I fully support discussing racism in the UK and what we can do to counter it but I don't get why we're discussing it as if it's the exact same situation over here with the same solutions. This might to a symptom of London centric-ness where there is far more ethnic diversity and therefore racism.
Moving to another place (Seattle) where (for instance) racism is still a part of the fabric of everyday life but a part of the social discussion was challenging as I was introduced to ideas that felt unintuitive. But empathy helped me grow and understand more than I did, and helped me value and pursue that growth.
It also helped me recognize (for other instances) I had unconsciously internalized other biases. I had rejected my own sexuality (I identify queer, demisexual) and my gender identity (I accept he/him/they/them pronouns equally).
I hope a little empathy goes far for you. It’s not often in a followup like this I see someone willing to reciprocate the empathetic spirit and acknowledge a contrary view kindly. Who knows where it’ll take you, but I hope you’ll consider that your experience may be coloring your ideas and that you may have room for other ideas in that consideration.
And I don't like to pick apart semantics, but the way you use the term "American BLM" is a Straw Man and an Ad Hominem deployed in tandem. It's difficult to have a constructive debate when it's posed in those terms.
When you say "American BLM" as if it were a monolithic entity and attach negative attributes to it, that goes to the heart of the matter.
I don't know how to have a conversation with you from across that chasm.
British police officers don't routinely carry guns and therefore couldn't possibly shoot you even if they wanted to. In fact, there is an almost zero probability of anyone in the UK getting shot by the police unless they happen to be committing an act of terrorism or murder at the time.
And of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Me...
This is the disputed evidence at the center of the question; the gun was found several meters away from the scene, on the other side of a fence, "wrapped in a sock". There is a protracted argument about how plausible it is that he threw it there after being shot in the arm.
> they invariably seem to be about people who were in the process of attacking the police when they were shot.
If the police shoot someone, then of course all the official reports will say that they were attacking the police. There have been a number of mass casualty incidents in the UK (Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday) where the police or army reports turned out to be lies.
Living and working near London I always assumed the increased ethnic diversity and global outlook in the capital led to less racism. I assumed it was the rural homogenous countryside that had more endemic racism. I guess we all misunderstand each other all the time.
From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477....
>In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.
There's plenty of secondary sources reporting on this study if you want to have a look for the varying opinions on it but I thought I'd link the source of it itself.
Whether less trust, less cohesion etc. == more racism is something I'm not in a position to draw a conclusion over, but it's interesting nonetheless.
More flareups, perhaps, especially riots against the Metropolitan police, but more diversity tends to make people less racist as they actually meet people of other ethnicities rather than just repeat what they've heard about people they've never met or seen.
Was the Bristol statue teardown an import? The tactic of just dumping it in the sea was, and the "triggering event" of solidarity protests was, but the underlying question of why Bristol has a statue of a man who committed crimes against humanity had been rumbling on for years and the council had voted down even a recontextualisation plaque.
Scotland has some similar "historical benefits of slavery" questions to look at; Edinburgh's own pro-slavery politician statue (Henry Dundas) is somewhat protected by being at the top of a 150-foot column.
American culture is weird like that. We all consume it via mass media.
I think it’s just an empire thing. During Victorian times everyone was trying to be a little British, or a little French, maybe a little German. Depends who’s closest to you. A long time ago, everyone tried to be a little Roman.
Another way of putting it: News doesn’t tell you what to think, it tells you what to think about.
No offense, I just find this hilarious for some reason. Kids can be so impressionable.
Many people seem to agree that the rise of social media and its correlated loneliness have pushed people down their rabbithole/echo chamber/whatever people want to call it nowadays. Opposed to the popular narrative, the apparent view from people into the social sciences seem to believe it's a problem with social technologies, rather than it being the inferior North American cultures bleeding out and corrupting our pure untouched global cultures.
I have to agree with the other view that all of us on this planet we are barely evolved hairless tribal monkeys using technology that makes us more anxious instead of secure - and all of these problems are actually pretty predictable from this perspective. It's not Americanification, we just naturally start acting like this when we start using things that make us anxious for clicks.
What BLM protests in Poland? I live there and it's first time I'm hearing of them.
Diplomatic relations with the US matter a lot for the economy and trade - as you've seen in many countries over the last four years.
If you support an authoritarian/populist/homophobic ruler at home (in Poland or Hungary or Brazil or wherever), you also support Trump because he will support your country where a Biden administration will be far less likely to boost Hungary if it costs relationship points with Germany or France...
