at 12:44 PM
hi! i see you're very resilient about accepting the truth about maduro, well, luckily im a venezuelan! and im here to educate you! comunista de starbucks :^) dejame te explico: maduro has been illegitimate since 2013 when he was the interim president after chavez died (we still thank god for that day, chavez dying ofc) and by constitution he shouldn't have runned for the presidency but he did anyways because HE'S A DICTATOR, and now by 2019 with a presidential election held last year where the process was obviously rigged (our system, the ENC or CNE in spanish) by the CNE, we all knew that and no one voted and there are many testimonies about electoral centers just empty. So no one voted, no one recognized them and we moved on into this year where guaidó came as the new president as our constitution demands, "if there is no president available, the president of the national asembly will take the charge as the interim president until new elections are held" so there we have our current situation, maduro doesn't want to leave (of course he doesn't, power is just TOO tasty and awesome) and he will scream and cry all he wants while dancing salsita criolla on national TV while people die. He's shitting his pants on the inside because his days are counted, and trust me, many of us here are praying for an invation to occur. Now, why im i wasting my time with you? a friend wanted to shut you up, i usually don't waste my time with starbucks commies who can't even fact check online on a 5 minute research, anyways, chao contigo :^)
PD: oh and i only proved why maduro is illegitimate, you can do the rest of the research on your own, you know, the human rights violations, the death, famine, all of that sutff, good luck if your brain works decently enough to do that :^)
hi! i see you're very resilient about accepting the truth about maduro, well, luckily im a venezuelan! and im here to educate you! comunista de starbucks :^) dejame te explico: maduro has been illegitimate since 2013 when he was the interim president after chavez died (we still thank god for that day, chavez dying ofc) and by constitution he shouldn't have runned for the presidency but he did anyways because HE'S A DICTATOR, and now by 2019 with a presidential election held last year where the process was obviously rigged (our system, the ENC or CNE in spanish) by the CNE, we all knew that and no one voted and there are many testimonies about electoral centers just empty. So no one voted, no one recognized them and we moved on into this year where guaidó came as the new president as our constitution demands, "if there is no president available, the president of the national asembly will take the charge as the interim president until new elections are held" so there we have our current situation, maduro doesn't want to leave (of course he doesn't, power is just TOO tasty and awesome) and he will scream and cry all he wants while dancing salsita criolla on national TV while people die. He's shitting his pants on the inside because his days are counted, and trust me, many of us here are praying for an invation to occur. Now, why im i wasting my time with you? a friend wanted to shut you up, i usually don't waste my time with starbucks commies who can't even fact check online on a 5 minute research, anyways, chao contigo :^)
PD: oh and i only proved why maduro is illegitimate, you can do the rest of the research on your own, you know, the human rights violations, the death, famine, all of that sutff, good luck if your brain works decently enough to do that :^)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-vigilantes-at-the-border-led-to-trumps-wall
"The remoteness of much of the border region and the harshness of its terrain, the work that straddled the line between foreign and domestic power, and the fact that many of the patrollers were themselves veterans of foreign wars (or hailed from regions with fraught racial relations, including the borderlands themselves) all contributed to a “fortress mentality”, as one officer put it. Patrollers easily imagined their isolated substations to be frontier forts in hostile territory, holding off barbarians. They wielded awesome power over desperate people with little effective recourse.
Just as soldiers use racial epithets for the people they are fighting overseas, border patrollers had a word for their adversaries: “tonks”. Pressed by lawyers in an abuse case to say what the word meant, patroller after patroller claimed they didn’t know. Finally, one witness admitted that tonk is “the sound a flashlight makes when you hit someone over the head”."
"
The novelist Cormac McCarthy called this line the “blood meridian” and thought it signalled a different kind of boundary, across which the conceit of progress gave way to an infernal timelessness, to a land “filled with violent children orphaned by war”, where soldiers and settlers got caught in a dervish swirl, moving in circles going nowhere. That place used to be out there, beyond the frontier. But the US crossed the line so many times that it erased the line. Now the blood meridian is everywhere, nowhere more so than the border itself, a place where all of history’s wars become one war. Vigilantes often describe themselves as the rear guard of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, standing against an enemy they believe is intent on retaking land they lost at the end of that conflict. “Mexican migrants are attempting a reconquest,” said one of the Minuteman founders, not by force but through migration.
