Honestly a delusional move. Culturally, Reparations are paid by the loser. Even in Ukraines victory scenario where they kick Russia or of their territory, Russia will not be anywhere near desperate enough to admit defeat at a level to pay reparations. Russia would simply start retooling for another go. All this does is give Russian propaganda more fuel to justify their point of view, without helping anybody.
This is propaganda to keep the notion that Russia will be held responsible even though there is absolutely no way to guarantee they can make that happen, which in turn helps to maintain approval of policies like sanctions and so on, which is how the EU “makes them pay”. If you are in favour of that kind of direction, I think it’s a positive thing to do, since it favour your narrative
The EU is systemically subordinated to the US, and is in no way a superpower. For just one example look at all the comprador regimes destroying life for European workers in favour of US capitalists.
The EU is dying - our societies are in free-fall, wages through the floor compared to the US, tens of millions of refugees pouring in drive down labour rights and driving up housing costs, austerity-driven governments cutting police funding leading to much more street crime, high inflation and a lack of competitiveness due to the energy crisis, etc.
Despite the problems of capitalism you described, Europe might be the sanest collection of societies currently.
Hope places like South America & Canada, Africa could get their shit together and join Europe in a global union in some decades and topple the influence of the tyrannies causing harm to people
Of course the US, Russia, China et al pushed their polarization agendas in Europe as well and we share the same issues despite the progress of the union.
When a party form a government on its own i.e without any coalition partners, they tend to target the opposition with all the arsenal be it CBI , ED and sometimes even the Judiciary. However the elections are fair and impartial for the most part. Just recently, BJP got its ass handed to it in a state election in Karnataka. They may win the federal election again but it is hardly a death of democracy. Their grip on states have been slipping and once it goes out, they will most likely lose the federal government as well. The same happened during Indira Gandhi era. The same is happening now. Democracy survived then and will survive now. I am not saying there is no assault on democratic institutions in India. But they have proved resilient enough to prevent a democratic collapse as portrayed in this article.
And it's already been pointed out that the actions of Trump and Bolsonaro mirror the same undermining strategy but failed. Still, Modi controls nearly all the media now so it's going to be stronger propaganda than Fox News.
MSNBC which does only marginally better reporting than Fox News. I have mixed feelings about this.
I haven’t looked at the numbers but I wonder if this is driven by the consolidation of media consumption by left-leaning consumers and the fracturing of media consumption by right-leaning consumers.
oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not simping for MSNBC-- nor any corporate news conglomerate. I was just commenting on Fox News’s fall from… well, whatever it was. the top.
Yes, I feel the same. So while I do enjoy watching their decline I’m not sure this represents an improvement in the media ecosystem as a whole. I suspect a lot of former Fox News viewers have now been sucked into far right or even fascist media sources.
Which makes India's case sound more like Hungary or turkey don't you think? More or less complete control of the media while still having "fair" elections.
Yeah literally, this same thing can be said about every country on earth. The only places where corporations haven't infected the government are ones like Afghanistan that have no strong corporations.
Haha true that. This was inevitable btw, the further capitalism develops the more its will absorb everything. Religion is done for, community is done for, bourgie democracy is dying, next come nationality I guess, the environment is already compromised. It truly is a vampiric black hole.
This is not because of capitalism. Religion has been used as a justification to extort money - look at the Catholic church in the Medieval times. If capitalists could make you believe that giving them money had any correlation with the afterlife they would gladly do so.
International commentators can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that Modi's BJP is having so much success because Indians, on the whole, like them and think they're doing a pretty good job.
Americans in particular tend to think that if you don't have two equally strong parties duking it out over 50/50 nailbiter elections, it's not democracy. But plenty of postwar and postcolonial democracies end up with dominant parties, without falling into dictatorship. In Japan, for example, the LDP has held power for something like 95% of the time since WWII, and it's a pretty healthy democracy.
The LDP has never had opposition leaders arrested. Just because they are popular doesn't mean that they aren't anti-democratic. Democracy requires free elections, which cannot exist if a significant minority is being actively suppressed.
Dictators can also be popular, but that doesn’t make their systems of government democratic. I would suggest you read the article if you haven’t because it discusses both Modi’s popularity and the specific actions he has taken that undermine Indian democracy.
