Youtube comments of (@IntoEurope).

  1. 1200
  2. 979
  3. 402
  4. 387
  5. 371
  6. 368
  7. 275
  8. 259
  9. 256
  10. 256
  11. 250
  12. 245
  13. 226
  14. 180
  15. Hi everyone, I wanted to adress the feedback that I have been receiving and mention a point of difficulty I had with making this video. In the introduction, I made the decision to describe the video of the incident, without going into the details of the chase that happened before it. I thought it would be enough to provide the context of the riots, but this was obviously a mistake on my part. This in no way justifies the shooting, but the description of the chase might have added nuance to the story which instead seems like a description of an 'execution'. This was not my intention and I will make sure that future videos have the appropriate amount of context when talking about incidents like this one. This was quite challenging to produce a story for me since it is about people which have more nuance than volumes of natural gas, and the provenance of solar panels. It was quite difficult to give a place accurately to two notions, so I thought I would expand on them in this comment. The first was the idea of race, for which I personally am stuck between two rival schools of thoughts that correspond roughly to the Anglo-American/French divide on the issue. I find that the Anglo-American perspective of racializing everything is problematic from both an ethical perspective and also a very simplistic. This way of looking at social problems, which also stems from the US’ own history of racial relations, that it then projects on other countries fails to acknowledge differences in culture, social conditioning and ultimately the role of individuals in shaping their own destinies. However, I also believe that the French perspective of refusing to see race, is somewhat in denial about the role that it plays in profiling and defining the people from the banlieue. Instead, I tried to find a compromise which I think is a better reflection of the complexity of this story and issue, where race is but one of the items (and markers of identity) that leads to but also makes visible the rift that I talk about in the video. The second issue that I found hard to capture is the anger of the people in the banlieue, and while I talked to people coming from there in making this video to try and capture the difficulty of living and coming from there, it is something I believe could have been done better justice in the video. I look forward to reading your comments and criticisms on this approach and am curious for any feedback you may have. Since I recorded this video, this great column came out on opportunities for foreign born people in France, and I think that fits in nicely with the conclusions of the video on opportunity (although it should be considered alongside the high unemployment numbers France has had over the past 40 years): https://www.ft.com/content/25eda9f0-8bd3-41e1-948c-89cc7c0ec66e On another note, I had two technical difficulties with my camera which resulted in a bit jittery footage, and had to rerecord my conclusion, which I will look to address in the next videos! All the best, Hugo
    176
  16. 160
  17. 158
  18. 146
  19. 135
  20. 132
  21. 125
  22. 123
  23. 119
  24. 118
  25. 116
  26. 111
  27. 110
  28. 95
  29. 86
  30. 78
  31. 75
  32. 63
  33. 63
  34. 61
  35. 60
  36. 58
  37. 50
  38. 49
  39. 48
  40. 46
  41. 45
  42. 43
  43. 43
  44. 43
  45. 42
  46. 41
  47. 41
  48. 41
  49. 41
  50. 40
  51. 40
  52. 40
  53. 40
  54. 39
  55. 1-No comment, I don’t talk that extensively about Salafism in this video. 2- Parallel societies are a feature of Islam, when Denmark tried to tackle them through its social engineering policies to tackle crime, low employment
 It got called racist for breaking up communities. You do not get to have it both ways, saying that parallel societies are the consequence of poverty and complain when they get broken up to improve outcomes for living there. 3-The Halal economy, is a parallel economy by definition – it is about creating a class of products and services that is made mostly by and for muslims. Goes far beyond food products we, there is Islamic finance, there is ‘Modest fashion’. These elements differentiate muslims from non-muslims – and that is the goal. (See ‘Le Marche Halal’ by Florence Bergeaud Backler) 4- Muslim majority countries are banning hijabs, and shutting down muslim organisations as well. – I talk about the consequences of this in the 4th part of this video. 5- Yes, I am aware of their leanings, but is their poll methodologically sound? I would say yes, and their results are in line with other polls from credible institutions. The day were the UK censes agencies make similar polls, I will share them – until then, all I had access to was this imperfect data. 6- I read their criticism to make my own opinion, and they do the same thing as calling her ‘Islamophobic’ which is not a rebuttal of any of her arguments or body of work. Epistemological, these critics provide little to no value to the public debate. 