Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "ContraPoints" channel.

  1.  @demilembias2527  Because we allow it to, yes. We've let areas flood or dried areas based on the amount of land we wanted in the past. Last big one was us turning a sea into a lake and creating an entirely new province in the 1950s and now there is talk of perhaps building a big airport somewhere out at sea (unsure whether that will be done). And there is the Waddenzee, which is an area in the north that periodically totally floods. But if the climate change predictions are correct, pretty much all of our biggest city area (including Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and more) will turn into the lost city of Atlantis unless we seriously step up our water management game. There is only so much we can do against the sea, even if we are great at battling the flooding. Guess we'll go live in Germany or something
    90
  2. Damn that second part was difficult to watch, yet simultaneously so beautifully done. I deeply hope you're okay and will find a way out of this. That was a powerful watch. Please do everything you can to make part 2 about rising up out of this place and being in a great position in life. I wish you the best on your journey through this. That you've made a video again, and a great one at that, gives me hope that you've already started this journey to a better place. Stay strong, Natalie, and remember there are many people who deeply care about you. Even if we can only do so from a distance, I speak for many when I say we feel with you and care for your wellbeing. I hope that can soothe you and give you extra strength.
    75
  3. Some migrants "take our jobs" and others are "lazy and live off welfare", yes. It's important to make a distinction between certain types of immigration. You have uncontrolled immigration wherein unwanted amounts of cheap workers can cross the border and outcompete the local workers, pushing wages and working conditions down for everyone and chasing locals away from that type of job (the "take our jobs" type). You also have controlled immigration in which only wanted migrants are let in that will fulfill jobs just as locals do on equal grounds or fill jobs that locals don't want to do anymore (wanted expats/migrant workers). And you have migrants that come here in good faith and end up in welfare honestly, but also migrants that come here with the express intent of benefitting from our welfare. An example of the latter is the illegal migrants that come to Europe amongst refugees. They burn their passports and say they're from a country we accept refugees from. Once we deny them asylum they just roam to the next country to try again. Usually this goes paired with crime wherever they go. They're just here for money. Then there are groups that consistently end up in welfare, making them suspicious. Here in the Netherlands, 60% of Syrians are in welfare (2015 numbers, prob. lower now). Because they're new refugees that need to find their place in our society, this is perfectly normal and reasonable; not suspicious at all. But you also have more suspect groups: 70% of Somalians are in welfare (yes, I didn't believe this ridiculously high percentage either, but they are actual government figures from 2015). This group has been here for several generations now, so this is not reasonable at all; something is wrong with this group. What exactly is wrong can only be speculated on, but we can at least conclude they're living off welfare at an unacceptable rate and something needs to be done about this (research is needed as to why this is the case, then policy needs to be created to help them get out of this position or depending on the outcome of the research just be more strict in accepting migrants from Somalia). So yes, there is such a thing as negative types of migration that damages the job market severely or types of migrants that are parasitical on welfare. But there are also positive types of migration that fills jobs in a good manner or migrants that end up in welfare because they really need it. It's not one or the other and "take our jobs" complaints can actually be justified.
    32
  4. It's interesting how opulence in most of Europe is viewed almost as the exact opposite of how you describe the US approach to it. Particularly here in the Netherlands the rich are downright hated and the cultural norm is to hide your riches to prevent looking snobby. Any flaunting of wealth is seen as inherently tacky, as unnecessary and condescending self-aggrandising. Taste is seen as subtle and refined markers of cultural knowledge, not too lavish, not too ordinary, something that shows you know the conventions of style (as you stated, preconceived notions of style/beauty within your culture). There is nothing comparable to the "American dream" here. Instead of idolising the flaunting rich, we seem to idolise and emulate the upper class itself as "the epitome of class", if you will. But instead of emulating their wealth, we emulate their style and behaviourisms. Style is a lot more important across Europe than actual wealth, though naturally you need a certain degree of wealth to fund proper style (and a lot of wealth to attain the height of style) but in that sense wealth is viewed as more functional than a goal as such.
    30
  5. That isn't the point of free speech at all. Free speech exists to ensure that the free exchange of ideas that underpins democracy stays healthy. If there's a huge social current that represses free speech that is equally destructive to democracy and its premise of free exchange of ideas as a repressive government is. Free speech is not about the government, it is about ensuring the functioning of democracy, which can't function without free speech. This also means that absolute free speech doesn't really make sense. It's useless to protect speech that isn't allowed in democracy to begin with, like spreading nazi ideology. Unfortunately America just doesn't understand what freedom of speech is and why it exists so I often see viewpoints like freedom of speech has to be absolute or freedom of speech is only for the government. Both wrong.
    26
  6. Because they're poor. We don't like including poor and violence-ridden countries in our club, it taints how vain we can be about the West. Some people are even starting to say Mediterranean countries like Italy and Greece are not European. We do what we need to justify our ideas about the West being somehow inherently superior, so we can't have inferior economies/civilisations as part of it. We'd probably sooner accept a country like Japan in the club than Brazil. And it's not race, because a country like Argentina is basically white and they still are not considered European/Western and America is of course not that white (plus I doubt we'd disavow America as part of the west when white people become the minority. We will do so if they ever become poor or violence-ridden however, can't have any country tainting our image of the West).
