nicholasnorris

The investment schemes do not have to stay static while only the structure of businesses change.

Even if it did, would it not makes sense that investor priorities would change if their only options beyond cooperative businesses were some very small startups and mom & pops?

A system of public banks could handle investment based on the priorities set by all citizens. Everyone would effectively become a shareholder. Successful businesses could be taxed based off what the public invested in those new cooperatives, and those taxes would be used at least partially be used to fund more startups.

The problem with that argument is that Crimea had been considered a part of Russia as far back as about the founding of the United States, and prior to that had nothing to do with a Ukrainian National project. Crimea isn't even mentioned by name once in the Wikipedia article you linked. Why would they be targeted as Ukrainians at that time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

That's where you get into a muddy mess of where to draw the line between "imperialism," and something else. There are different takes on what constitutes imperialism, and whether one State trying to push back on what it perceives as creeping imperialism is legitimate.

The argument a lot of people are making, not just Russia or Russians, is that overextension of NATO influence was a major cause for the conflict. This might be something like if the Soviet Union had refused to deescalate military support to Cuba during the missile crisis and the US went ahead with military action there.

That's not to say that I personally would agree with US intervention in Cuba, or Russia in Ukraine, just trying to understand the logic that's being played by here.

To be fair, it is a tiny clip of an off-hand response; hard to compare to focused articles and segments on the topic. I can see the criticism of piecing together an opinion from a bunch of off-hand comments vs fully expressed arguments. It might be better to compare a full discussion on the specific topic from the criticized party to the lauded one.

One problem with many mainstream outlets is that they are often give free passes to organizations like OSCE. For example, the OAS, an organization that serves a similar watchdog position in the Americas, completely bungled their duties in recent Bolivian elections. So much so, that they helped legitimize a violent far-right coup in 2019.

Anti-war might not even be entirely the right word, but it's possible that a more "anti-imperialist" sentiment is growing. Sort of along the lines of the old "world police" critique. A lot of these people are probably both sympathetic to Ukraine, but also not in favor of some countries extending their military and financial influence far beyond their borders.

I think Hillary Clinton said in an interview, something along the lines that Russia should be prepared for the West to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan. Seems like a pretty harsh way to view the people that are supposed to be supported.

I agree. The younger respondents tend to consume media that's not only more politically diverse, but often a little more nuanced than many of the mainstream outlets. Less black-and-white thinking is bound to lead to opinions that aren't so easily reflected in a "Yes, No, Unsure" poll.

I don't think this particular clip shows a strong support for the Russian Federation in general. He seems to be saying that a majority of the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia, having been more tied to Russia proper historically than any independent Ukraine, and they were able to make that switch without much violence.

Part of the problem with the distinction is what's being conserved and how different groups in the movement define this.

From one perspective, A lot of rank-and-file "conservatives" are probably more likely to take the social conservative stances in earnest, while being open to progressive economic policy, while the majority of their leadership absolutely prioritizes economic conservatism over the social element. The leadership merely uses the social aspects as a carrot to motivate what voting-base they can get, co-opting social conservative leadership into their own ranks, while obscuring the United States Chamber of Commerce lobby agenda. Rank-and-file conservatives are given reinforcement by their leadership to disapprove of progressive economic policy aesthetically, but are not ultimately able to fully overcome the pull of some of the material benefits that could be politically had without wrapping specific progressive political agenda into one big package with cultural divisions.

And that's not to deny that their aren't small business/contract work types that are both socially conservative and economically conservative through-and-through, but they aren't numerous enough to fill out the vast voting ranks need.

You could probably make the case that the Democratic Party are the real economic conservatives in a sense; Wanting to maintain the 30 or 40 year globalizing economic status quo, whereas "conservatives" that identify with the Republican party want to roll back to an idealized past, with a more nationally focused, but still liberal economy.

Then there is also the problem of popular US politics and their terms being too narrowly scoped when considering political movements from a fuller perspective. "Conservatives" call Democrats leftist as a pejorative, when neither Democrats or most self-identifying leftist would really consider the Democratic party far from center on economics, and probably conservative from a global perspective.

I feel like it's still worth considering that despite the existence of this strategy, acknowledging it doesn't necessarily repair the damage of being seen as hypocritical. Evoking "whataboutism" could even be seen as a sort of counter-deflection in some cases.

What are the specifics of that? Without more detail, it kind of sounds like you're saying American's shouldn't be responsible for crimes committed abroad if the US doesn't prosecute on behalf of the foreign parties.

You know, a lot of times, people think they know things with absolute certainty, but then it turns out that they don't.

Afghanistan was different enough in that it wasn't a unified Afghan government or population fighting against a Soviet invasion in the same style of aggression of what we're seeing from Russia in Ukraine. A new local Afghan government that had recently sized power in a coup begged the Soviets to help them consolidate power in a civil war in that the Soviets knew would only escalate through international intervention in favor of their allies opposition.

I feel like the logic of this solution doesn't exactly lead to a rosy conclusion. If everyone is sorted into a narrow range of Professional and STEM degrees, wouldn't this just lead to lowering of wages for degree holders in those fields to something marginally above unskilled labor, while giving the business class that have taken ahold of most institutions a greater excuse to keep more of the profit for themselves?

It's my understanding that the Luddite movement was less about personal preferences or adherence to tradition, and more a labor movement that was opposed to losing their livelihoods to early forms of automation.

I think I recall what he might be talking about. I remember several third party apps within Facebook that served a similar function being popular back in the early days of Facebook. It's totally reasonable that someone might fuzzily confuse one of those for core features after a decade or so.