7- "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." This is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. If this is not a call for an Islamic society While (currently) non-violent, it is as multiple security studies have shown a destabilizing force and increases the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims. 8- Protests that are good illustration if not entirely a reflection of the political opinions of Muslims in Europe as seen by the 3 surveys I shared. 9-The evidence against him – that he has an Al-Qaeda manual on his laptop, and the highly suggestive fact that every single court sketch of him has him hiding his face (and potential facial hair features?) 10- Again, the Quran is ambiguous and ambivalent (as I mention in the video), you can take any call for integration and match it up with a call for tolerance (I am not going to get into the debate on whether these are Mecca or Medina Sourats, and the context in which they were written). – You can decide that you want to engage with only the positive ones, fine, but that is not a reflection of reality. The fact is these calls for secession and difference are the ones being shared by mosques (many Salafi Imams in Europe) and TikTok imams. And reflected in the behaviour of Muslims in selecting friends as demonstrated by the academic studies mentioned in this video. 11- Muslims in the US represent less than 1% of the population – in a more religious society, which previously had a highly selective immigration procedure under which its Muslims came. And the country is about to implement a second muslim immigration ban under the new Trump presidency. I doubt such a policy approach would be contested by Europe’s far right leaders Hopefully, this clarifies a few things. 😊 And thank you for allowing me to flex my keyboard! Cheers, Hugo
    39
  56. 38
  57. Thanks for your comment and engagement. :) So as a person with am engineering and transition studies background, I disagree with your comments on several points as well. 1) Yes, Europe had higher energy prices before the war, but it managed to stay competitive despite them, not because. This trend has been getting worse for a while now (there is this great analysis by McKinsey here: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/securing-the-competitiveness-of-the-european-chemical-industry) 2) Yes the cost calculations were made in 2022, but imho that does not change the logic that Europe has higher energy prices than in China or in the US and that will likely remain so. That is the reason why govs are (at least announcing) subsidies on energy for heavy energy intensive industry. 3) Fair enough, Ill bite on the Covid re-opening but energy inflation played a big role in that and was compounded by the energy war 4) I think this is a political disagreement that we have. I believe Bruno Lemaire said 'Europe should not be the last of the Mohicans' when it came to globalisation. I will stick to that perspective on this subject, I believe it is naive to stick to free markets when the others dont. 5) Europe is shifting to Green and (depending on how the nuclear conversation goes) to nuclear. But that means buying solar panels (and for now batteries) that we are not producing. China is leaving Europe and the US in the dirt when it comes to solar installations. So I disagree that Europe is leading on this point
    38
  58. 38
  59. 37
  60. 37
  61. 37
  62. 36
  63. 35
  64. 34
  65. 34
  66. 33
  67. 32
  68. 31
  69. 30
  70. 30
  71. 30
  72. 30
  73. 29
  74. 28
  75. 28
  76. 28
  77. 27
  78. 27
  79. 26
  80. 26
  81. 26
  82. 24
  83. 24
  84. 24
  85. 23
  86. 23
  87. 23
  88. 23
  89. 22
  90. 22
  91. 22
  92. 22
  93. 21
  94. 21
  95. 20
  96. 20
  97. 20
  98. 20
  99. 20
  100. 20
  101. 19
  102. 19
  103. 19
  104. 18
  105. 18
  106. 18
  107. 18
  108. 18
  109. 18
  110. 18
  111. 18
  112. 18
  113. 17
  114. 17
  115. 17
  116. 17
  117. 16
  118. 16
  119. 16
  120. 16
  121. 15
  122. 15
  123. 15
  124. 15
  125. 14
  126. 14
  127. 14
  128. 14
  129. 14
  130. 14
  131. 13
  132. 13
  133. 13
  134. 13
  135. 13
  136. 12
  137. 12
  138. 12
  139. 12
  140. 12
  141. 12
  142. 12
  143. 12
  144. 11
  145. 11
  146. 11
  147. 11
  148. 11
  149. 10
  150. 10
  151. 10
  152. 10
  153. 10
  154. 10
  155. 10
  156. 10
  157. 9
  158. 9
  159. 9
  160. 8
  161. 8
  162. 8
  163. 8
  164. 8
  165. 8
  166. 8
  167. 8
  168. 8
  169. 8
  170. 8
  171. 8
  172. 8
  173. 8
  174. 8
  175. 7
  176. 7
  177. 7
  178. 7
  179. 7
  180. 7
  181. 7
  182. 7
  183. 7
  184. 7
  185. 7
  186. 7
  187. 7
  188. 7