    22
  7. Great to see you back, Natalie! Hope you're having a wonderful day, as you certainly made mine by uploading again 🙂
    12
  8.  @xCorvus7x  This nuance is important because pretty much only the far right uses the "all migrants are welfare-suckers" talking points and everyone knows that's nonsense. The grand, grand majority of complaints about migrants speak of certain types of migrants being unwanted and propose a strict immigration policy comparable to Australia (which still takes in wanted expats). Usually they say "group X and Y is disproportionately in welfare and/or crime, therefore they haven't or can't integrate into our society properly, therefore immigration from that country needs to be more strict or completely stopped". The right isn't this caricature you're presenting that literally wants zero immigration because they think somehow all migrants are bad or even that all coloured migrants are bad. In fact, usually it's the left that relies on fallacious arguments like "yes, but not all so let's continue the mass immigration policy". Not all of the left, though, as there are several parties that at least do see the problem of large amounts of economic migrants from safe countries coming along with real refugees. The problem with your comment is that you set up a strawman argument wherein you reduce anti-immigration arguments into a caricature that's dead easy to debunk. Arguments you're going to need to be debunking are statements like "70% of Somalians are in welfare, therefore this group can't properly integrate into our society, therefore it's a massive risk and money sink to allow more Somalians to immigrate, therefore immigration from Somalia needs to be stopped". Just for context, Dutch citizens are 4% in welfare and EU migrants 2-3%. They also use this argument for crime stats: "20% of Moroccans are in welfare and despite being only 2% of the population they make up over 10% of prison inmates (making them overrepresented by a factor of 5 both in terms of welfare and crime), therefore importing Moroccans is costly and bad for safety, therefore immigration from that country needs to stop". These are the types of arguments used in the anti-migration camp.
    11
  9.  @xCorvus7x  Well, the 'no human is illegal' crowd usually denies that any problems exist or claims that insofar a problem exists not all members of those groups can be blamed for it (fair point) and go on to say therefore mass immigration is fine and should continue (fallacy). Other leftist politicians do recognise the problems and actually propose solutions. There is discussion possible in that reasonable middle (not trying to say reason can only be found in the middle of the political spectrum, just the middle between "immigration is undeniably good" and "immigration is undeniably bad"), but not in the fringes. Luckily the fringe right has already been ostrasised: nobody accepts arguments that portray immigrants as absolutely bad anymore. But the fringe 'no human is illegal' crowd on the other side still seems publicly acceptable. Probably because their message is a lot more positive than the hateful rhetoric of the far right. But it is equally in denial about the reality and nuance in immigration. I hope in the future, only the reasonable parties that recognise all the (possible) issues and benefits of immigration will be at the forefront of this discussion.
    10
  10.  @wandanemer2630  We have large-scale war industry type violence, which is seen more as a sign of power than a sign of mismanagement/poverty. I was referring to very high criminal violence in particular, an indicator of a failed state. That is seen as something that does not occur in the west, therefore countries with that level of violence are generally ousted from the club even if they'd technically fit in.
    9
  11.  @xCorvus7x  Well yeah, and some say those groups aren't even problematic to begin with. That's why making a caricature of anti-immigration arguments distorts the democratic discussion about it; pretty much nobody, including even some far right afficionados, is arguing that literally all migrants are bad or that migrants are bad because of their skin colour, etc. That is some neonazi shit that nobody in the mainstream supports. It's reserved for the alt right internet types that will tell you there's a "white replacement" going on and stuff like that, as well as actual neonazis. Nobody takes them seriously, they're not part of the political discourse.
    8
  12.  @Ixiah27  Mentions in Roman documents and such, so no Christian sources. But that wasn't my point. The point is that people often without a doubt assume someone like Plato existed even though all we barely have any evidence for it, yet when it's about Jesus Christ I always see people instantly doubting his existence. Bit of a double standard. Jesus Christ is the only historical figure I ever see comments doubting the existence of, which I think is interesting.
    8
  13. America is an immigrant country now, the native culture is dead and gone (practically). It's a tragedy. I find it baffling that Americans are even talking about being replaced at all. America belongs to nobody and everybody ever since the native culture was herded into reservations. Now Europe is a different story. If we assume that the "great replacement" would be real (it isn't), then I would agree it's evil to turn the native culture of a country into the minority. But America??? Who cares....
    7
  14.  BARBATVS 89  Christians practically destroyed classical Europe. Rome fell 200 years after the christians had ousted the "degeneracy". You can count yourself lucky that our ancestors revived that "degeneracy" of the classical/pagan times during the Renaissance. European civilisation declined under christianity and only flourished again until a counter-movement took place.
    7
  15.  @demilembias2527  Not even humans are fucked. Life will just get seriously harder and some areas will be lost to the sea, but extinction is not going to happen. Climate change is absolutely terrible and will have huge impact, but this "world is going to end/we're going extinct" stuff is equally wrong as the denialism. The predictions are quite clear and it's nowhere near extinction.