It does not seem so crazy to me, after decades of cultural imperialism from America, that we are mirroring the same patterns of behaviour and fighting the same battles. (Just to be clear, I'm not against imperialism)
If American politics are straining your relationship with your sister and you are not even American, sorry to put it like this but only you two have yourselves to blame. Next time your sister brings the topic up say "yeah right" and move on.
This. America is not actively shoving its politics into our conversations, we're doing that ourselves (I'm from Germany as well, btw.).
Yes, talking about whatever social shenanigans are currently relevant in the USA is fun, but applying those weird ideas to ones own society is a completely different thing.
I read a book a few years ago that made an interesting point about cultural exports like TV shows (the book was written pre-youtube and pre-netflix).
If you're a small country (with your own language, culture and traditions) and America has 30x the population of your country, films and TV shows made for the American market will have 30x the budget.
And yet, when that American show is selling broadcast rights in your country, no matter how far they have to drop the price, making a sale makes more money than not making the sale. So the price of the American show will never be out of reach of your broadcasters.
So when a broadcaster imports an American show instead of producing locally, they get a much flashier, more polished product - and it actually costs them less!
And so, for example, Belgian TV shows more scenes in American courtrooms than Belgian courtrooms. And if American TV shows include American politics, they can't help but shove it onto Belgian TV screens.
There's not a moustache-twirling Uncle Sam deliberately orchestrating this, of course. It's just a natural consequence of copyright, deregulation and free trade.
That’s not to say there’s no such thing as influence or persuasion. And those can be powerful. Ultimately we can all decide how we engage with our family, person to person, regardless of how the USA or anyone in the USA indicates.
It’s incredibly important to be aware of that and act accordingly. If mainstream media from another country can change your relationship with your sister, it seems to me that something is wrong. Negative external influences aren’t about to go away, so it’s on the individual to be cognizant and vigilant about responding appropriately.
You could easily argue that the "Conservative" party in Canada is equivalent or possibly even to the left of the mainstream Democratic party in the US. So yeah, it gets a bit weird when right-leaning people in Canada then also support Trumpian politics— sometimes it's hard to know if they're there after a considered review of the positions, or if it's just a knee jerk "pick the guy on the right" response.
The 2nd Amendment issue in the United States is something I don't expect a non-American to understand. The rest of the world tends to take the process of enumerating freedoms positively. The law says you have it or don't.
In the U.S. the culture was framed around the preservation of liberty and the enumeration of the boundaries, and limitations on the ability of government and regulation to encroach. The problem with that is it opens a can of worms constitutionally that increasingly have led to the torture of common language in order to attempt to change the meaning of already passed laws instead of passing new ones which seem to be growing increasingly difficult to do.
Further, you have an entire caste of people specifically trained to use language in unintuitive ways.
As far as "Assault rifles" go, most people can't even define what one is. The fact is, an AR-15 that has the "look-and-feel" of a military patterned rifle is functionally equivalent to more "traditional looking" stock rifles like a Mini-14.
They are the same fundamental device. Neither one is more or less capable of killing someone. To anyone with experience with firearms, the "common sense" espoused by gun control people amounts to hysterics. All it is is a bunch of people tryimg to legislate everyone else's rights without demonstrating any understanding of the subject matter at hand other than being a special interest mouthpiece.
But it's because of this misalignment across a variety of issues that it’s difficult to have a straight discussion of cross-border political alignments— you need to have at least some semblance of a picture of how the Canadian left and right differs from the US left and right. (Another key one, for example, is that the Liberals in Canada officially strive to be a centrist party; the "real" Canadian left is the NDP and Green party, neither of which have ever held power at the federal level, though the NDP have come close a few times.)
Not at all. You could say it's a "western" thing, but definitely not an USA thing (although they do tend to claim it for themselves like they invented it).
What's unique to the USA is the weird idea that personal responsibility is somehow a counter-argument to regulation. "Guns don't kill people, so everybody should be free to own them". At the same time, it's mostly the american left that argues against personal responsibility just because it's considered a right-wing belief.
To come to a conclusion: As so often, the USA is wrong, on both sides. The only "right" mentality, in my opinion, is one that acknowledges both personal responsibility and the option for society to step in.
They choose to cover it.
This is a very dismissive argument to make. It's just like saying Americans have just themselves to blame for this culture ware and should just stop arguing and move on.
Everyone watches US TV shows and movies. Many media outlets all over the world give way too much attention to US news topics, for reasons that are not really clear to me.
This kind of cultural affiliation is not a personal choice, but brought on by news media and the dominance of US entertainment.
