|
Why would Bolsonaro supporters storm the Chinese embassy? Covid conspiracy theorist thinking?
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Because child-eating commies 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Why would Bolsonaro supporters storm the Chinese embassy? Covid conspiracy theorist thinking? China hate is a big part of bolsonarismo now (another thing they imported from trump supporters)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
DukeDuke posted:poo poo is happening in Brasilia That's crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
Stay safe Brazilian goons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Why do both of these guys have their pants WAY too low. I'm genuinely surprised that I don't see any pubic hair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
You don't march around shirtless with a ridiculous hat and covered in body paint if you don't wanna show off your body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Stay safe Brazilian goons. Sorry they set me on fire and I'm also being stabbed while somehow still being able to post. It happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Florestan: Bolsonaro comes out smaller and more worried this September 7th (translated article)quote:In an interview with TV 247, journalist Florestan Fernandes stated that the acts called by Jair Bolsonaro on September 7th did not meet his expectations and he leaves smaller and more worried. “The movement he expected from a crowd did not materialize in Brasília or in other parts of the country. Many people took to the streets, but it was his bubble, analyzed Florestan, Coup failing already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Hope he and his poo poo family burns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 11:16
|
|
|
Something I like about Mexico is that the culture of its indigenous peoples has persisted in a way that didn't happen in the US and Canada. In the latter two countries Native Americans have been effectively made invisible after hundreds of years of genocide. Native peoples have been corraled into reservations in remote parts of the country, and relegated to a small minority with minimal marks on the broader culture. In Mexico, the influence of the Aztecs, Maya, and the many other indigenous groups is omnipresent: in the words used, the cuisine, the genetic makeup, and even in the religion. For example, La Virgen de Guadalupe may be a Catholic syncretism of the Spanish Virgen de Extremadura with Tonantzin. People do pilgrimages to santuarios for saints or syncretic incarnations of Jesus or the Virgin Mary some of which took characteristics of indigenous gods. This kind of syncretism in the US is virtually non-existent. And this indigenous heritage is celebrated and taken as something of pride. This isn't to negate the oppression that indigenous groups faced or still face in Mexico, and with all that it's still a stark contrast to the United States. E: I suppose this kind of syncretism can be seen across Latin America among peoples of indigenous and black heritage: santería and voodoo in the Caribbean, candomblé and a whole bunch of other religions in Brazil. We could even go back to the syncretism with pagan Roman rituals like Christmas with Saturnalia. Generally Spain and other Catholic countries sought to convert Native peoples over exterminating them, which sometimes meant bridging existing beliefs with Christianity and Western culture. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Sep 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:Something I like about Mexico is that the culture of its indigenous peoples has persisted in a way that didn't happen in the US and Canada. You have to understand that there were way way WAY more indigenous people living in Mexico. The amount of natives in Mexico outnumbered the natives in America and Canada more than 4 to 1. And that's America and Canada COMBINED. Therefore a lot more people were left after the waves of pandemics. America and Canada were like the Siberia of the "New World" in comparison. People who define themselves as indigenous or mestizo of the original native population make a plurality of Mexico's population. Meanwhile Native Americans aren't even 1% of the United States population. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Sep 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:You have to understand that there were way way WAY more indigenous people living in Mexico. The amount of natives in Mexico outnumbered the natives in America and Canada more than 4 to 1. And that's America and Canada COMBINED. Therefore a lot more people were left after the waves of pandemics. Why is that, anyway? How did the tropics and South America end up so much more densely settled than the original populations in the north?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 08:21
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why is that, anyway? How did the tropics and South America end up so much more densely settled than the original populations in the north? Lack of harsh winters? It’s not all jungles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 08:22
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Lack of harsh winters? It’s not all jungles. SA has winters 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 08:40