    6
  16.  @Ixiah27  There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than a figure like Plato, more than most historical figures that nobody has any qualms assuming did exist. He existed, but the real question is whether his miracles and claims of being a god were real. You can guess the answer
    6
  17.  @shmeet  No those are communists. Like, unironical communists that want a revolution. As we established earlier, related but not the same. So what do you want? You want to accept them when they're small but suddenly attack them when they become too big and scary? Or you want to just let them grow and stage their little revolution? It's hypocritical to allow them to spread their ideas first, only to not allow them to actually put them into place later. You either accept an ideology into the democratic discourse or you don't. I don't think a fascist or communist revolution is acceptable. I don't think any anti-democratic ideology is acceptable, especially not ideologies that in the past have killed millions through famine, genocide and political repression. I want to fight against those ideas. You want to sit idly and watch them spread, essentially hoping that they don't grow to the point where they can stage a revolution. I think that's irresponsible. Our values need actual protecting to be truly safe from ill-willing actors.
    5
  18. That it's the best system doesn't mean we shouldn't improve it to address some of its issues. Capitalism has some serious issues as mentioned in the video and I'll add that modern capitalism also has the issue of mass produced crap goods being more profitable than actually quality and sustainable goods. Things are not made to last anymore and are specifically designed to make you buy more a few years on. And then there's typically capitalist things like the consumption culture, where we buy way too many things at an incredibly unsustainable rate. Capitalism is great in the early stages wherein it fuels competition to offer quality goods, but when capitalism gets too advanced the position of quality is abandoned and we move into the stage of the mass consumption. Especially with the ecological issues of today, this and other issues with capitalism that are addressed in the video are unacceptable. I think capitalism is the best system out there and changing systems is incredibly dangerous (be it clinging onto old systems that have failed in the past or new systems that we don't know of whether they work or will produce terrible tragedies like in the beginning of the 20th century), but capitalism does need to change. Looking from the perspective of the US, it's evident from all the quality of life indices that the social democratic system in Western Europe is simply superior on almost all fronts when it comes to managing wealth. And there's a more general problem with capitalism that exists in Europe too and that'd be that capitalism needs to become more aware of the environmental impact and sustainability issues. We need to use resources more responsibly and preferrably create circular economies. Capitalism needs to become a system that strives for a certain balance between our wealth/happiness and ecological health/sustainability. Then it's done. In Europe we might already be busy with the latter transition, perhaps we will change. But it's unknown how it'll pan out. The attitude of economic growth über alles is one of capitalisms most dire faults. We can't continue with the same kind of capitalism we had in the 1960s; it worked for us then but now the situation has changed. I am no economist, but if it was possible to create a version of capitalism in which we don't just aim for endless max growth but set a certain wealth goal for a population count and try to keep our economies stable around that point with a circular economy set-up, that'd be great (economic growth based on innovation is of course always good, but growth based on ever-expanding industry should have a limit). Then exchange the attitude of max profit for an attitude of max quality goods, while preserving our social democracy redistribution of wealth, and we're set.
    5
  19.  @shmeet  Ok, to make it more specific; we live in a democratic rule of law. This means democracy within the limit of the law. Democracy exists for representation and self-determination purposes, the law exists to protect everyone's rights against being infringed upon. In a democratic rule of law, genocide is absolutely illegal, even if the democratic majority wants it. The law is the outer limit of what is acceptable, within that limit democracy is absolutely free. So democratic ideas that involve policy that unacceptably hurts others in their human rights are not allowed. Freedom of speech exists to ensure the plurality of ideas that democracy needs in order to function. If there are ideas that are not allowed in a democratic rule of law to begin with, there is no point in protecting them. If you live in a country with absolute freedom of speech (I think pretty much only the US) you're essentially saying to people with those ideas; you may express your ideas and enter into the democratic discussion... until your ideas get enough support to actually become policy, in which case we'll stop you. This is a bit hypocritical; either you accept ideas within your democratic discourse or you don't. And allowing a destructive ideology to spread into popularity first and only THEN opposing it is just not logical; you have to oppose it from the beginning to prevent social unrest. You can't first allow an idea to become massively popular and THEN tell the populace they can't get what they want; it's asking for trouble. That's why hate speech and anti-democratic political views are illegal in most of the western world. We used to believe that only a democracy that allows literally all views into the discussion is a true democracy. Then the 30's happened and Nazis managed to use democracy to abolish democracy. Today a true democracy is viewed as a democracy that not only allows ideas to partake in the discussion, but also to protect democracy against views that seek to destroy it. This concept is called the militant democracy and is the current norm. America is basically stuck in the 1930's in terms of their approach to freedom of speech and democracy. That makes the US system vulnerable to foul ideologies abusing democracy just to abolish it and impose their dictatorial system. Some people on the left see fascism as a real threat nowadays and are afraid they will abuse the US system like this, so they take matters into their own hands and use violence to oppose their views. Whether you agree with that last part is up to you (I personally don't and think making hate speech illegal is the only correct solution) but that is why they do what they do. And considering the flaws of the American system and its refusal to learn from the past, perhaps it's understandable that they're worried.
