The current focus on purity of thought is remarkably like the communist struggle sessions, how they tortured people to correct their thinking not just to achieve a confession, how there was always room for more ideology and more purges as the party continually turned on its heroes.
Here's an example. At ~25s the officer talks about people who want to help (lower-case social justice) being faded out by people who know nothing of the situation and are just using it for political clout. He's black and trying to discuss the protests with black protestors and they're being interrupted by white protest leaders (upper-case social justice) who need to stoke conflict to remain in power.
Because I think that is a fairly uncharitable reading of what he likely intends.
They might struggle to trust anybody else who talks about ‘love’.
But that doesn’t mean that other people who use the word ‘love’ are secret abusers.
It gets better, in the USSR until the early 70s the peasants were not even allowed to leave their villages. Technically, they were simply not issued passports which were required to register themselves to live in a town.
I bet nobody in your family was born within the reach of the Commies. In places such as the US the people have always been free to go if they felt marginalized. To another state or even abroad without asking the government for permission. So you fail to conceptualize what it means when the Socialists come to power.
Are you saying it’s like communism?
This is the inherent problem of the EU, from both a social and economic standpoint; the member countries lose their competitive advantages over other countries because the socialistic EU bureaucrats can't handle any one country a) having any type of competitive advantage over another and b) not conforming to what they want.
A large purpose of the EU is to remove those trade barriers to make the economy more efficient. Of course some countries figure out how to take advantage of the single market using regulatory arbitrage, quickly entering a race to the bottom. Thus the EU is becoming the regulator in a lot of (non-tax) areas to prevent this. This is just the next logical step in this regard.
It’s worth noting that any EU rules on taxation are decided with unanimous consensus. No country here has to do anything against their will.
And this particular one works just fine if you reverse the adjectives. After all, the justice system is generally the one responsible for executing people. It does tend to apply itself in a rather... Unjust way - but that's just one of life's little ironies.
If you're asking people to listen, you're going to need to actually express your arguments, instead of vaguely gesticulating in the general direction of a 'Four legs good, two legs better' poster.
When they start talking about things like Laffer curves again, and stop trying to turn the clock back on things like marriage and contraception, then it will stop being an appropriate moniker.
The main problem is this idea that a bunch of people on the liberal side of the Western world can create "global goals" and try to strong arm the rest of the world into following, which then leads to the inevitable outrage and disappointment when the rest of the world does not follow. And yet it never seems to happen in the other direction -- e.g. Africa deciding on global rules and then trying to force Europe to follow them, assuming they have a right to set global goals. The global goals only flow in one direction.
The idea that corporate tax policy is something that countries outside of the EU have actually thought of, and are doing their best to address in their own way, and for their own purpose, is something that never occurs to these self-described "global planners" who are in reality deeply provincial and trapped in their own micro-culture.
It is also something that people on the other side of this debate have thought of, which is one of the reasons not to tax corporations at all, but to tax those who receive the profits of corporations and that are domiciled in a particular tax jurisdiction. There is a lot of self-contradictory results when you try to tax the business separately from the owner of the business -- for example, a corporation can deduct interest payments but not dividend or share repurchases, when all three are basically the same thing, and a corporation has the option of doing all three. So this incentivizes corporations to take on debt, which then promotes financial fragility. Lots of distortions happen in a vain fight against "tax loopholes", when the real problem is that you are trying to tax the company separately from the owners.
So then you say, "I agree that trying to define 'profits' is prone to tax loopholes, so I will tax corporate revenue". Good idea! But then you will penalize business that have high expenses, e.g. a retail store that buys an item and sells it for a 20% markup would be driven out of business by a 15% tax on sales. So you say, "I will tax revenue net of input prices". And all of a sudden you have a value added tax, which is a form of sales tax, which is regressive. And then people complain about that regressivity and say "we should be taxing income instead", which was my original point!
So you keep chasing your tail because you are making decisions without really thinking things through, much like the decision for the EU to cavalierly set "global goals" even as it's relative importance is rapidly shrinking, even as Asia is pretty much ignoring all these goals because they are following their own interests and don't care about EU global goals.
There is a saying in Poland: "The difference between <<justice>> and <<social justice>> is the same as the difference between <<a chair>> and <<an electric chair>>.
I wish we would actually listen to the those countries, when it comes to topics like socialism and communism. Though I suspect the Western European countries need to taste that themselves first to be able to understand what that means.