Isn't democracy collapsing everywhere? The USA's electoral voting system means democracy doesn't exist. A vote in California is worth 27% of a vote in Wyoming in terms of representation. Add on blatant gerrymandering and you've got a rigged system.
The UK has introduced voter ID laws for a problem that never existed in the past. The UK has also had multiple unelected prime ministers due to the way that the parliamentary system works.
Haven't seen any indication of it being in danger in Switzerland. But we have proportional voting rather than first past the post and referenda are common.
I was going to say this. The older democratic systems (easily identified by 1st-past-the-post) are falling apart at the seams, but the rest of us is (relatively) fine. Places like the US and UK need to change their system, but politicians have an incentive not to change anything.
Places like the US and UK need to change their system, but politicians have an incentive not to change anything.
Fortunately with the US, its decentralized system allows experimentation at the state and local level. My city (Portland, OR) just switched to ranked choice voting for city council along with a host of other changes. Voters statewide will soon be able to vote on using RCV for state races. Meanwhile, ranked choice has been implemented in several other states and localities across the country. It will take a while, but I think ranked choice will become the norm within a few decades.
Unfortunately the form of RCV used everywhere in the US is Hare’s method, which eliminates candidates based only on voters’ first-choice rankings, which largely just perpetuates all the same problems as FPTP. There are many other better reforms. One of those should become the norm instead.
It has four main linguistic and cultural regions: German, French, Italian and Romansh. Although most Swiss are German-speaking, national identity is fairly cohesive, being rooted in a common historical background, shared values such as federalism and direct democracy,[15][page needed] and Alpine symbolism.[16][17] Swiss identity transcends language, ethnicity, and religion, leading to Switzerland being described as a Willensnation (“nation of volition”) rather than a nation state.[18]
Due to its linguistic diversity, Switzerland is known by multiple native names: Schweiz [ˈʃvaɪts] (German);[f][g] Suisse [sɥis(ə)] (French); Svizzera [ˈzvittsera] (Italian); and Svizra [ˈʒviːtsrɐ, ˈʒviːtsʁɐ] (Romansh).[h] On coins and stamps, the Latin name, Confoederatio Helvetica — frequently shortened to “Helvetia” — is used instead of the spoken languages.
I also think the local traditions differentiating down to single villages are more important and alive than in other countries.
But yes, “national identity is fairly cohesive”, maybe you meant that.
Seems like the problem isn’t with democracy, but with the western flavor of liberal parliamentary democracy. Democracy is working just fine in China according to people who live there. All the available studies, including ones coming from prominent western institutions such as Harvard, consistently show that China is democratic and that public satisfaction with the government is far higher than in any western country:
edit: amazing to see rediquette seep into Lemmy now with people downvoting anything that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions.
It’s also evident that a lot of people here don’t actually understand what democracy actually is. Democracy is when the government implements the will of the majority. What the links I’ve provided show is that the government in China consistently works in the interest of the people of China, and this is reflected in consistently high public satisfaction with the government. Furthermore, the links show that public participation in the governance of China is far higher than it is in the western countries. The party has 15 million members, and consists largely of working class people. Meanwhile, western parties are filled with rich career politicians with practically no working class representation.
The sheer amount of political illiteracy in the west is equal parts depressing and hilarious.
It’s like you don’t even have a passing familiarity with Chinese politics. The local councils which the average person can actually vote for are notoriously corrupt. Easily as bad as anything you’ll find in the west, and often far more so.
It’s like I linked a whole bunch of scholarly articles from institutions like Harvard explaining Chinese politics. The reality is that people in China have seen their lives consistently improve with each and every decade. Countless studies show that the standard of living in China is improving at an incredible rate, and that people see the government work in their interest.
And yes, China isn’t perfect, there’s corruption, but that’s missing the point entirely. Corruption exists in every human society, the discussion is whose interest the government is working in. In the west the government works in the interest of the capital owning class, in China it works in the interest of the working majority.
Bro, I have family in China and have lived there for a few years. You are completely delusional about how this works in practice. I’ve also seen the real terror on the real face of a real person when you so much as utter some controversial political language in the wrong company.
It’s actually insane to me that you will call the west brainwashed, and then quote satisfaction surveys of the CCP without a hint of self awareness. Come on. You want actual data? China is ranked lower than basically every other developed nation on the global corruption perception index.
Bro I have friends from China, and lots of my friends moved back to China after university. Weird how Chinese students keep returning to China because it’s such a hell right. What’s insane is that somebody could live in the west and not see the brainwashing.