    4
  20.  @MajaBiana  If I believed Trump was actually going to succeed in turning America fascist, I'd say that too. But I don't so I'd definitely vote green party or something. Because if Biden is elected, there is no more hope of breaking the neoliberal cycle. Trump is a unique opportunity to force the Dems to think of finally electing actual good candidates that voters get excited over. If Biden winst we go back to neoliberal supremacy. Now they are on shaky grounds due to Trump. If he wins again, it should be a wake-up call for the Dems to forge a new, better left.
    4
  21.  @gtagta8086  The US and EU are drastically different, we don't share many values and there are large cultural differences. It's not comparable to European countries amongst one another. And to say that Europe is far from western values is ridiculous. There is no "true" set of western values. Our values are diverse and have changed throughout history. Western values are whatever values we currently adhere to. The values of the western/European civilisation. That's it. There are many contradictory values within European/western history, so it doesn't make sense to pick a few out of that pool to call them the "true" western values. Whatever values the European civilisation currently adheres to are the western values of the moment. They may change, but they can never not be "truly" western. Everything we spawn is automatically western. We are the west. And the EU as such is like the most neoliberal thing on earth; it's the epitome of the reigning neoliberal world order we created. People who like the neoliberal globalist way of thinking will love it, those that don't will hate it. It's the embodiment of what the current western world order stands for. What do you call "western values" then?
    3
  22.  @angelbarajas9180  It's not even only that. Fascism not only is anti-democratic but also anti-capitalist and extremely nationalist. And anti-marxist of course. A fascist wants a complete social revolution just like communists do, but instead of a marxist revolution they want a system of government in which the economy is completely organised to be in the interest of the nation. No free market, but a planned economy with class collaboration (which is by the way an important distinction from the communist planned economy with the proletariat; the fascists want to keep and even enforce the class differences but want the classes to work together in the interest of the nation as a whole). And a dictatorial government that holds the national interests at heart in a way that they see as more effective than democracy. Racism doesn't even have a place in normal fascism. That's something national socialists did; that was fascism with one small but ultimately disastrous difference; they believed nation = race. So instead of purging anyone that was against the interests of the nation, they purged anyone that was against the interests of the German race. Fascism is an entirely separate third option besides capitalism and communism/socialism. That's also how they presented themselves back then; the third option. The problem with the fascist (probably most are nazi's because they often mention race) strategy is that it brilliantly mingles with the "normal" alt right or even the normal right as such. It's extremely difficult to distinguish actual fascists from just alt right people and normal nationalists. And as Natalie points out, trying to make that distinction involves massive paranoia. How many dog whistles you see is entirely dependent on how many fascists you believe exist. It's impossible to distinguish whether someone is using a dog whistle or honestly expressing their beliefs. If you believe fascism is extremely popular, you might conclude that when someone makes a statement that can be understood as a dog whistle it probably is. If you believe fascism isn't that prevalent in society then you'd conclude that 99% of the time people making such statements are not a secret fascist using a dog whistle. It's just guesswork at this point.
    3
  23.  @shmeet  That's just naive. Have you ever spent some time on reddit or some other internet forum with a leftist or right wing base? There are people who unironically think "real communism" was never tried and we need to give it a shot. There are people who unironically want to repeat the National Socialist horrors and there are people who "just" want fascism. They all exist and plenty of them do. Enough for them to be readily found on the internet. Enough for them to organise protests, enough to be a terror threat (christchurch, Anders Breivik, the mayor in Germany that got killed by Nazis a few months ago, if we stick to the right wing side). And again; whether there are many or not doesn't matter. You're either a hypocrite who first allows them to spread their ideology but when it gets too big you do a 180 and tell them they suddenly can't spread their beliefs anymore or you accept that if those ideas spread you will lose your democracy and your rights. Which is it? A hypocrite or someone who is okay with fascism or communism as long as enough people want it. I'm neither and that means I don't allow those views in the democratic discourse. Be it one lunatic supporting it or half the country. I don't care. You either allow those ideologies as acceptable ideas within your democratic discourse or you don't and oust them from the democratic discourse. All of the west, except you, has chosen the second option. You're just stuck in your old outdated views about democracy, as the US is on many topics... your system is not well protected against ill-willing agents that want to destroy democracy. All it takes is one major capitalist depression like in the 1930's to make a lot of people believe that other economic systems are better, usually either fascism or socialism. And then it's already too late. All it takes is a bit of social unrest and people will be looking for extreme "solutions". That's when those ideologies suddenly gain a lot of traction.