"
long piece on the history of the politics and violence at the US-Mexico border
"The remoteness of much of the border region and the harshness of its terrain, the work that straddled the line between foreign and domestic power, and the fact that many of the patrollers were themselves veterans of foreign wars (or hailed from regions with fraught racial relations, including the borderlands themselves) all contributed to a “fortress mentality”, as one officer put it. Patrollers easily imagined their isolated substations to be frontier forts in hostile territory, holding off barbarians. They wielded awesome power over desperate people with little effective recourse.
Just as soldiers use racial epithets for the people they are fighting overseas, border patrollers had a word for their adversaries: “tonks”. Pressed by lawyers in an abuse case to say what the word meant, patroller after patroller claimed they didn’t know. Finally, one witness admitted that tonk is “the sound a flashlight makes when you hit someone over the head”."
"
The novelist Cormac McCarthy called this line the “blood meridian” and thought it signalled a different kind of boundary, across which the conceit of progress gave way to an infernal timelessness, to a land “filled with violent children orphaned by war”, where soldiers and settlers got caught in a dervish swirl, moving in circles going nowhere. That place used to be out there, beyond the frontier. But the US crossed the line so many times that it erased the line. Now the blood meridian is everywhere, nowhere more so than the border itself, a place where all of history’s wars become one war. Vigilantes often describe themselves as the rear guard of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, standing against an enemy they believe is intent on retaking land they lost at the end of that conflict. “Mexican migrants are attempting a reconquest,” said one of the Minuteman founders, not by force but through migration.
"
long piece on the history of the politics and violence at the US-Mexico border
SacredLatias and your discord friend
USA & company have been starving your people in the first place by putting sanctions on first necessity goods, not just Maduro. The fact you have been isolated internationally for years has made your regime what is it today. I understand your frustration but you seem to ignore the fact I wish for someone else to replace him, and in no way I side with him or with what supposed crimes he has done; I am perfectly aware he took an authoritarian, repressive route so trying to calling me out as a communist online as if I were his supporter won't do any good to your argument.
(heh, you two failed really hard at guessing my political affiliation, by the way)
There are no simple solutions to complex problems and giving your country to someone would would privatize even his mother isn't one of them.
Also (@ the others) don't let the "Venezuela's oil is too viscous" mantra distract you. It's still oil and it made up to 96% of the country's exportations; it's the price of oil in general that dropped down on international markets, not Venezuela's (destinyunknown said this but I want to stress it further). Still, the expansionist ambitions of the multinationals seem to be more about coltan than oil...
USA & company have been starving your people in the first place by putting sanctions on first necessity goods, not just Maduro. The fact you have been isolated internationally for years has made your regime what is it today. I understand your frustration but you seem to ignore the fact I wish for someone else to replace him, and in no way I side with him or with what supposed crimes he has done; I am perfectly aware he took an authoritarian, repressive route so trying to calling me out as a communist online as if I were his supporter won't do any good to your argument.
(heh, you two failed really hard at guessing my political affiliation, by the way)
There are no simple solutions to complex problems and giving your country to someone would would privatize even his mother isn't one of them.
Also (@ the others) don't let the "Venezuela's oil is too viscous" mantra distract you. It's still oil and it made up to 96% of the country's exportations; it's the price of oil in general that dropped down on international markets, not Venezuela's (destinyunknown said this but I want to stress it further). Still, the expansionist ambitions of the multinationals seem to be more about coltan than oil...
Last edited:
I'm still interested in discussions on Venezuela.
But also, it seems that India has declared war against Pakistan
https://edition.cnn.com/india/live-news/india-pakistan-kashmir-dle-intl/index.html
It isn't surprising as a person from Asia. India and Pakistan had always had intense rivalry since the end of the colonization era, and had been in tension for the past months.
But also, it seems that India has declared war against Pakistan
https://edition.cnn.com/india/live-news/india-pakistan-kashmir-dle-intl/index.html
It isn't surprising as a person from Asia. India and Pakistan had always had intense rivalry since the end of the colonization era, and had been in tension for the past months.