A cousin in my family has a very valid grievance against business owner uncles that support politicians who don’t want to provide meal breaks or bathroom breaks. This cousin has to work 12 to 14 hour shifts, and eat standing up while working and sneak in bathroom breaks.
That’s not “red/blue” shit.
The world is more complicated than that.
It’s easily verifiable that Democratic states have better laws for wage earners, and have pushed for policies that benefit wage earners. They’re nowhere near perfect, but there’s no reason to pretend Dems and Repubs are the same.
I could just as easily turn it around and say, "It's easily verifiable that Republican states have better laws for gun owners." Now do you see the issue? Your above statement matters only if your primary goal is benefiting wage earners. It would be like me saying that Republicans are better at building a border wall. Maybe so, but that's not top priority for Democrats.
More recently, we are seeing the rise of the Zero Issue Voters who don’t care about any particular issue at all. It’s purely a team sport. They love their team, love their candidates and they just want to “own the other side”.
The difference between the two is mostly how they think it best to go about improving things for wage earners, who are the vast majority of their voters in both states. Not saying this makes them equal, but the difference is not what you assert.
The most solidly blue state, California, just enshrined a law to screw over gig workers and has among the worst housing crises in the country for average (and below) wage earners. Both parties are not equally bad, but the idea that the Democrats support working people is pretty laughable at this point. Yes, they’re not as awful as Republicans on these issues, but that’s a pretty low bar and still so far below the wage and labor protections in places like Europe as to be laughable.
This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year.
> instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money.
If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5?
> systemic corruption in the Democratic party,
Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.
What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None.
> not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team),
What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5?
> pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping.
Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f...
> The list goes on and on.
No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?
For example, there are many people who in a race where one candidate favors restricting or ending abortion and the other favors reducing restrictions on abortion will choose whichever of the two agrees with their position on abortion, regardless of where the two candidates stand on anything else such as economic issues or foreign policy issues.
AFAIK the idea of immigrants impact being a net negative isn't supported by the studies I have read.
I understand this isn't necessarily in line with the rhetoric du jour.
Immigrants as a whole being a net positive might be clear, but the demographics most commonly under debate are things like "refugees" or "illegal immigrants" or "people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border". Now, it's possible that those groups are still a (financial) net positive, but I'd be a lot less confident in that than "doctors" or "people with a degree".
This also doesn't really address the issue of "what impact does immigration have on US wage earners". An immigrant doctor or programmer might be clearly beneficial financially and to the country as a whole, but the doctors and programmers they're competing with might not be quite so happy. And while those demographics can "take it" so to speak, unskilled laborers facing the same competition are in a bit tougher of a spot.
However, if we go by cumulative per capita COVID deaths, then the result would have been 228 Trump, 310 Biden.
Why the big swing? I think it is because the big early outbreaks that swept through retirement and nursing homes before we got better at treating it were in big urban areas. By the time it got big in rural areas, we'd gotten a lot better at dealing with it.
It would be interesting to do a similar calculation, but using say the rates over say the last three months instead of cumulative from the start. If someone wants to do that one, a good place to get the COVID data is here [1]. They have links to download the data for all the graphs as CSV files.
Or by the time it hit rural areas, we'd also gotten better at testing for it. Perhaps the IFR is the same across both demographics, but better testing means a higher proportion of cases were detected later in the pandemic.
Using cases, it comes out 344 Trump, 194 Biden. Using deaths, it comes out 354 Trump, 184 Biden.
The big difference this time is largely rural states that are getting hit much harder than the rest of the states. North Dakota in this allocation gets 35 cases EV and 46 deaths EV, and South Dakota gets 30 and 36. Montana get 21 and 23.
For comparison to some high population states, California is 4 and 4, New York 4 and 3, Texas 8 and 10, Florida 6 and 10.
Now I'd be curious to see something that looks at various sliding windows on the data and sees how to allocations change, but that would be a bit more elaborate than I want to do.
See, I can play this game too.
https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/states-with-pai...
Similarly, see the list of states (and cities) with half decent unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, non tipped wages, sick leave, required meal breaks, non compete bans, Medicaid, marijuana legalization, etc.
You will see a trend in which parties’ governance wage earners have these benefits (which are a pittance compared to civilized countries in the first place) and which don’t.
https://hechingerreport.org/why-oklahomas-public-preschools-...
That never got talked about by Trump detractors. Union working class Joe-Schmoe's used to vote democrat, and now solidly do not. There's a reason for that.
Edit: Please note that I never said he did those things, just that they were what he promised. He is completely full of crap on almost everything he says, those promises at the top of the pile. But that is the reason working class Joe love him. He says the things they want to hear.