    3
  24. ​ @angelbarajas9180  Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying; civic and even ethno nationalists are not fascists. But actual fascists/nazis do tend to mingle with nationalists and use dogwhistles to spread their ideas in a low key way. The problem starts arising when you need to distinguish fascists from just normal nationalists. The left nowadays pretty much assumes that every nationalist is secretly a fascist using dogwhistles (which is ridiculous and unduly tries to oust civic nationalism from the democratic discourse) and the right just thinks no fascists exist today (which is naive). Now ethno nationalism comes so close to Nazi ideas of a racially pure nation that I don't think it's a problem at all if they get ousted from the democratic discourse, but civic nationalism is a perfectly fine ideology that deserves its place in the democratic discourse. Especially nowadays, when the concept of the nation-state is under pressure. We should be able to think freely about whether we ought to preserve the nation-state or allow the current globalist tendencies to further undermine it and create a new way of organising countries. That's the transitionary period we're in now, roughly speaking, and it's ludacris to deny civic nationalism a spot at the discussion table under these circumstances. We need civic nationalists to be able to voice their concerns about what is happening to the nation-state.
    3
  25.  @shmeet  These people are not going to "amend" the Bill of Rights. They're going to spread their ideology until it's just popular enough to stage a violent revolution in which they take the Bill of Rights and tear it apart. They don't care about legal or illegal, they don't care about our current system at a fundamental level. The law itself doesn't protect your system, at least not enough to stand against malicious ideologies seeking to subvert it. Once they get too popular; and this doesn't have to be the majority either (not even by far), it's over. That's why you have to be either accepting of those ideologies or against them. The middle ground is equal to accepting them. There is no middle ground on this topic, the middle ground doesn't always exist. Either you don't accept their ideology and fight it, or you do accept their ideology, knowing that if they ever pass a certain threshold they'll take away all your rights and freedoms. Legally or illegally, they don't care. Should you do the latter, know that the one and only thing saving you is that they're not popular enough to stage a revolution. I believe that's careless. To me, my basic rights and freedom are not up for discussion and nobody but myself can choose to take them away. Some tankie commie can't vote to take my democratic rights away. Some nazi can't vote that certain people should literally die. These things can't be voted for, so those ideologies can't be voted for. Do you think it's reasonable that within a democracy I can vote on whether you should live or die?
    3
  26.  @shmeet  In Russia it took 4% of the population (5 mil of 125 mil) to usher in a Soviet revolution and the Russian Empire was much bigger than the US (bigger than Russia today). By the way, over 50% of millenials aren't really fond of capitalism as it's practiced now... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/. What if capitalism fails again with another crisis and these people start gathering together, not just to oppose capitalism, but to propose a new system in which democracy and your rights are null and void? What if a Lenin or Hitler comes along promising to fix the system they dislike? No laws and systems are going to stop revolutionaries that take what they want by force. The only thing stopping revolutionaries is that there are not enough revolutionaries and how we ensure there never will be enough revolutionaries is to prevent them from spreading their ideas. (just as a side note, criticism on the failures of our economic system is perfectly fine within democratic discourse, but spreading an ideology that also seeks to overthrow democracy and disregard our human rights or conduct genocides are off limits). Again your argument boils down to "yeah but they're not numerous enough". The point of banning their speech is not whether or not they're capable of actually implementing them. The point is that those ideas are fundamentally against our current beliefs and rights and have no place in a decent democratic discussion. Therefore, why allow those ideas in the democratic discussion if they are never meant to actually flourish? You either accept that they flourish or you don't. The only question that is relevant here is this one: would you be okay with it if communists or fascists would democratically vote away your rights or not? If not, those views have no place in the plurality of ideas within your democracy. If you do, fine allow them to spread their ideology. What you're saying is "we won't stop their speech, we'll just wait until they're big enough to stage a revolution and then shoot them dead". Why allow them to grow big enough to start claiming American lives in the first place ? It's like saying you won't do anything against Nazis because "we'll just fight WW3 and win just like last time". When there is violence, it's already too late, whether they win or not. If we had your idea of freedom in Europe, there'd have been communist revolutions here long ago. I prefer the way it went; without bloody revolutions. We fought their subversion early. And so did you in America by the way.
    3
  27.  @gtagta8086  Except Europe has a shared culture and nowadays shared values. We all decend from indo-European ethnic groups and today still have many shared cultural elements of that history even if we are different ethnicities. And while we were at constant war with eachother it's wrong to mistake conflicting economic and political interests as there not being any kind of shared identity/ideals/culture. It's like mistaking the constant warring between Germanic tribes as there being so such thing as a Germanic people. There always has been and today it's stronger than ever. We are by no means the same, but we are a related group of countries for sure. There is such a thing as a shared European identity and it doesn't even have to do with race either. How else do you think the EU was even possible at all? You think the US and Mexico could even hope to enter into such a project? If there is any continent with a shared identity it's going to be Europe.