I think you missed the point of the entire post. I wanted to give you a window into what it is to be venezuelan, but obviously you missed it. You somehow went to trying to say we were trying to guess your political association (lol ofc not, learn where an insult lies). And even then, any sanctions of ours arent as important as BLOCKING BORDER ROADS with SHIPPING CONTAINERS and MILITARY. Recently, a bunch of people died TRYING to send resources into venezuela. The regime in place is self destructive, simply being used to inflate the power of maduro. If anything, Guido is the only option towards moving venezuela towards a good economy and start recovering from the latest dictatorial regime. Change is needed, and Guido is already the new legitimate president of venezuela. All that is waiting to happen is the military to abandon maduro, and we will have a new government in place, and will have started on the long road to national recovery.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/anand-giridharadas-interview-winners-take-all
"
Q: I recently read that only 7% of philanthropic dollars are awarded to groups and organizations that specifically serve people of color. Does this figure surprise you? Is the solution here to make would-be philanthropists more racially literate or should we rather strive to build an antiracist future that does not accommodate philanthropy? Or maybe the premise of my question is unfair?
There are two different answers, and they are in tension with one another. First, I don’t think we should count on the richest and most powerful people in the world – most of whom are white – to play any kind of leadership role in dismantling white supremacy. To the extent that people and organizations put philanthropic dollars to work on issues of racial justice, we need to set a new norm: money should not buy any decision-making power, especially when it comes to racial justice work.
Here’s an idea I heard during a recent discussion group I attended: a person who will remain anonymous said that non-profits that depend on philanthropic grants should form a pact, whereby they would all agree to just post the work they do on their websites, along with wire-transfer instructions. That’s it. This changes the game.
It basically says: “Hey, we don’t fundraise. We don’t take you on trips. We don’t cater to you. We don’t do PowerPoints in your office. We don’t come in and talk to your relatives and clip the wings of our diagnosis, so that you feel more comfortable. You just see the work you like and you wire us money. We’re not putting your name on anything and you don’t get to shape the initiative.”
Others who actually work in the field will be more knowledgable than me on the practicality of such an idea. "
and an interesting idea, the writer brings up a proposal to item-line fundraising for non-profit services that rely on philanthropic donations to lower influence, but I think while the problem has been sketched correctly this particular solution is dubious. I would point out that non-profit services that rely on philanthropic donations do not make up the majority of non-profit services at all, but philanthropic grants do partially fund some of the most important services in many counties such as crisis beds and respite which greatly reduce the burden on urban hospitals. A type of pact against selling influence sounds like a good principle, but it needs a lot of grounding for me to understand how organizations would shift in that direction and I'm not sure the extent to which individual donors influence day to day decisions at the largest non-profits that have multiple large-medium size donors and contracts with the county. Thats where the elite discourses infiltration of the mindset of the high ranked non-profit admins is sinister because they still think like well-meaning elites do, which means their paralysis and indecision is allowed to effect big decisions that have an implicit day to day impact on the people potentially receiving services (how many nurses will work at the clinic on weekends, is this homeless shelter temporary or permanent, etc).
There is proposal that rich ppl pay more taxes and the gov provide more services that I think is worthy to mention here as I fret about philanthropy and elite influence.
"
On the theme of philanthropy and philanthrocapitalism, you have written that “generosity is not a substitute for justice”. That is, perhaps generosity ought not to be the taken-for-granted barometer of social progress. In the spirit of racial justice, I am reminded that Malcolm X once said: “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made … They won’t even admit the knife is there.” Can you describe the processes by which social and political power sustains and legitimizes itself through appeals to “generosity”?
What I am trying to do is to take on this pervasive societal habit of automatic gratitude and praise for elites who engage in various forms of do-gooding, whether that’s impact investing or social enterprise or philanthropy or any modality that falls within the “doing well by doing good” paradigm of change. This is the kind of change that allows you to stand on someone’s back while saying you’re helping them.
My book is a book about moves. It’s a book about ruling-class dance moves, if you will. There are certain dance moves that have been very effective at making us think that members of the ruling class are not the problem that in fact they are. One popular dance move is using generosity to obscure one’s own complicity in injustice. You commit an injustice and then rely on generosity on a much smaller scale to cover it up. This is the most obvious move. This happens often enough that when you see an act of plutocratic generosity you should at a minimum be skeptical.
This isn’t the only move, though. Another move is simply altering our collective conversation about what change is. The Stanford sociologists Aaron Horvath and Walter Powell show that these hyper-elites are very successful at changing the conversation. They’re good at making certain approaches to change look bad and making others look better. For example, elites often make charter schools look better than they are or make unions look worse than they are.
Or elites might introduce a new concept like “resilience”, a concept that sounds great but that is actually just about adjusting to societal crappiness rather than fixing it. What wealthy people do is rig the discourse."