  189. 7
  190. 7
  191. 7
  192. 6
  193. 6
  194. 6
  195. 6
  196. 6
  197. 6
  198. 6
  199. 6
  200. 6
  201. 6
  202. 6
  203. 6
  204. 6
  205. 6
  206. 6
  207. 6
  208. 6
  209. 6
  210. 6
  211. 6
  212. 6
  213. 5
  214. 5
  215. 5
  216. 5
  217. 5
  218. 5
  219. 5
  220. 5
  221. 5
  222. 5
  223. 5
  224. 5
  225. 5
  226. 5
  227. 5
  228. 5
  229. 5
  230. 5
  231. 5
  232. 5
  233. 5
  234. 5
  235. 5
  236. 5
  237. 5
  238. 5
  239. 5
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. 4
  263. 4
  264. 4
  265. 4
  266. 4
  267. 4
  268. 4
  269. 4
  270. 4
  271. 4
  272. 4
  273. 4
  274. 4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 1- 10% gap in employment is a huge difference 2- I say this when I talk about the generosity of the welfare state prevents people from employment 3- Source is in the script: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2F1475-5890.12314&file=fisc12314-sup-0001-Appendix.pdf 4- Its from a Danish Government report that you can find here: https://fm.dk/udgivelser/2020/juni/oekonomisk-analyse-indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-de-offentlige-finanser-i-2017/ , and also has been shared by the Economist in this article: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration Here is another (more dated) study by the International Labour Organisation on this very subject: https://wol.iza.org/articles/what-determines-the-net-fiscal-effects-of-migration/long 5- Report on Danish Labour statistics of people by immigration background: https://uim.dk/media/11385/international-migration-denmark-2022.pdf 6-The raw data used is in the appendix of the study - and the point you mention does not differentiate between EU and non-EU immigrants which is one of the main points of this video. 7-The study is about the US, and there are no comparable studies on indirect fiscal benefits for Europe, I can only infer things by comparison which is why it is a guess. It is a positive impact of immigration and therefore it needed to be mentioned. 8- Do I need a source to state the obvious - if you don't have a job you ain't paying taxes, the other points are mentioned earlier in the video. 9- This is the conclusion of the litterature and data review - the source is the rest of the video and all the insights previously gathered. If you think you can do better, by all means, go make your own video and prove that all types of immigration are good for Europe's economy! I can only wait for you to prove me wrong :) Cheers, Hugo
    3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. I find it funny that you talk of solidarity and building a social Europe, while at the same time questioning whether Eastern Europe would have paid for the West. You talk of a social Europe while adopting factionalism Brussels real estate prices are not going through the roof because of Eastern European migration (https://ibsa.brussels/sites/default/files/publication/documents/PerspectiveBrussels-Mini-Bru_2021-ENG.pdf), there are very few Eastern Europeans in the city compared to other nationalities. Instead, I would argue this is due to the low-interest rates over the past 10 years which are a result of the financial crisis and were necessary to allow the economy to keep functioning. House prices are increasing everywhere in Europe, not only in Belgium. As for your argument on keeping wages high in the agricultural sector, that is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Common Agricultural Policy (which btw predates Maastricht and the EU by some 30 years) and the context in which it was developed. French agriculture is notoriously inefficient and could in my opinion use some consolidation with a social plan to support small farmers and their conversion. I also find it funny that you mention that you mention homelessness increasing since the 1990s, I'm going to guess you would also refer to the long-term economic decline of Wallonia? Well, I would argue that this is due to the region's failure to take a technological turn, and instead, it went into long-term industrial decline. If you look further North at the Eindhoven region in the Netherlands, which went into a similar crisis in the 1990s with the near-collapse of Philips, they managed to re-emerge better than before. You also show your hand when you talk about Serbia in the way you do, and while I do not agree with the way NATO got involved, to talk of them as mere victims in the Yugoslav wars (Srebnica) is misleading at best. Additionally, I was talking about the security benefits of the EU independently from those of NATO, the rant on NATO is your own doing. Also a tip the next time you feel like going on a comment section crusade, you can throw terms like ultra-liberal around, but instead of making me seem like a radical, they only decrease the value of your arguments in a conversation. As a persian saying goes: “Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.” Additionally, the way you structure arguments is just a transposition of the globalist vs nationalist discussion that equates to 'everything was better before'. One does not preclude the other. Sure the EU needs reform (and in my opinion, a lot of it), but your criticism of it and the reasoning behind it suffers from too little information. But anyways, like I said, these are points that will address in a future video, this will be the last comment I answer in this feed. FYI, the whole of the Into Europe team is from Europe :) And personally, I (Hugo) am French.