    2
  28.  @gtagta8086  As I said, western culture/values are not homogenous things. There are many values that Europe has created and they are all western. Many of them contradict one another. We spawned capitalism, socialism and fascism, just to name one example of how values that Europe creates are in no way uniform and can be seriously contradictory. The Balkans and the West of Europe are not the same, but we both adhere to European values, albeit different ones in certain areas. The origin of our culture is still one and the same. We still share many similarities. America is part of European civilisation too, even if they are very different from us and for a large part have lost European culture (but by no means European civilisation). The EU is the epitome of the neoliberal tendencies of globalisation and free market. I don't know where you get the idea from that the EU is "far from" a free market. The EU is a central globalist government that for most of Europe has created a borderless market with strict freedom of competition rules against monopolies and cartels. The EU is the embodiment of neoliberalism. If you don't like the EU, you don't like what neoliberalism stands for. And that's fine by the way, many are critical of the EU, including me. But to call the EU left wing is ridiculous. It almost can't possibly get more neoliberal and globalist than the EU. They are everything the current liberal and globalist world order stands for.
    2
  29. Not exactly.... The -isms also determine how and for what labour is used. It's entirely feasible that under a different -ism, iPhones would never have been made because labour was directed at manufacturing very different things. Especially the incentive towards innovation under capitalism directs intellectual labour towards thinking about new things like iPhones and not all -isms have that same approach to innovation. Capitalism is actually outstanding at generating wealth and innovation (sometimes at great cost, but let's forget that for a moment), so the way it directs labour seems to be fine, grosso modo. Its main issue is how it distributes that wealth.
    2
  30. Calling people a hindrance to the progress of humanity is very dangerous. Sounds too much like communists and fascists calling their victims a hindrance to the progress of their societies.
    2
  31.  @genieglasslamp5028  I'm not mad at the immigrants, not even the ones that are structurally in welfare (unwillingly, that is). I'm mad at the government for setting up a mass immigration scheme to get max economic growth while ignoring the consequences. And businesses... I've given up on being mad at them, their profit-seeking behaviour is to be expected at all times and is at this point just a fact of nature. But yeah I dislike that too. Immigrants that come here in good faith, searching for a better life, mostly can't be blamed for coming here. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to let every single one of them in, though. It's always better to work towards a more durable solution for their entire countries' economies instead. Only immigrants that can really contribute to society are good options to come here.
    2
  32. America is no democracy. The power of the two main parties is so large that they can get away with suppressing third parties and forcing most politicians to stay in line
    2
  33.  @ShadaOfAllThings  Exactly. I see Trump as a unique opportunity to change the cycle. He was supposed to be a wake-up call to Dems as to how neoliberalism is dying and like the Reps have a new right, they ought to form a new left (hopefully in the form of Bernie) to realign with the people. But they refused to acknowledge what someone like Trump beating Hillary meant, politically. That's why Biden needs to lose to hammer the point home. The Dems need to be shaken up to the point of them seeing that a new, better left that actually answers to what the people want is what is needed to ensure a political future for the Dem party and that they can't get away with shoving their fav candidate in the faces of voters and yelling "vote blue no matter who" to gaslight them into confirming the pick at the elections.
    2
  34.  @rjr81  Nonsense, if that were true then Biden would not be the candidate. How many people believe in what Biden stands for doesn't matter (which would be not a lot of people, judging by his enthusiasm ratings). What matters is how many people the Dems can bully into voting for him by saying "it's this guy or else Trump wins". They don't care about progressives, which have grown quite strong among the Dems. Not one bit. They care about pushing their own agenda as much as they can and actively suppress other views. If they cared even a little bit, there'd be a progressive VP for Biden but they didn't even bother with that.
    2
  35.  @ShadaOfAllThings  I get what you mean, but I think this time is different. Voting has not mattered in the US for almost a century imo, but this is the first time that two candidates actually have vastly different views. This time it's not neoliberal versus slightly more left-leaning neoliberal. It's a neoliberal versus a nationalist. And the nationalist put neoliberalism to shame in 2016 already. If Trump wins again, that is such a bombshell to the Dem establishment that there is a good chance they'll be willing to move to the left to excite voters for the next election. They have to be shown that the US voters reject neoliberalism. And Trump is basically the only candidate that can do that, because for once in many decades there actually is a candidate at all that is not part of the typical ideology of modern America. If he wins, the Dems might realise they need to change their strategy and move left to win next time. It's only a chance, but for the first time in a very long period there is a chance at all to break the cycle. So yeah this time it matters. At the very least it matters a lot more than usually.