On the theme of philanthropy and philanthrocapitalism, you have written that “generosity is not a substitute for justice”. That is, perhaps generosity ought not to be the taken-for-granted barometer of social progress. In the spirit of racial justice, I am reminded that Malcolm X once said: “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made … They won’t even admit the knife is there.” Can you describe the processes by which social and political power sustains and legitimizes itself through appeals to “generosity”?
What I am trying to do is to take on this pervasive societal habit of automatic gratitude and praise for elites who engage in various forms of do-gooding, whether that’s impact investing or social enterprise or philanthropy or any modality that falls within the “doing well by doing good” paradigm of change. This is the kind of change that allows you to stand on someone’s back while saying you’re helping them.
My book is a book about moves. It’s a book about ruling-class dance moves, if you will. There are certain dance moves that have been very effective at making us think that members of the ruling class are not the problem that in fact they are. One popular dance move is using generosity to obscure one’s own complicity in injustice. You commit an injustice and then rely on generosity on a much smaller scale to cover it up. This is the most obvious move. This happens often enough that when you see an act of plutocratic generosity you should at a minimum be skeptical.
This isn’t the only move, though. Another move is simply altering our collective conversation about what change is. The Stanford sociologists Aaron Horvath and Walter Powell show that these hyper-elites are very successful at changing the conversation. They’re good at making certain approaches to change look bad and making others look better. For example, elites often make charter schools look better than they are or make unions look worse than they are.
Or elites might introduce a new concept like “resilience”, a concept that sounds great but that is actually just about adjusting to societal crappiness rather than fixing it. What wealthy people do is rig the discourse."
Q: I recently read that only 7% of philanthropic dollars are awarded to groups and organizations that specifically serve people of color. Does this figure surprise you? Is the solution here to make would-be philanthropists more racially literate or should we rather strive to build an antiracist future that does not accommodate philanthropy? Or maybe the premise of my question is unfair?
There are two different answers, and they are in tension with one another. First, I don’t think we should count on the richest and most powerful people in the world – most of whom are white – to play any kind of leadership role in dismantling white supremacy. To the extent that people and organizations put philanthropic dollars to work on issues of racial justice, we need to set a new norm: money should not buy any decision-making power, especially when it comes to racial justice work.
Here’s an idea I heard during a recent discussion group I attended: a person who will remain anonymous said that non-profits that depend on philanthropic grants should form a pact, whereby they would all agree to just post the work they do on their websites, along with wire-transfer instructions. That’s it. This changes the game.
It basically says: “Hey, we don’t fundraise. We don’t take you on trips. We don’t cater to you. We don’t do PowerPoints in your office. We don’t come in and talk to your relatives and clip the wings of our diagnosis, so that you feel more comfortable. You just see the work you like and you wire us money. We’re not putting your name on anything and you don’t get to shape the initiative.”
Others who actually work in the field will be more knowledgable than me on the practicality of such an idea. "
and an interesting idea, the writer brings up a proposal to item-line fundraising for non-profit services that rely on philanthropic donations to lower influence, but I think while the problem has been sketched correctly this particular solution is dubious. I would point out that non-profit services that rely on philanthropic donations do not make up the majority of non-profit services at all, but philanthropic grants do partially fund some of the most important services in many counties such as crisis beds and respite which greatly reduce the burden on urban hospitals. A type of pact against selling influence sounds like a good principle, but it needs a lot of grounding for me to understand how organizations would shift in that direction and I'm not sure the extent to which individual donors influence day to day decisions at the largest non-profits that have multiple large-medium size donors and contracts with the county. Thats where the elite discourses infiltration of the mindset of the high ranked non-profit admins is sinister because they still think like well-meaning elites do, which means their paralysis and indecision is allowed to effect big decisions that have an implicit day to day impact on the people potentially receiving services (how many nurses will work at the clinic on weekends, is this homeless shelter temporary or permanent, etc).
There is proposal that rich ppl pay more taxes and the gov provide more services that I think is worthy to mention here as I fret about philanthropy and elite influence.
You can't be serious right? Don't you live in China, where your government quite literally black screens unfavorable news like youre living in the V for Vendetta dystopia?