Meanwhile, it’s absolutely hilarious how you keep going on about corruption when countries like US have an entire government owned by the oligarchs.
Again, the fact you keep dancing around is that quality of life in China has been improving dramatically by practically every measure, meanwhile the opposite is happening in the west. That’s the elephant in the room mr. transparency index.
So what you are saying is that you suddenly aren’t interested in data? Because I was really looking forward to comparing stuff like rural educational attainment, PPP, various human development indices, freedom, democracy indices. There’s like a bunch of stuff which basically backs up what is plainly visible to anyone - that the west has been raising people out of poverty for 200 years and is still doing a pretty decent job of it.
Look, we all know that western liberalism has a lot of really fucking dumb shit about it in the current iteration. And I will definitely acknowledge that there are a lot of good ideas in China. China’s economic miracle is laudable, but - and I say this as a person with an actual stake in Chinese society - it’s time for China to do better, and China doesn’t get better when delusional tankies defend its many clear and obvious problems.
Western liberalism has resulted in some of the worst crimes against humanity in the past 200 years such as the slave trade and the genocide of the native population in America to name a couple.
Look, we all know that western liberalism has a lot of really fucking dumb shit about it in the current iteration. And I will definitely acknowledge that there are a lot of good ideas in China. China’s economic miracle is laudable, but - and I say this as a person with an actual stake in Chinese society - it’s time for China to do better, and China doesn’t get better when delusional tankies defend its many clear and obvious problems.
Nobody said China couldn’t and shouldn’t do better or that China doesn’t have problems. This is literally the case for every human society. However, what’s being argued is that China is demonstrably producing better material outcomes than western liberal democracies are.
Again, compared to the west, China is still a poor country. Yes it is growing, and that growth has been very impressive, and there is much we can all learn from it. But to claim that China has surpassed the west in terms of eliminating poverty is simply incorrect.
You are making a moral argument, to which I am marginally sympathetic, and backing it up with bad information.
The numbers say that people in China are now better off than people in Europe. And this is with China having to rebuild itself after a civil war and the destruction in WW2. Meanwhile, the reason the west is rich is because the west colonized the rest of humanity and has been brutally exploiting it. Claiming that the west is rich because of liberalism is factually wrong. The west is rich because it enslaved billions of people across the globe plundering their labour and resources.
You are making a moral argument, to which I am marginally sympathetic, and backing it up with bad information.
What specifically is the bad information you’re referring to. I’ve provided you with the actual numbers here.
So far you have provided a survey about government satisfaction. When presented with data which shows that China is quite a bit more corrupt than the west, you changed the subject to argue prosperity and wealth.
And on those topics, you are wrong as well. China trails the west considerably on:
We could keep going here. You are very clearly the one who is cherry picking data. Like many people who make these ridiculous claim, you seem to be under the impression that everyone in China lives in tier 1 cities, and ignore things like China’s hukou caste system, or the fact that the average rural Chinese person does not even attempt a high school education.
Again, I acknowledge that China has made miraculous advancements in many of these areas, and will likely be on par or even surpass the west in many of these this century. However, you are clearly arguing in bad faith, moving goalposts and ranting about a bunch of things you seem to have quite a poor grasp of.
Again, you Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source for these things, and I’ve provided you with very different numbers from other sources. Pretty much every source that accounts for stuff like PPP shows that China is doing quite well compared to the west. However, you once again ignore the fact that the west had a head start, and that the wealth in the west comes from colonialism. China’s growth doesn’t come at the cost of impoverishment of other countries the way western growth does. Finally, the really important part is the trajectory. Life in China is improving, life in the west is getting worse.
And claiming that when I’m arguing in bad faith or moving goal posts when I’ve been consistently saying the same thing and backing up with sources says everything I need to know about you. Bye.
I’m not going to waste more time on you. It’s pretty clear you’re just going to keep ignoring everything I say and repeating the same thing like a broken record. You don’t want to have an honest discussion here.
On the contrary, I am trying to have a conversation. I have attempted to address every premise you’ve offered with a combination of history, data and personal experience. I don’t believe you have offered sources for many of your claim, but in case I missed them, it would be helpful if you provided a summary.
If you are trying to have a conversation then we’re clearly talking past each other. My points are as follows.