He said the needed lines, gave them a villain in immigrants (stealing yur jerbs) and then did nothing of the sort for WORKERS. He certainly did go all in on cracking down on immigration, of non-white people, as that matched the narratives of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.
Meanwhile, Oligarchs here are richer than ever, and workers are holding on for dear life. And 72 million plus, voted to keep him in office.
I don't think that matches exit polls—lower wage workers still voted primarily democrat, and higher wage workers voted primarily republican: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/...
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
The output of Fox is bad enough, but the QAnon nonsense isn't some weird aberration that appeared out of nothing. It's the logical conclusion of a huge social experiment to see how much political benefit you can wring from an industrial lie machine.
And it's working far better than anyone on the left was expecting it to.
The downside is that the US now has a huge voter demographic that is literally disconnected from reality. These are the people who scream that Covid isn't real - because something something George Soros and Bill Gates - while they're in hospital dying of it.
This doesn't end well. You can't push a large percentage of your population into delusion without some very destructive consequences. Even if it does mean you keep your Senate seat.
I would argue that, for the individuals in question, the long-term consequences literally have no meaning, do not matter, and absolutely are not part of the calculus.
If I get power during my life, and secure my legacy as an important, and very wealthy person, my children can buy away any problem that may pop up for them.
Therefore, my actions of destruction today do not matter, as long as I am the one in power.
This is why I believe it is only going to keep getting worse; if the incentive is to stay in power, at all costs, we're in for a wild ride.
All of my fellow republican business owners were bristling at the idea of Obama’s executive order increasing the minimum salary for exempt workers. This is because they would have had to pay their immigrant workers $44k per year for 60+ hour work weeks who they designated as “managers”, rather than $30k per year under current rules.
Again, I’m not saying Democrats are perfect, and they are far from it. But at least some Democrat states, and politicians are making an effort, whereas I can’t say the same about Repubs. Hence, it’s not just color A vs color B.
I wonder if that would help. I experience a lot that people expect me to have all kind of weird opinions because they think I'm part of a group which they think holds these opinions. They think I'm part of that group because some of my opinions match with the group.
As for innovation, that's relative. Europe, for centuries, was the undisputed worldwide leader in innovation, now that has shifted a bit to the USA and seems to be on its way to shift to China or maybe India in the next few decades.
There's also the problem that Europe can't really focus on organizing itself in a self-sufficient manner because there's still separatists bitching about everything and always screaming for separation instead of forcing governments to address issues, and the impending rise of fascism in east-europe that may or may not become a huge deal for the rest of the 2020es. The USA has this problem as well, but to a far lesser degree.
Concrete example of European reliance on the US.
1. NATO
2. The US Fed for liquidity in the EU banking system
3. Acquisition market for companies
4. AWS, Azure, GCE, DO
5. Netflix
1. There's still a narrative here in Germany that the big bad USA / trump is wrong for demanding we spend money on our military when we literally signed a contract agreeing to do just that. At the same time, we're in a bit of a unique position where our defence is also in the best interest of the USA.
4. Yes, technological reliance on the USA when it comes to the internet is amazing and terrifying at the same time. Mind you, there is no lack of European alternatives, but somehow these big companies injected a brand-oriented culture into the web-development world on a scale I'd usually expect to see in regards to clothing, not software.
I'll risk sounding ellitist, but I do believe this only works because of the recent influx of newcomers to the world of web and their mentality of doing only what gets them employed. This is a way bigger problem that I could write many pages about, but in this context the important detail is that these people often choose to learn products rather than methodologies, buzzwords and brands rather than theory and logical principles.
Good! Russia is an enemy.
I would have agreed literally with that statement fifteen years ago. Since then, however, the trends in Russia towards state control over independent press, the politicisation of sports and culture, the blurring of lines not to be crossed (e.g. the annexation of Crimea) and overall clinching of Kremlin power at all costs have made lots of people in Europe worried.
I also wouldn't say "Russia is the enemy", for a number of reasons: first of all, it's not true; secondly, it's not helpful; and thirdly, it obviously breeds distrust and antagonism not only between states but between individual people.
But tensions have obviously been rising, and we are not in the pleasant situation we saw 20 years ago when Russia seemed to be heading towards democracy and increased international cooperation. The current regime in Russia, with its increasingly authoritarian and nationalistic pursuits and somewhat erratic foreign politics, has certainly been feeding those tensions. It would be disingenuous to claim it hasn't.
Now it is just a conflict between different European powers with varying levels of dysfunctional democracy and corrupt elites.