    2
  36.  BARBATVS 89  If it was in decline already, then closing down philosophy schools, murdering anyone who was a dissident (including other christians), burning books and destroying art surely didn't help.... probably accelerated it, if not outright caused the decline. And about the christian persecution, ancient Rome had freedom of religion with many religions existing among one another, including other pagan religions and judaism. Then the Christians came and while initially they were free like the others, eventually they got persecuted because there were incidents of christians destroying art and disrespecting the other religions. It started with light persecution, but got worse and worse as the conflict got out of hand, ending with christians being murdered freely. And about paganism, I'm talking about European paganism specifically. Not all paganism is the same. In Europe, nature was at the centre of spirituality so good care was taken for it. Old trees and elaborate groves were holy. The idea of taking care for the earth in order to pass it on to the next generation is a very distinctly pagan idea. You reading this into a vague biblical passage that completely is not about this is just an example of how deeply pagan values have intruded christianity by now. This happens a lot and by now it's very difficult to see which values originate from paganism and christianity. Your version of christianity too. Whether you like it or not. Christianity has been too distorted, it's no longer pure, it hasn't been for hundreds of years now. It's a mixture of pagan and christian values. According to the bible all on earth exists purely for humans to use as tools. This is an important factor in how we as societies expanded and got to this highly developed state, with its wealth but also pollution (one of the good elements of christianity, or bad depending on how you view modern society). According to European paganism we humans are subjected to nature and need to respect it. A good example of the christian versus pagan mindset is how we dealt with wolves in Europe. Pagans saw them as part of nature just as they themselves. Christians practically genocided wolves because they were an inconvenience and they almost disappeared out of Europe. To Christians only humans matter and all else exists to serve us; it was all given to us by god to use for ourselves, as the bible states. Pagans value nature as a whole, with not only humans but also other organisms. Natural balance is important to pagans, so they'd never do something like completely eradicate a species because they don't like it. Reduce it, yes, but not eradicate and certainly not purposefully.
    2
  37.  @liekevdpoel  As a voter, you can change the party by NOT voting for them and forcing the Dem party to actually try to get the support of voters rather than sitting back, pushing forward whoever they like (Hillary, Biden) and bullying the voters into getting them into office by saying "or else the other guy wins". Something has to change and that change is created by showing the Dems that they CAN'T get away with this anymore and will lose if they ignore the voters any longer. You show this to them by NOT voting for Biden, but instead f.e. the Green party or not at all. Some might even go as far as voting for Trump. The first past the post system will never change, because for that I believe a constitutional amendment is needed and you'll need the approval of all states for that. Not going to happen, ever. Because as you said, Reps don't want it. So the best bet is to change the Dem party. Politicians like AOC try to change it from within, but voters (who can't do that) need to also help by showing a clear preference for change and consistently refusing to get bullied into voting for the Dems when they push forward a terrible candidate. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. So prove them wrong. I hoped the election of Trump would be enough to wake them up, but it wasn't. They need another shock. Trump is a uniquely screwed up president but at the same time a unique opportunity to change politics. Voting for Biden in this context means going back to neoliberal supremacy and confirming the power of the Dem establishment. If Biden loses, there is an actual chance, for the first time is many decades, that neoliberalism is fiercely rejected and the Dems react by moving more towards figures like AOC and Bernie to try and reconnect with voters. But.... it requires living 4 more years under a stark nationalist. It's a difficult decision, but I think going for the long term change is the correct choice here.
    2
  38.  @bosstowndynamics5488  Climate change is not our biggest problem when our population decreases at a drastic rate because people get too few children. Decline is good, but it has to be relatively steady decline to avert demographic chaos.
    1
  39. This is my favourite video of you yet! Very engaging and deeply interesting
    1
  40. Especially considering Reinbert de Leeuw, known to be one of the best pianists to play Satie, died last Valentine's day. I don't know whether she used his performance of Gnossienne no. 1, but it sounds like one I've heard before.
    1
  41.  @boketto9521  In this case it's not even about racism. It's about the lasting effect of past racism causing situations for black people in which they are eventually more likely to enter into criminality or make other bad decisions causing them to be incarcerated more. The causal chain is there, but it's too long to call it actual racism. People are incredibly uninformed because even though they don't harbour any bad feelings towards black people, they're still called racist. If social justice activists would simply explain that because of past racism, black people today still live in an environment that systematically causes them to fall behind in society and that true equality would only be attained by lifting everyone out of that disadvantaged environment, I'm sure many more people would actually understand. Now it's just a cesspool of the term "racist" being thrown around and the recipients going into full-on defensive mode because they feel attacked. It's the dumbest strategy ever to try and attain social justice for black people. 99% of the anti-SJW crowd are not racists, but people who are absolutely oblivious to the lasting effect of past racism and how unfair it is to allow this situation to continue. Not being aware of the way past racism continues to affect the future and not seeing much actual open racism right now, they theorise it must just be themselves or their culture driving black people to criminality and such. They don't need big terms thrown at them to reaffirm their beliefs that social justice activists are just nutty ideologues who have an insanely exaggerated definition of big words like racism and sexism, they need people to actually explain why black people are so terribly disadvantaged to this day and how this is linked to racism.
    1
  42.  @curtmacquarrie  Then that would only be true because borders select which immigrants may come through (i.e. only skilled ones and those that are fleeing from war) and which are may not enter.
    1
  43.  @shmeet  The Russians fought a bloody civil war that the revolutionaries ultimately won. They are not scared of open conflict, that is the entire point of a violent revolution. That they can own guns in the US will make it easier for them to start a revolution, if anything.