We see consistent and steady improvement in the quality of life of people in China. I’ve provided many sources demonstrating this.
China has a stable economy that does not see constant crashes the way western economies do.
The government of China is working in the interest of the public, and has popular support from the vast majority of people who live in China. This is again supported by the numerous resources I’ve provided.
The government of China predominantly consists of working class people.
The economy of China is directed towards the interests of the majority, and all the core economy, such as energy production, is publicly owned.
The disparity in wealth with the west comes from the west brutally exploiting the global south to enrich western nations. Despite this, the standards of living in the west continue to decline.
Practically all the improvements in the standard of living have come from China in the past decades, meanwhile the standard of living globally has actually declined.
A major difference between China and the West re: corruption is that it's institutionalized in the West and called "lobbying." Because of this, it's easy for Westerners to point at China and say local councils are "notoriously corrupt" but not bat an eye at lobbyists, rich donors, and [super]pacs swaying Congressional votes.
I'm surprised to see a narrative like this in some of the links, especially the Harvard ones. But I suppose the children of the ruling class need to be taught what the world is actually like if they are to have any hope of continuing to rule it.
It won't serve a Harvard graduate very well to be lied to about what China is like – once their uncle gets them a cushy job, they'll be expected to negotiate with Chinese businesses and diplomats, and that won't go well if all they can repeat is the propaganda line.
It’s amazing how much factual information you can find in western sources when you know where to look. The genius of western propaganda though is that majority of people will not read these sources, and will react the way we see a lot of people in this thread reacting when presented with them. There’s no need for censorship because people censor themselves collectively. This is the ultimate brainwashing the west managed to achieve.
I'm not interested in any political system where I can't criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family's safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages...
Don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist, I'm against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.
But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of "leaders" who have no inherent right to do so in the name of "society" or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.
Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn't been successful before or people don't see how to make it work doesn't justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn't a thing. That didn't justify continuing that system though.
There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.
Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.
It’s not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it’s actually possible to do.
Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.
Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don’t translate into systemic change in society.
What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don’t fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.
Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.
All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).
The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.
Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it’s obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you’re debating.
It’s pretty clear that the proletariat very much do the ruling in Vietnam, China, Cuba. Again, it’s not some uptopian society, but it is one where the government represents the interests of the majority. This is clearly demonstrated by the differing outcomes from capitalist states where the governments serve the interests of the capital owning class. Even in case of DPRK, productive forces are still largely turned towards the interests of the people as opposed to enriching oligarchs through exploitation of the working class.
Core industry of the country being publicly owned is the first step towards communism, and that’s what socialist states accomplish. The current fight is to overthrow global capitalism as the dominant system. Only once that’s achieved will anything better be possible. It’s not possible to get to some utopian society from where the world is today, and this is what Marxists realize. Change is a process, and we look for tangible material improvements in the conditions of the majority. Focusing on maximizing personal freedoms before basic needs are met is simply a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Well I think it depends on your interpretation. I personally think the post Stalin brands of communism are doing the movement a disservice as in my view they misrepresent the communist ideology.
For instance i don’t see much immigration from people in capitalist nations to any of the countries you mentioned, even not people who embrace that brand of socialism. If there’s any talk about migrating from capitalist countries to more socialist ones, is usually people from the states to (slightly more) socialist places like Germany or Scandinavia.
Therefore my opinion is that communist ideas are better propagated through that manner. Armed uprisings tend to leave the most ruthless competitor in charge to get corrupted by the power and not actually following through with the communist plan and devise a brand of socialism in which them being in charge is also communist.
But i think we fundamentally disagree on that. That’s not bad, though. I can see some reason to some of the brand of socialism that is general on lemmygrad. The only thing I fail to comprehend is the support of the current Russian leadership as they don’t even pretend to have anything to do with socialist ideology.
Until somebody shows how to do better, I’ll go with what actually works. Meanwhile, immigration argument is not sound because people who would immigrate to these countries don’t have the means to do so. People with the means to immigrate are the ones largely benefiting from the exploitation happening under capitalism.
I’d also say that it’s also incorrect to call places like Germany or Scandinavia socialist in a Marxist sense. These are capitalist countries with a social safety net. In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism where the proletariat holds power, but capitalist relations have not been fully abolished. This is clearly not the case in these countries.