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why is that, anyway? How did the tropics and South America end up so much more densely settled than the original populations in the north? I bet that a big factor is that the North American midwest is no fun without horses. So if you come in through Alaska and head south down the Pacific Coast, there's good land there on the coast but you can't go for east before you hit the Great American Desert. So you keep going south until you hit Mexico and then the desert finally lets up and hot drat, you've got great places to live from sea to sea
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why is that, anyway? How did the tropics and South America end up so much more densely settled than the original populations in the north? They were full fledged high intensity agriculture civilizations with every incentive (no horses, no pastoral animals other than Llamas) to make the people number go up. Also corn and potatoes with additional supplement crops like quinoa and amaranth plus things like peppers are monstrously efficient source of calories. Though you could certainly still mess things up and fall apart like the Mayans did. Otoh it's my opinion that the Inca had probably one the best agricultural and food distribution systems devised by humanity up to that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
I hope I don't seem too ignorant by asking this, but how "advanced" were the Inca and the Aztecs when the Spaniards came? Like were they comparable to say the Romans technologically?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:And this indigenous heritage is celebrated and taken as something of pride. This is mostly a semi-modern thing that was invented in order to avert civil unrest and so on. It is not wholly or even mostly incorrect to think of Mestizo identity as being part of the Mexican state's effort to crush out minorities to the best of it's ability following the Mexican Revolution. Fuschia tude posted:Why is that, anyway? How did the tropics and South America end up so much more densely settled than the original populations in the north? Afaik, and this is mostly speculation because all of this happened centuries ago, the Little Ice Age was much more severe of a problem in northern America. It is probably the case that North America did at one point have relatively densely populated territories, they just collapsed in the face of the Little Ice Age and then were completely crushed by disease. Also afaik a similar collapse was observed in Southern America with whatever culture created terra preta. We have, in that situation, literally no records or evidence whatsoever except for the soil because they would have built everything out of wood. punk rebel ecks posted:I hope I don't seem too ignorant by asking this, but how "advanced" were the Inca and the Aztecs when the Spaniards came? Like were they comparable to say the Romans technologically? I'm not sure that this is really a sensible way to think of the world given that different societies develop different technologies for different reasons and this is very heterogenous. The Inca had a fairly sophisticated psuedo-bureaucratic system but didn't have iron working. It's just not a question that really makes sense imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah, some technologies that the old world developed, they just didn't, and there were a couple technologies that the new world did that the old world just didn't. I guess the one that people cite most is the Aztec calendar, but the Incans had freeze-drying. There's also nixtamalization, but that wasn't really relevant in Europe until they brought corn over and started dying of pellagra. Knapping was also a lost technology in Europe, but still widely used in the new world to make wicked sharp rocks. There's sort of a classical way that people used to view new world societies as being in like some kind of more "primitive state of development" like there's a bunch of preset types of societies that you can only go linearly from one to another, but that's an archaic way of thinking. I think the biggest difference is just that the old world had more people who were more connected across more land and had access to more things across Europe, Africa, and Asia than the new world did. Gripweed posted:I bet that a big factor is that the North American midwest is no fun without horses. So if you come in through Alaska and head south down the Pacific Coast, there's good land there on the coast but you can't go for east before you hit the Great American Desert. So you keep going south until you hit Mexico and then the desert finally lets up and hot drat, you've got great places to live from sea to sea The midwest is less fun, but also can't really host that much in the way of agriculture without some fairly advanced agricultural techniques. Most human societies throughout history really like sticking around coasts and rivers. I think there's also an aspect of European settlement being harder around the tropics with all sorts of tropical diseases that locals would be resistant to, but colonists wouldn't be, and for whatever reason, England's population exploded at a way higher rate than Spain and much of the rest of Europe, so the English were colonizing a smaller amount of land with a larger amount of people. There was a map in the maps thread recently that might also be relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