    1
  44.  @shmeet  "Not sure i follow. What's the difference compared to just "discussion"? Why "democratic" discussion?" The point of the marketplace for ideas and plurality of ideas is to facilitate democracy. We have freedom of speech for the sole purpose of preventing the plurality of ideas that works as the groundwork of democracy to be damaged. It exists to ensure that within democracy different ideas can clash in discussion and the best and/or most supported idea ideally comes out on top. The democratic discourse is the discussion of ideas that decide the political future of our societies. Not all political ideas are acceptable within a democratic rule of law. Me wanting to vote on taking away YOUR democratic rights or even your very life, non-negotiable . There are limits to the ideas that can be part of the democratic discourse. Advocating for literal genocide is not a negotiable thing within a democratic rule of law; there are certain absolute limits to how far ideas may encroach upon citizens' human rights. Since those ideas are not accepted within the democratic discourse and since freedom of speech exists for the sole purpose of protecting the democratic discourse, it doesn't make sense to invoke freedom of speech for ideas that were never meant to be protected by it in the first place. "All that does is force the radicals underground. It doesn't stop the ideas from spreading, it makes them appear credible and the ones involved (...) That precedent must never be allowed." It does force radicals towards the underground... and denies them an audience for their ideas. It places as many obstacles in their way as possible to spread their ideology, which ensures that the broader populace is unlikely to ever become radical. They may communicate secretly in the open, but they won't radicalise the broader populace that doesn't understand their dog whistles. Their secret communication only serves to signal their beliefs to other radicals that are already aware of the dogwhistles so they may congregate, not to spread their ideology among the broader populace. We keep a watchful eye on them and force them to the underground. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, keeping a watchful eye on someone is useless if you're not actually going to do anything if you spot their ideology. If they are succesful, all you can do under absolute freedom of speech is be "watchful" of how they spread their ideology and grow, coming closer and closer to enacting their genocidal ideas by the day. Radical terrorist muslims that attempt to spread their filth among other muslims do not need to be "watched", they need to be actively prevented in their endeavour to spread their violent ideology and watched. Watching is meaningless if you don't connect action to it. Your idea of a "watchful eye" is tantamount to condoning their growth , with all due consequences if they manage to grow enough to pose a societal problem. And freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of thought. Everyone is free to think absolutely everything. They are free to be nazi's and congregate amongst themselves (though should matters get serious enough, at least the congregation could be banned too). They are not free to spread their ideology, however. There is a difference between passively thinking/believing and actively spreading. There also is not a "precedent" we're setting. There will be no further limitation of freedom of speech than speech that spreads violent or otherwise unacceptable ideologies. There is no slippery slope, there is a clear and robust line we're drawing in the sand: no anti-democratic ideologies, no violent ideologies. That's it. This is not a "precedent" to anything. You're using a slippery slope fallacy there.
    1
  45.  @pimentacitrica9883  Yeah, but a lot less though. Sure, you can't vote for views that are way outside of the overton window (like anarchism), but there are parties in many European countries that are basically reformist socialists that (maybe not openly) see as their end goal a socialist society but want to move towards it slowly through reforms. I think that's a world of difference when compared to the US, which basically gets to choose between neoliberals and slightly more left-leaning neoliberals (though under Trump the choice is more meaningful as he's more of a classic nationalist).
    1
  46.  @ShadaOfAllThings  I agree that voting does not change policy, but I'm talking about something different. If a political party is so fiercely rejected by voters that to ever hope to win an election again, they need to actually put in some effort to get people to vote for them again, they will change. That or they will cease to exist. Only in that situation does voting really matter a lot. And I think this election offers a unique opportunity to make the Dems see that they need to change. And we do that by either not voting or voting for another party.
    1
  47. @Elhammo No you can't. The two-party system is firmly in place in the US and won't ever change if you keep voting for them. It's a pipe dream as long as you keep confirming their power. Establishment Dems are laughing at you for standing in line once again and confirming that they do NOT need to change to get your vote and can keep pushing forward any candidate they like because "vote blue no matter who" succesfully keeps every voter in line. This is exactly what they want and exactly why the US democracy is flawed in the first place. I respect your opinion if you think Trump is so bad that voting for Biden is necessary, but insofar you think voting for Biden has even the slightest chance to bring about change I think you're wrong. In fact, the absolute opposite is true.
    1
  48.  Aaron Smith  This isn't about things not going exactly in anyone's way, it's about a fundamentally broken democracy in which two huge parties have the power to gaslight voters into casting their vote for them instead of the politicians they truly support. How is this changed? By showing them that this doesn't work , i.e, by not voting for them if they put forth terrible candidates and making them realise that maybe they actually need to listen to what the voters want.
    1
  49.  @ShadaOfAllThings  Because losing to a nationalist that behaves like Trump is a lot different than losing to a slighty more right-leaning neoliberal. Losing to republicans is not a surprise to them, losing to Trump is an absolute shock to them. Just look at how sure they are that they'll win. Proving them wrong should hopefully be a shock big enough to realise that voters care for their ideology so little that not even Trump can get voters to support them. That's why I think this time it is different and this time there is a chance that rejection of the Dems will make them re-evaluate their strategies.
    1
  50.  @MAP233224  About the same in the Netherlands. In fact, our government is currently comprised of four parties working together. The idea of parties actually working togeher constructively in national interest is impossible in the US.
    1