    3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. Yes and no, for the sake of precision, lets split Hungary and Poland's situations shall we? They are not comparable since Poland's issue is legal in nature and Hungary is legal on top of corruption and patronage politics. While I acknowledge the EU has changed (it has done so with the assent of Hungary and Poland), the rules that those two countries are bending/breaking (call it whatever you want) are the very criteria (Copenhague Criteria) they had to apply themselves to join. Whether the EU should have allowed for punitive measures from the get-go on those infringing those criteria is a pointless what-if question is. But it is now trying to do so retroactively and with reluctance by the other member states who are also worried about giving up sovereignty. This does not per-say have to do with ideology directly imo, but then you are entitled to your own opinion on this matter. What I think you fail to acknowledge is the ideology of those two countries has itself shifted in the past decade and now have national populist governements with no respect for the pluralism they signed up for when they joined the EU. Additionally, the postulate you argue the EU is trying to impose is simply the seperation of powers in that is prescribed in every democracy. It is not a criteria for a failed state nor is it equal to vassalage. The alternative to judges ruling over judges is politically appointed judges (as is the case now in Poland) which is exactly what leads to state capture by a single political party like what we've seen in Hungary. This is not democracy, it is majoritarianism. I am under no disillusion on the nature of the EU as an imperfect institution, and a western-centric one at that which tends to ignore the unique history of Eastern and Central Europe (something I am also too often guilty of). This should however not prevent us from calling an authoritarian government authoritarian. Cheers, Hugo
    2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. You mean these milestones? --> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3375 If this is the list you are refering to, then it is only about judicial reform, if it isn't feel free to share the list you are refering to. (Also Copenhague Criteria is about rule of law which includes how your political system operates which checks and balances, which also includes the legislative branch, but hey just a minor detail). The point about the French and German systems is that you would be taking a piece of them without the rest of the system. That is exactly what Hungary has done, taking piecemeal legislation from different democratic countries to create an authoritarian whole. That is exactly what Poland is even doing, taking elements of the French system to build its own authoritarian model. Read opinion here; https://verfassungsblog.de/french-law-is-not-a-model-for-the-polish-bill-on-disciplining-judges/ What you are saying is a false equivalency. (but hey I'm not a legal expert, so what do I know) On French protests, you say the state of emergency was used to quell protests is ridiculous: the Gillets Jaunes crisis ended before the start of Covid after the government backtracked on a series of reforms including pension reform. Sure you will point the vaccine mandates, but those were lifted once the pandemic regressed. Whereas Hungary has been in a state of emergency continuously since 2015. Yet another false equivalency. Why is Poland's government authoritarian? Because if they have their way with their judicial reform can take any decision they want regardless of the constitution by just having it rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court. That is what this entire situation is about, to prevent Poland from becoming another Hungary which has changed its constition 11 times since 2011, increasing the power of the government and of Fidesz. Why is national populism a slur? It means right wing politics combined with anti-elitism and anti-establishmentism, its a technical term. Cuckservatism is however a slur. Anyways, I don't think I will get anything out of this exchange other than relativism, false equivalencies, distortions and slurs, this will be my last answer. Cheers, Hugo