We also don't really know what the population of North America was, in much the same way that we don't really know what the population in and around the Amazon was. Everything that people say is just speculation or assumption or projection but all of this is incredibly approximate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I hope I don't seem too ignorant by asking this, but how "advanced" were the Inca and the Aztecs when the Spaniards came? Like were they comparable to say the Romans technologically? You should give a look over at Bernal Diaz del Castillo's work: The True History of the Conquest of New Spain. If you want something more general and fictional, but with lots of research, Gary Jenning's Aztec is a good novel too. Bernal Diaz del Castillo posted:After having examined and considered all that we had seen we turned to look at the great market place and the crowds of people that were in it, some buying and others selling, so that the murmur and hum of their voices and words that they used could be heard more than a league off. Some of the soldiers among us who had been in many parts of the world, in Constantinople, and all over Italy, and in Rome, said that they had never beheld so large a market place and so full of people, and so well regulated and arranged. That's from when the Spanish arrived at Tenochtitlan for the first time. And you know in what high regard Catholics had Rome at that time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:I don't know about news media but in regards to video essays about Latin America I can't recommend BadEmpanada enough. I don't mean to single out your post specifically, I've seen him recommended before. His content seems accessible but its full of pitfalls. At that level its better just to read wikipedia (likely what BadEmpanada is doing himself).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I'm not going to comment on Bad Empanada's Venezuela coverage, I'm not an expert on Venezuela. What I can tell you is that his coverage of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay is awful. BadEmpanada is an Australian who moved to Argentina and decided to start explaining how politics work here as if he was a local. He doesn't even have a full grasp of Spanish. His coverage of politics here is simplistic, uninformed, and incredibly biased towards the contemporary form of Peronism. I am in no way pro-Guaido and co., and I doubt BadEmpanada is, but I cannot suppose that his analysis of anywhere else is better than the analysis of the place in which he now lives. LOL "Australien who doesn't even have a full grasp of Spanish" straight out of the angry twitter bubble
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Spice World War II posted:LOL "Australien who doesn't even have a full grasp of Spanish" straight out of the angry twitter bubble
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Let me know if you have any other hot takes on how BadEmpanada is correct to continuously run English-language cover for the most reactionary institution in Argentine politics Here's the thing: If you watch a bunch of his stuff, especially some of his live clips, you can clearly see that he speaks Spanish just fine. He also was always open about having immigrated to Argentina from Australia, as well as that his spanish skills were worse when he first moved to Argentina (before his youtube "career"). That didn't stop "Australian who doesn't even have a full grasp of Spanish" becoming the favourite attack line parroted by people who are big vaush/visualpolitik/grayzone fans/coup apologists/... whoever is currently mad in his comments anyway, either because they don't know any better or even though they do know better, and it's such an easy way to just completely discount all the content without having to engage with any argument. As you posted with an air of authority about how awful his coverage on Argentina, Chile and Uruguay is (personally I haven't heard him talking about Uruguay at all, but I've seen maybe 20% of his content, tops), I assume you speak spanish and have ties to the region. I'm sorry, but I've yet to interact with anyone of your background who issued a blanket condemnation of Empanada's videos and added that "australian" line who was arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
well that post didn't inspire much confidence
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Let me know if you have any other hot takes on how BadEmpanada is correct to continuously run English-language cover for the most reactionary institution in Argentine politics Could you expand on that? It seems to me that the problem with peronismo is that it means essentially nothing at this point after Menem. Take back Las Malvinas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Spice World War II posted:Here's the thing: If you watch a bunch of his stuff, especially some of his live clips, you can clearly see that he speaks Spanish just fine. He also was always open about having immigrated to Argentina from Australia, as well as that his spanish skills were worse when he first moved to Argentina (before his youtube "career"). I'm not saying that everything that Badempanada says is wrong. At first glance, he seems to be saying the right things. For example, he rightly called the operation against Evo a coup, because that is what it was. However, any time he goes into detail on Argentina, he is wrong about pretty much everything. I went and looked at his channel, he put up a 1hr video on Fujimori. I'm sure he says that Fujimori was a bad dude, but I'm willing to bet that someone with deeper knowledge about Peruvian political history, especially the political history of the Peruvian popular and armed struggle, would