So what is the basis for hating the Russians now; racism?
And this is based on Putin's foreign policy towards smaller neighbors that it historically controlled.
This is good advice for Americans too. The privacy of the ballot box is a cornerstone of America for a good goddamned reason.
Don't worry, that's why I emphasised the loving relationship part, we really don't take our political opinions into this and wouldn't have emotional fights about them. Family comes before all that.
Sure, when Trump says something about renegotiating NAFTA, yeah, cover that. When Trump says something stupid about the Democrats, no, that doesn't deserved prime time coverage in Canada. There are too many important things happening in Canada and the rest of the world for that to be front and center.
But I understand why they do it...ratings. Covering outrageous stories gets ratings. Generating outrage gets people to tune in tomorrow to see what happens next.
Frankly it doesn't deserve coverage here in America, either. If he hadn't been gifted billions of dollars in free advertising from all of these networks that hate watch his Twitter feed I don't think we would even have Trump as POTUS. And now he's never going to go away. And they're going to be hate watching his every step to keep "reporting the news." For the life of me I do not understand why people watch the news in this era.
> you two have yourselves to blame
That's not how imperialism works.
As an aside - why? Imperialism seems like something one should obviously oppose. Who wants their lives governed by these forces?
In a democratic society, you have to influence the public opinion to stay/get in power. Propaganda is free, information costs money.
If the majority of voters are not willing to pay for quality journalism, you have to get them engaged by fueling outrage and projecting fear. It doesn't matter what side, as long as there are sides you can join and identify with.
Combined with the fact that American politics do have an effect on the quality of life in other parts of the world (trade wars and refugee crisis for example) and the working (aka non-capital) class suffers in most western societies, it is very easy to project similar fears and foster divisiveness.
Go back to the start of the Second Gulf war and you had the NYT and other media outlets complicit in the WMD lies.
Neither CNN nor Fox is quality journalism, "quality" being the adjective you left out.
The NYT also issued an apology for their coverage about WMD which was not rigorously fact checked. One of the reporters, Judith Miller, later joined Fox News.
Quality doesn't mean 100% correct all the time, it means significantly better than the alternative.
Comparing the coverage of different sources is part of how you can reach your own conclusions, instead of blindly adopting whatever opinion is broadcasted to you.
>In fact, opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians crave executions almost as much as their American counterparts do. It's just that their politicians don't listen to them. In other words, if these countries' political cultures are morally superior to America's, it's because they're less democratic.
"Death in Venice" (http://wayback.archive.org/web/20091009111114/http://tpmlive...), Joshua Micah Marshall, The New Republic, 31 July 2000
That’s how unpopular choices can become policy. It breaks down to people with strong preferences deciding issues rather than the majority deciding issues. Farmers care a lot more about subsidies than most people making farm subsidies an easy choice.
I'm seeing it, too, and it's annoying. I'm American, but a while back I stopped consuming anything but local news in English for the sake of my sanity. Doesn't work anymore. I keep wondering if maybe I just need to learn a new language? Maybe the mind virus hasn't yet spread to the Swahili coast. . .
I can't say if it aligns more with the divide in the rest of the world, but saying US politics "spills over" into the rest of the world makes it sound like the US is static. The parties are evolving though: maybe the US is just shifting to toward a more internationally palatable ideological divide.
So I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean with the divide being more internationally palatable. "Spilling over" also doesn't imply the source is static.
Maybe the latter is what you do after you finished your beer and popcorn, but it wasn't quite clear in that case.
It's more of a bidirectional soup, I think. A lot of the tumult in the US is due to the breakdown of historic norms and views. That has been sped up by social media, but the actual ideas taking hold on one side are largely Marxist, by way of the Frankfurt school, in nature. Those both originate within your own boarders. What you're experiencing is more an echo bouncing back than a spillover, in my opinion.
My sister and I, living in Germany, have a very loving relationship, but we absolutely disagree on almost everything political and basically are stuck in our seperate bubbles.
This gave us an interesting observation: 5 years ago it took us about two to three months, to have a fight over something that started to become a hot-topic in the US.
Over time, this has shrunken to about 48 hours. This is not because our bubbles are particularly US centric, more that it has become envogue to simply discuss whatever gets "the other side" going.
In particularly, it is very interesting that "the other side" is aligning ever more so with the US political spectrum, where in the past such a thing was unheard of, atleast here in Germany. I've heard similar stories from Friends in other Non-US Nations, be it in Asia, Africa, aswell as other european nations. Does anyone else have similar stories?