This is what I mean by "moving as fast as they can without having to admit they were wrong". That speed is not zero. It is still not a popular opinion. The occasional trial balloon is part of the process.

"If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck."

Of course that's obviously satirical. CNN does not run actual news segments with that name or anything like it. I picked it that way on purpose, for that effect.

You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN!

Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect."

As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"

You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article.

edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.

Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong.

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs

I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make.

Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.

> As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect"

This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.

Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it.

Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death.

Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc...

As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?

>In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it.

Ok, but he is in fact taking those steps, and going beyond what Trump did in the process.

I don't think both parties are the same, but I do think both parties are having public, ongoing debates about globalization. Their answers vary over time and candidate. It's not being controlled by shadowy elites, nor is it being shamed as "politically incorrect" speech. Using your definition -- no one thinks this discussion is "offensive."

It's hard to see the major legislation being passed or presidential campaigns being run and say otherwise -- I think the onus is on you or the OP to submit evidence wherein the elites or whatever shut down the conversation or react with indignation. I've provided my evidence in this thread already.

As for globalization versus not. Again, what is the alternative? Be concrete. To me, globalization is capitalism or free marketism. Put another way, it's a market based economy.

Once upon a time, people believed that planned economies were an alternative to globalism, but I'd say the jury is in and no one really believes that anymore. So, seriously, what is the alternative?

I imagine most people agree that child / slave labor are abhorrent and that we should add safety rails to globalization to address those issues. But that's still globalization.

It is not my definition. It is the definition according to webster. You and OP are using the term incorrectly and I pointed that out. You and OP can make up your own definition of it, but unless one of you tells us what definition you are working off, the rest of us just are left guessing.

I never once said the elites shut down discussion yet you ask me to provide evidence for a point I never made? Its pretty hard to have a real discussion when one person decides to make stuff up out of thin air. If you read my last commit I even mention the OPs claim of no discussion because its politically incorrect does not make sense with the linked definition. Would this not be me providing evidence against the point you are asking me to prove? It seems like we both agree the OPs statement is incorrect so why are you trying to force me onto the other side of the argument?

As for the solution, I do not know a good solution. I use to think globalization was the answer but not anymore. That is why I asked you to explain why you are okay with globalization causing these serious issues. Based on your last sentence it seems like you agree these are bad and we should do something about them. Yet you don't mention the fact we have had a WTO for almost 2 decades that could address them and not one single country has tried too. For example WTO on child labor: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/englis...

In my eyes when decades have passed, its a pretty clear sign the safety rails are not wanted or going to be added by those that have the power to add them.

Setting aside semantic debates, I agree that progress is slow. In my opinion progress like this is always extremely slow and hard fought. People rarely give up power or resources out of the goodness of their hearts.

For example, on these pages I see plenty of debate about whether we should expand healthcare, tax the wealthy, enforce stricter environmental laws, and so forth. If the netizens of Slacker News can't reach consensus how can we expect the wide world to come together?

Personally, I try not to get swept up in all these currents. I'm just another worker ant in the colony. So I try to focus on what I can do myself and around me.

I mean the question we are both trying to address "what alternative to globalization is there that doesn't have x and y issues but still keeps the world running" is really trillion dollar question at this point. If one of us had the answer I would hope we would out trying to implement it and not on HN.

I would argue that the slow progress on human rights/labor issues coupled with the failure of globalized supply chains during covid really point towards us needing to rethink our current system. Maybe modifying the current system will be enough, I do not know. However in my eyes our current form of globalization is problematic and that needs to be addressed.

I'm suspicious of any theory that requires every reporter and every producer to both remember everything anyone has said and adhere to a code to avoid contradicting it. These are younger, lower paid, liberal arts majors. To the extent there's any selection bias in the content, it's based on what the audience wants to read, not any long-game strategy to ensure alignment with what was written in the past.

I believe the idea is that the content bias isn't needed because you get the employment based on the belief that you already align with the employer.

The post you're replying to appears to be trying to sidestep your "across the political spectrum" by blaming "elites" instead in a way that suggests they're party-agnostic.

I think this is still inaccurate, "Made in the USA" was an early version of this and has been non-marginal and found supporters amongst both "elites" and "regular" people for decades, in my experience.

They also slide towards another fallacy at the end - the one we saw a lot during Covid, of "changing your mind as new data arrives means you originally acted in, or are acting now in, bad faith." What's stupid is to assume that anything this complex is "obviously" a black and white must-do or must-not-do, versus something that will get adjusted over time.

It depends how often you end up on the end of this flow:

Completely organic self-thought based on logic is counter to information from official sources.

The official source says your specific example is a conspiracy flavour of the month.

6 months pass and the information now matches your own.

Everyone knew, it just wasn't a big deal. A big nothing burger!

It is so tiresome.