Can we not normalize or advocate the Myanmar genocide please? You can't seriously think that infanticide, rape, and mass extinction of this pollitical group of Rohingya is just by the book eye for an eye revenge, or even if it is that somehow makes it better? Never mind that the Rohingya haven't been considered citizens in their country since their independence in ]the 1940s and that the government literally gave out white cards to the Rohingya mimicking literal Nazi Germany. Never mind that the entire world including the United Nations and International Criminal Court as well as human rights officials all condemn the activiites of Myanmar
How about we talk about the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people in China or the immense government censorship in China. Do you have any sources for your claim that Rohingya Muslims had started the conflicts to warrant the lashback? Killing 9 people in an armed conflict does not call for mass rape and genocide in retaliation. It's a bold claim to state that all English sources flat out tell lies when your own government is the supreme leader of censorship and fake news right now
Last edited:
Don't post about Venezuela again, your ignorance on the subject is extremely obvious. The fact your woke take doesn't even mention Chavez anywhere and that you think the Venezuelan crisis started with Maduro and the sanctions shows how little you actually know.
Holy shit what the fuck is this paragraph. How do you go from from blaming sanctions to using Venezuela's oil's imports to support your wokeness. You are trying to backup your awful opinions with facts that go completely against the points you are trying to make. This is next level.
When the "expansionist" were balls deep in Venezuela and had free reign, that number was around 70% and Venezuela had one of the strongest economies of the region. The chavistas "principles" put that number in the mid 80s% within 5 years despite kicking out all the international oil industries and nationalizing as much as they could. Not because the oil industry grew, but because the Chavista goverment ruined everything else and forced the country to almost exclusively rely on oil. Venezuela's economy was carried by the overly inflated oil prices, but the moment those dropped, the house of cards crumbled and kickstarted the Venezuelan crisis. This was years before Maduro became Chavez successor or any sanction was put in place.
Only thing that number shows is that the Chavista government and their "socialism of the 21st century" was actively more harmful than the international companies that only cared about exploiting Venezuela's resources and workforce. Crippling the country, destroying the economy and ruining the future of your population to epic own capitalism, because immediate "results" matter more than long term stability. Those are the "principles" you support.
omg amazing read, racists always get so upset when you call them racists it's rly funny to me the consistency of the reactions, and id even be willing to say 'not all white men' do this reaction, just a certain segment
https://newsone.com/3847507/mark-me...opoBgSHX6JRKENnwE7AruEY6YD_FSiRSMqTVXVG_KeCog
"
6. *Shrug*
And like a whimper, nothing happens. Because what really ever happens to white men who reveal themselves to be racist. They do all that crying because the r-word to white men is their N-word. Why? Because white men will never have to face something as deadly, painful and hateful as the N-word. When in the end “racist” is just a mild inconvenience. Nothing substantial really happens to them. Sure, they may get fired eventually but they’ll find more jobs with no problems. They’ll find bigger fan bases who embrace their racism. They get to keep their jobs as governors. They become presidents. They throw fits on national television and get coddled into feeling like everything is okay. They learn nothing. They don’t grow. They get to continue to hate us. And all we get in the end is a shrug.
And that’s what happens when white men get called racist.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. "
also what is going on at forbes isnt that supposed to be a mag for rich ppl right:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drewha...Uv6D9RtVIob95ZDlQ5FeXDMM7RFz9YTg#54e14117ccc8
https://newsone.com/3847507/mark-me...opoBgSHX6JRKENnwE7AruEY6YD_FSiRSMqTVXVG_KeCog
"
6. *Shrug*
And like a whimper, nothing happens. Because what really ever happens to white men who reveal themselves to be racist. They do all that crying because the r-word to white men is their N-word. Why? Because white men will never have to face something as deadly, painful and hateful as the N-word. When in the end “racist” is just a mild inconvenience. Nothing substantial really happens to them. Sure, they may get fired eventually but they’ll find more jobs with no problems. They’ll find bigger fan bases who embrace their racism. They get to keep their jobs as governors. They become presidents. They throw fits on national television and get coddled into feeling like everything is okay. They learn nothing. They don’t grow. They get to continue to hate us. And all we get in the end is a shrug.
And that’s what happens when white men get called racist.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. "
also what is going on at forbes isnt that supposed to be a mag for rich ppl right:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drewha...Uv6D9RtVIob95ZDlQ5FeXDMM7RFz9YTg#54e14117ccc8
I like you, myzozoa.