Finally, I don’t think anybody would argue that Russia today is socialist in any sense. It’s a capitalist country with an oligarchy ruling over it much as we see in the west. However, Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world. This is a necessary step in order for socialism to flourish anywhere. I also see Russia falling into Chinese sphere of influence as a net positive. Majority of older people in Russia still have fond memories of USSR, and young people are now increasingly looking at Chinese model as the way forward. Putin won’t be around forever, and once he is gone there will be opportunity for positive change.
Of the countries in discussion, I’ve only ever been to Cuba. Well it seems like a posterchild for succesful socialism and even a non-dynastic ruler. There are two currencies, one that you can use in basic shops and one for tourists (KUK). The thing is that everyone is trying their damdest to get their hands on the KUK’s as you can only use that to buy luxury products. It’s not even weird if you see what you can buy in the governement stores. It doesnt keep capitalism out, it fetishises it.
I did call European countries slightly more socialist, from an American pov, which is undeniable. There were and are ‘socialist’ regimes where they had trouble keeping their own people from leaving their country, just for w whiff of the sweet soma of capitalism. The priority, I think, is to first build a state where people are longing to live. And considering global migration the majority of economic refugees seeks capitalis countries. The power of money seems the driving problem, because it gets people what they want. You have to find a system that works better than money, that is the hard nut to crack, because it works harder the more of it you own.
Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world
Aha, that’s the angle I missed, that makes sense in a way, thanks. I really woudn’t underestimate the ability of unfettered captitalism and cronyism to break US domination on it’s own. China seems to step up to the plate quite forcefully, not through arms, but through, quite literally, owning the means of production. I do only fear their power of surveillance, and I do not condone it, too orwellian for me.
Have your considered that Cuba’s development may be impacted by the fact that the global hegemon has spent decades finding new and creative ways to fuck Cuba over. It’s basically this problem that every existing socialist state has right now cym.ie/…/left-anti-communism-the-unkindest-cut-by…
Yet, despite all the problems Cuba has, it has higher life expectancy than US, higher literacy, and it’s one of the most sustainable countries in the world. Cuba also managed to effectively protect its population during covid and develop its own vaccines. All while being a tiny island under siege. These are the material tangible benefits that are a direct result of the socialist system Cuba has.
Meanwhile, if the west ever does become socialist then the flavor of socialism it will have will necessarily be rooted in the conditions of the west, its culture, history, and all other factors that are unique to the west. This is why I think there isn’t much value in worrying about how China or other socialist countries developed. Each country has its own unique circumstances, and no two are exactly alike. China is different from Cuba, or Vietnam, or what USSR was. The only key principle is that the core of the economy is publicly owned and that the working class holds power as opposed to capitalists. How that’s accomplished is up to the people of each country to figure out.
The UK has also had multiple unelected prime ministers due to the way that the parliamentary system works.
That's... not any indicator democracy is "on the wane". In most Western European countries we don't directly vote for the one man/woman, we vote for MPs because the legislative power is in the hands of the Parliament. As long as the Parliament is made of elected MPs then democracy is working just fine.
The US’s system is unbalanced and unfair, but it’s far from “doesn’t exist”. And while you have listed a pair of blue/red state pairs, look at the 2nd and next to last state and you see a red/blue state pair. So it’s unfair, but it’s not uniformly unfair.
Absolutely a good point. Californians get fucked in senate voting power compared to some dickhead religious voter from a small red state. It's a travesty that California and New York have the same amount of Senate representation as North and South Dakota.
Then you have lifetime judicial appointments. Trumpf was able to get 3 Supreme Court judges in during his 4 years. The impact will last a generation or two at least.
The corruption at the highest levels is open and astounding. PACs can basically buy elections. Insider trading is also normalized in Congress by both sides.
Religious fundamentalists have infiltrated all levels of government and are pushing for a Christian Theocracy. Very similar to what is happening in India. Religion has NO place in politics.
The US is not a good example of a democracy. There are Conservative Republicans (far right), Maga Republicans (Fascist) and Democrats (Center right). Nothing much in between as the system is designed for only 2 parties.
Also, when was the last time a republican won the popular vote? This is proof enough the US is a poor democracy as the will of the people is ignored because of the electoral college.
Vote weight is fairly common as it provides minority groups a bit more control of their areas. I find that reasonable. There is no such thing as perfect democracy unless you voted on every single issue regardless of importance and that is simply not practical. Sure things could be designed a bit better but the majority of democratic countries have systems that are working quite well. The biggest destabilizes now likely comes more from social media that spreads every dissatisfaction because it sells and makes people think the world is coming to an end. It’s not. Or at least not because of failing democracies.