find that Badempanada's analysis past saying "Fujimori bad" is off the mark. I am fully sincere when I say that I think that Badempanada has never earnestly spoken to a poor person or gone to a communal/mutual-aid association or anything of the sort. no hay camino posted:Could you expand on that? It seems to me that the problem with peronismo is that it means essentially nothing at this point after Menem. Take back Las Malvinas? The aim of Peronism is the same as in 1943 when Perón became Secretary of Work and Social Security: preempt any form of worker's organization. Perón hollowed out the institutions of the state to create a parallel quasi-state structure that would contain popular movements. By co-opting the power of the state, Perón was able to establish trade unions that responded to him personally, as he was the one assigning money and resources. These benefits did not go to workers, but to the organizations that were loyal to him. Workers who did not adhere to Peronist organizations were persecuted, socialists and communists were jailed, forced into exile (external or internal, it was very common to move them to the interior of the country), or even in many cases killed. The leadership cliques of these trade unions are extremely corrupt, and enjoy great levels of wealth. On the other hand, working-class people are given short-term benefits that are conditional to continued Peronist political control of the state. For example, minimum wages that are set by decree instead of by law to a formula that would contemplate other issues like inflation or economic growth. It is a half-implemented corporativist system that doesn't even fully commit to straight fascism, because whoever finds themselves as the head of Peronists knows that if the system became too formalized it could itself turn into a threat to their leadership. When Menem sold off half of the state and enacted a totally derisory monetary policy in the 90s, it was done to provide people with the illusion of economic growth and the attainment of wealth. It lasted for a few years and then exploded, sending millions into poverty. Every single time that the Peronists have taken power in Argentina since 1943, the country has always emerged with more poor and weaker institutions than before. The current government is Peronist, and a large segment of the opposition is either self-identified as Peronist or in alliance with self-identified Peronist forces. Since 1989, intercine warfare among Peronist factions has been more important in determining who will be President than the actual election day. Peronism is the most effective form of mass/class repression that Argentina has ever seen. It is more efficient than "European-style" social democracy, more efficient than the traditional landed class, more efficient than the church, and more efficient than non-Peronist military elite rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
So how was it tonight in Milei's bunker Ghost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
I was a fan of Bad Empanda until I commented on one of his videos and he basically said that since I'm an American my opinion doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:So how was it tonight in Milei's bunker Ghost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Brilliant reply. I don't like a low-effort youtuber so I must be a libertarian Perhaps take a moment to consider why someone would think that your post would make them think that? Peronism is not going to win any "most left-wing government party" contests any time soon, but when you say it is "the most reactionary institution in Argentine politics" it's hard to take you seriously. I assume from your handle that you're not posting in bad faith, but what you said is just plain not true. Peronism did not genocide the indigenous peoples to give their lands to their friends. Peronism did not wage a civil war to ensure all international trade had to go through the port of Buenos Aires, ensuring the city would be rich at the expense of the provinces. Peronism did not systematically kidnap, torture and murder thirty thousand civilians most prominently important union leaders, journalists and artists speaking against them. The list goes on, because this country has an incredibly toxic history of the people in power being subservient to foreign governments from the day the "Cabildo open to the people" consisted of rich douches arguing whether our national language should be French or English in the future, rather than Spanish or god forbid any of the languages spoken by the indigenous peoples. Most of the old money families responsible for these things are known Antiperonists today, like the Bullrich, Martinez de Hoz and Mitre dynasties, because for all of its ills Peronism is at least ostensibly and in theory a nationalist and protectivist party while these people have been sellout liberals for the past two hundred years. Peronism often fails at being nationalist and protectivist, but in theory it stands for those things, which is why the US have been supporting Antiperonist candidates ever since. And before Peronism was a thing it was Great Britain supporting the same people to the same ends. edit: i said great britain supported antiperonism in the 1800's, which, lol. fixed. GimmickMan fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Sep 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