Recently speaking, i always seem to learn something new from your posts. The above post is not an example of this, but only because when it comes to black people/white people and racism, you'd be preaching to the choir (i basically know all about that issue)
But yes, generally speaking, i am a fan of your posts
Recently speaking, i always seem to learn something new from your posts. The above post is not an example of this, but only because when it comes to black people/white people and racism, you'd be preaching to the choir (i basically know all about that issue)
But yes, generally speaking, i am a fan of your posts
Irregardless of what people believe when it comes to Venezuela, how bad their current situation is, who is and is not to blame et cetera, I see absolutely zero justification for this Guaido goon to be crowned president of Venezuela. A virtual nobody before a lot of Western countries magically decided to support him, I hardly see what gives this man of all possible candidates the right to be put in a position of power. The USA has a long history of less-than-ideal regime change in Latin America, as well as a history of buddying up with dictatorial regimes (hello Saudi Arabia), so when America backs some guy who came more or less out of nowhere to become the new president (and let's not pretend they intend to get him in that position by fair, democratic means), I think there are reasons to be skeptical. Simply put, Guaido is not in the first place there to serve the interests of the Venezuelan people: he is there to serve corporate, American interests. I do believe there are good reasons to be concerned about the Maduro administration's ability to govern the country, but such concerns should be dealt with by the Venezuelan people themselves, without outside interference.
Good video on the subject btw:
Good video on the subject btw:
I don't think anybody in this thread has denied that people in Venezuela are not experiencing the hardships they say they are, it's just that not everybody believes the blame is to be shifted entirely onto Maduro (or Chavez for that matter) when there is ample proof that America and many powerful corporate actors have had a vested interest in destabilizing the country for a couple of decades now. Let's also not pretend that less than a handful of Venezuelans on Smogon are representative of the Venezuelan people. Like all other nations, Venezuela is a pluralistic society, lots of different people with different experiences and different opinions.
While I don't pretend to be super invested in Guaido's bid, you're not entirely accurately representing him either. This isn't a random goon the CIA found in the streets, he's third in line for the Presidency due to his elected position and support in the National Assembly. Not that it makes everything magically ok, but that's actually important to mention if you want to push the "Venezuela should decide by democratic means' angle, because his entire legitimacy is due to being directly elected and then voted on by the representatives of the people.
Actually, Hong Kong is not affected by the ban, so I do have all access to all news in English, Chinese, Japanese and Spanish.
Yes, I do read that many languages.
Nothing is being banned in Hong Kong.
You are pretty ignorant if you don't know about that.
Hong Kong has its own government, own legal system, currency, residency, news publishers, etc. (At least for now)
And yes, you can talk about Tibet all you want. I'm aware of that.
And you can also talk about how China is currently putting Muslims in concentration camps. I'm fully aware of that too.
As for the Rohingya bit. I doubt you read Cantonese Chinese, so I don't think I'd take the time to find you a source.
PS: Even if you live in Mainland China, it's very easy to softwares to access banned websites anyway.
Language is the only thing that limits people's access to news.
Last edited:
Every country has its own problems. No country is utopia in the first place. Most countries aren't "better" or "worse" compared to each other. You shouldn't be comparing countries like this.
You should allow criticism from foreigners about your country.
Stop getting butthurt when people criticize your country
You should allow criticism from foreigners about your country.
Stop getting butthurt when people criticize your country
Last edited:
Did I say it was the best?
I dont give a shit about upholding the honor of the United States I’ll be the first to say the United States is a country hellbent on terrorizing secondary countries all across the globe and is held hostage by oligarchial powers. Do you think a ranking of “satisfactory” is bad on your own example? Yeah, things like Fox news or Infowars is ignorant as shit but you don’t have ample evidence for your claims that the American MSM constantly lies and spreads fake news about global events. What exactly makes the Cantonese sources any less biased or more reliable than Spanish sources, or English sources, or German sources?
I dont care what you think about me “being butthurt about an attack on America” (l o l) i care about you normalizing genocides and if you cant provide a source then either put up or shut up
I dont give a shit about upholding the honor of the United States I’ll be the first to say the United States is a country hellbent on terrorizing secondary countries all across the globe and is held hostage by oligarchial powers. Do you think a ranking of “satisfactory” is bad on your own example? Yeah, things like Fox news or Infowars is ignorant as shit but you don’t have ample evidence for your claims that the American MSM constantly lies and spreads fake news about global events. What exactly makes the Cantonese sources any less biased or more reliable than Spanish sources, or English sources, or German sources?
I dont care what you think about me “being butthurt about an attack on America” (l o l) i care about you normalizing genocides and if you cant provide a source then either put up or shut up
You look so stupid right now.
- Status