I wonder if there's going to be some sort of culture crisis across The West when reality hits, or if Western media is strong enough to distract everyone with something new like they did with Afghanistan.
Well I mean the coverage on the submarines isn't really because of their net worth (not denying that it isn't a contributing factor), but submarines sinking isn't really that common, as another user have said in their comment. Remember MH370? A majority of the passengers weren't wealthy, but it still got a lot of media coverage.
While fucked up, it’s disinguinuous suggest that the news is blowing up only due to the fact that they’re billionaires. While large boat disasters are fairly uncommon, how often do you hear of a submarine disaster. Especially one where the inhabitants are missing but potentially on a timer - trapped in a submarine with no way to open from the inside, many peoples ultimate fear. The story writes itself, pile on what seems to be a neglectful company and you’ve got a story people are going to be invested in. I don’t think the coverage or the search and rescue would be any different if it were a scientific submarine with scientists.
I think this is a rather disingenuous read of the situation. The drama of the situation should not overshadow the gravity of the difference between the number of human beings in question, it's disturbing that anyone would find this even remotely acceptable because it's more dramatic. And that's not to mention the discrepancy in response and spending on each issue. It's a true indictment of our societies.
There are people dying all the time, so the ones that are "news worthy" (i.e. attention grabbing) are the unique ones with stories that set them apart, and often it's more relatable when it effects fewer people so it's less abstract. I don't think it's an indictment of our societies, it just plays off of how our brains work.
I'm pretty sure those immigrants have more interesting stories to tell than a billionaire. Just saying.
Living your entire life in a warzone or in inhospitable environments that force you to leave your family behind and getting drowned while the general society ignores the underlying problem seems more worthy of questioning than a billionaire trying to go sightseeing thinking their money shields them from nature. I'd post a clip of a movie that fits here perfectly, but the clip is not on youtube, for anyone interested, look up 'whatever works' with Woody Allen there's a newspaper scene at the beginning of the film.
Anyways, apparently they're dead. Now to move to more important issues in society.
The Thai cave boys are another good example. They were rural third-worlders, but it still became a sensation. It just has to be bloody and dramatic to attract attention. A story like "people on boat drown again" is too mundane, it becomes a statistic instead of a tragedy.
What's really irksome is that these rich guys that pay people to put them weird but often already-explored places get called "explorers".
Rich people think spending money is what makes them special.
My favorite lately is the rise of the 'world traveler' who treats travel as a moral imperative that elevates them above those who can't or don't have the means to spend 5-6 figures per year on international vacations.
International travel certainly does broaden a person's perspective. It's great if your can do it, but anyone acting superior because they can travel is just an asshole.
I have to wonder if these people are really getting the straight dope anyway, or going to all the tourist spots and being shown what they want to see. They're definitely not hanging out in a refugee camp if they're spending that much.
Yeah, having a shittily built submarine for a billionaire to visit the most famous shipwreck in the world while then joining those who died there 100 years ago, is a pretty unique story that we'll now always remember whenever we talk about the titanic.
There’s a real irony in naming your submarine after a shipwreck, neglecting all safety devices like the shipwreck, and talking about how the hull was indestructible.
The awful truth is that migrants drowning on the sea crossing to Europe or to the UK is mundane. It happens regularly, so it's not news. A sub drowning near the Titanic is newsworthy.
This is effectively saying, "This article is correct but for the wrong reasons". People aren't angry about why hundreds of migrants dying isn't newsworthy. They're angry that it's not newsworthy.
I'm frankly surprised that not enough people find it disgusting that the EU passively killing hundreds of refugees is less interesting because the EU does so regularly.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you. It would be interesting to know what would happen if each one of those 50 immigrants paid $250,000 to be on that boat. I don't think money had nothing to do with it.
It would absolutely be different if it were scientists. The memes about billionaires and the sub are all over the place. Bezos should go on a sub and explore the titanic too and all that shit.
Also it's unfair to compare it to the migrant story. Most Americans and Europeans are very hateful towards people from MENA so they are either indifferent or supportive of such "accidents". Obviously they are going to care more about some rich idiots literally crushed by their own hubris.
worldnews
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.