GimmickMan posted:Perhaps take a moment to consider why someone would think that your post would make them think that? Peronism is not going to win any "most left-wing government party" contests any time soon, but when you say it is "the most reactionary institution in Argentine politics" it's hard to take you seriously. I assume from your handle that you're not posting in bad faith, but what you said is just plain not true. GimmickMan posted:Peronism did not genocide the indigenous peoples to give their lands to their friends.Peronism did not wage a civil war to ensure all international trade had to go through the port of Buenos Aires, ensuring the city would be rich at the expense of the provinces. Peronism did not systematically kidnap, torture and murder thirty thousand civilians most prominently important union leaders, journalists and artists speaking against them. The list goes on, because this country has an incredibly toxic history of the people in power being subservient to foreign governments from the day the "Cabildo open to the people" consisted of rich douches arguing whether our national language should be French or English in the future, rather than Spanish or god forbid any of the languages spoken by the indigenous peoples. Perón was also not around to fight any wars regarding the port of Buenos Aires, but have they also done anything to reverse that trend? No, they have not. Commercial, capital, and political power concentration to Buenos Aires has continued through every Peronist administration. Perón himself exchanged war debt for all the British railways, and had control over essentially all industry. Did he change anything? No. During the Menemist administration, Menem actually even went backwards and shut down a lot of the infrastructure going to the interior. During the Duhalde, Kirchernirst, and now Kirchnerist-Albert administrations investment has continued to be focused on Buenos Aires. The railways continue to lack investment, the Paraná (which should be a major commercial capital-accumulation waterway) isn't even dredged. The Kirchners have never missed an opportunity to block any infrastructure which may threaten the trucker's unions. the Kirchners have run their entire national-level careers on setting up projects and then not actually following through with them. Investments in electricity generation are likewise near non-existent. We have the domestic capacity to build nuclear power plants and the great success of the Peronist administration was to set up a port for liquid-natural-gas container ships, an extremely expensive, inefficient, and contaminating form of power generation. Have the Peronists done anything to reverse the fracking operations in Vaca Muerta? The Peronists are no strangers to extra-judicial executions. During the first Peronist administration political repression, including murder, was continuously and consistently deployed against left-wing organizations. Its worth noting that the same level of repression was not used against Peronist opposition from the traditional right. During the Peronist return, they waged a full armed campaign in the north and simultaneously established the Triple-A to carry out repression in urban centres. The AAA was established on the direct order of Perón. Many of those killed were union members, journalists, and artists. Once the 1976 coup happened, some AAA members happily carried on their jobs, and others went to Spain, to keep on doing the exact same thing for the Francoist regime. A lot of AAA actions were carried out with the support of the SIDE, and that relationship only became stronger following the 76 coup. Peronists have absolutely no problem with dealing with foreign interests as long as they are also in on the take. Rather than investing in the country, Perón traded away most of the war credit accumulated on British debt for shiny bullshit (soon to be obsolete weapons and an aged railway network). During his second presidency, Perón happily struck deals with major US companies, including selling off vast YPF drilling rights to Standard Oil. Menem sold off basically half of the state, while the Kirchners have done little to reverse any of it. At the same time, all have been more than happy to take on large amounts of debt, further beholding the Argentine state to foreign interests (and the fact that other administrations also do it doesn't excuse them). GimmickMan posted:Most of the old money families responsible for these things are known Antiperonists today, like the Bullrich, Martinez de Hoz and Mitre dynasties, because for all of its ills Peronism is at least ostensibly and in theory a nationalist and protectivist party while these people have been sellout liberals for the past two hundred years. Peronism often fails at being nationalist and protectivist, but in theory it stands for those things, which is why Great Britain and the US have been supporting Antiperonist candidates ever since. Please don't interpret my comments as somehow being approval of the next obvious alternative, Cambiemos. Cambiemos was massively hurtful to the country, and any future potential Cambiemos administration would be just as bad as any Kirchnerist one. I want to be clear that in no way am I going to support anyone like Macri (or Larreta, or Bullrich, or whoever they put up in 2023).