    1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. Well your ad hominem attacks and adversarial stance, don't exactly invite an intelligent response on my end. But anyways, lets tone down on the insults. If you build 1 reactor for €10 billion or 2 for €15, that's called economies of scale, and that is what happened in France in the 70s and 80s (thanks to batch production of American designs). The success of that build-up is what made Nuclear business make sense (France in the 70s and 80s). That is not a controversial statement, those plants were built on time and on budget. However, if you have cost overruns then I agree it makes less sense (France in the 2000s). <--This is the whole video in one paragraph. The marginal production of electricity from nuclear is cheap, it just requires huge upfront investments that then pay up over the rest of the lifecycle, that is what I answered to your other comment. To expand on that France actually has (up until its current mess up) had cheaper electricity than Germany for the past 3 decades. The reason French nuclear is doing badly now is because of the poor utilization rates for their power plants in part due to bad designs in the 1990s and poor maintenance/reinvestment as the government milked EDF. Additionally, (my understanding) is that the nuclear stop in the USA also has a lot to do with public opinion and construction bans more than it does with the actual business model of nuclear energy. Since the business and free market seem important to you, ask yourself whether as a company the promise of cheap and reliable electricity/energy would attract you to the country to set up an energy-intensive industry. Additionally when you talk about 'cheap renewables' which (are indeed cheap) are being scaled massively, but they do not work without gas or nuclear as a backup/baseload. The battery storage technology that you would need does not exist yet, and as an engineer by trade, I sincerely doubt it would be able to deal with the 3 weeks without wind in the North Sea. As an engineer, I see that as a system primed for failure. But I am very curious about which energy system you would design that tackles those problems, (I warn you, if you say gas, oil, or coal, I will fall from my chair laughing) ;) Anyways no energy system is perfect and nuclear definitely isn't either (it's all about trade-offs), but imo it contributes to tackling issues of energy security, grid stability, and climate change while being beneficial to the economy and being a pre-requisite for a post-fossil fuel industrial society. Also please do stop with your US-centered perspective, just because something doesn't/didn't work there doesn't mean it can't/won't work in another. The US isn't the pinnacle of human accomplishment nor is its situation as an energy-rich continent-sized country transposable to Europe.
    1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1) Nightjet is subsidized: https://www.railjournal.com/policy/dutch-court-rules-state-subsidy-for-nightjet-not-illegal/ 2) It is actually relevant that people get on at the end or start cluster, since it limits the use cases you could have for night trains: they have to be between major city clusters, since minor cities are unlikely to be able to fill them 2b) 'My same political spectrum' --> Ad hominem attack, that says little. And it doesn't change the fact that it is expensive, I am just pointing out that it is the case. 3) Stupid marketing that corresponds to a market segmentation (which is the definition of marketing), and validates the fact that 'the environmentally conscious' are not the ones driving the revival of night trains (see we actually agree :P) 4) Fair enough, misread your first comment. 5) As I understand it, night trains disappeared not because of their marketing, but because of a shift in travel preferences, and a shift to 'mass transit high-speed rail', which made night trains unnecessary for most options. I do not see any argument dispelling this, so I assume that the information I gathered on this is true. 'Hotels on Wheels' vs 'Travel at Night', I see that as mostly the same value proposition? But maybe the phrasing about arriving at a reasonable hour could have been better phrased. 6) Yes, I do say that, because it gives an idea of the scale of improvements, and the new possibilities that are emerging. I do not say that the night train will make that trip in that time frame. Also, there is no need to be so angry and attack me personally. It reflects poorly on your arguments, which are otherwise interesting points to consider. Also, I do not presume to be an expert on night trains, and I do think this video does a pretty good job of debunking the major hype around night trains that is currently going around. Have a nice day! Cheers, Hugo
    1