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Perón was also not around to fight any wars regarding the port of Buenos Aires, but have they also done anything to reverse that trend? No, they have not. Commercial, capital, and political power concentration to Buenos Aires has continued through every Peronist administration. It seems to me that Latin American countries have a general problem with their economic power being concentrated in a few capital cities, and this goes back to colonial times when the port cities acted as waypoints with Spain to extract wealth from the interior. I think Galeano talks about that in Las Venas Abiertas de América Latina. Not to excuse failures on the part of Peronistas to resolve that problem, but it's definitely not just an Argentina thing. It doesn't help that it's a compounding problem, as people leave their home provinces for the cities causing labor and brain drain. Reading a little bit of Argentinian reddit forums there appears to be a segment of Argentinos that despise conurbanos that they see as supposedly haraganes sucking up benefits earned with their money. These people are also usually anti-Peronistas... America Inc. fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I was a fan of Bad Empanda until I commented on one of his videos and he basically said that since I'm an American my opinion doesn't matter. What were you arguing? Were you just asking a question? I have to say in general if you're not from a country, you definitely need to be careful with the judgments you make about their politics. There are some universal things like anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism that should be supported. But on the other hand these fights can be co-opted or distorted and a naive observer can get fooled, like I got fooled by Yakú Perez in Ecuador and his supposed support for indigenous causes. So you really have to be a keen observer, pay attention to who is trying to sell you on something, and try to get a broad set of sources from the people on the ground and not just the people who happen to speak English. All that being said, it is a little incongruent to be an Australian and just handwave Americans or Brits that make comments or questions. All these countries had their grimy hands over Latin America to some extent or another. At some point he was the dumb Australian too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
There are enough vocally rightwing Peronists in the party right now that I have no doubt they would've gladly participated in any number of the monstrosities that the oligarchy of Argentina has been perpetuating since its inception. Hell, Pichetto was part of PJ's leadership until two years ago and he said "We should vindicate the conquest of the desert" like a week ago. We're in agreement that PJ behaves much like said oligarchy and mostly only take progressive policies when they can coopt any systems resulting from them to their own ends. What I continue to disagree with is that they're a more efficient political force than their opposition. Like, that might be true in some provinces (San Luis, Santa Cruz) or a few districts of Buenos Aires (La Matanza stands out here) but the liberals have always been and will likely always be the ones with more influence in CABA and the agricultural countryside, which is where money and population are most concentrated. If they were as influential as you say, let alone the most reactionary (which is the part of what you said that I think clashes most with people), they wouldn't have been couped out of power multiple times or have lost the culture war in the capital of the country like they have. Would Peron have supported the genocide of the natives? We don't know and it doesn't matter, because he wasn't there to do so and reap the benefits of it, it was the liberals who were there. Also, yes, the AAA were real and terrible but consider the dictatorship got away with a bodycount about twenty times larger while people looked the other way until they committed political suicide by going to war. They could get away with much more, including making Peron's name a forbidden word, because they were much more firmly backed by economic and cultural powers local and foreign. I get the point you're trying to make that PJ has coopted and corrupted what could have been a much stronger leftist movement, which, yeah, it loving sucks, but I can't really agree that they're the worst thing in the Argie political system today when the same lobbyist groups that originated the problems PJ perpetuates are still there, have been going strong for at least two centuries and even just won the PASO yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
no hay camino posted:What were you arguing? Were you just asking a question? It was his tankie topic. In the video he said that tankie is just a term liberals use to deride anyone to the left of a social democrat. I posted that in my circles "tankie" means people who hold water for authoritarian tendencies of regimes just because they are perceived as anti-American or left wing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:It was his tankie topic. In the video he said that tankie is just a term liberals use to deride anyone to the left of a social democrat. I posted that in my circles "tankie" means people who hold water for authoritarian tendencies of regimes just because they are perceived as anti-American or left wing. As much as I dislike BadEmpanada, he was right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Yeah, the latter definition refers to an incredibly tiny group of people on Twitter who were always irrelevant to everything. At this point it's the same as fascists calling anyone not full-throatedly supporting them a communist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 07:26
|
|
