[QUOTE=.Isak.;52459557]You know that one major side effect of globalization is that countries are [I]less likely to go to war[/I].[/QUOTE]
yes, but my exact fucking point is that when war breaks out, it will be a much more deadly event. less rare yes, but much more deadly when it happens (disproportionately so)
people were arguing the exact same thing you were as to why World War One could not break out because it would destroy all of the participants (it broke out anyways, and it did just that)
what stops it from happening again and causing even more damage? just saying "its less likely" isn't going to cut it. if china and America went to war the damage would be potentially huge
What's the alternative? Actively go back in progress, back to an era where wars were commonplace? All to prevent an already unlikely scenario? Spoiler is we can't. This is a long march we all have to take together.
Positives of this system outweigh the negatives
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;52460413]What's the alternative? Actively go back in progress, back to an era where wars were commonplace? All to prevent an already unlikely scenario? Spoiler is we can't. This is a long march we all have to take together.
Positives of this system outweigh the negatives[/QUOTE]
you're presenting a false dichotomy, especially by presenting unilateral globalization as "progress" (progress from what to where? why is it progress and what makes this progress good?) and saying we have to do it whenever we like it or not
we can try to decentralize political power and some economic production, introduce protections for local businesses and subsidize (or use protectionism) for various industries that can be considered critical to the country (such as food production for instance) because by protecting these industries you also help to retain skills and the infrastructure as well (instead of letting it all wither away by importing from elsewhere instead)
doing this doesn't mean you make wars commonplace again (wars are random and start for all kinds of reasons, and trying to integrate loads of countries together into fragile systems isn't going to stop them)
and you can say it's unlikely as much as you like, but that didn't stop two world wars breaking out in the last century at a time of increasing global economic interconnectedness (ww1 or ww2 Europe were much more globalized than in the 18th century, a time of relatively few and smaller wars)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52460503]and you can say it's unlikely as much as you like, but that didn't stop two world wars breaking out in the last century at a time of increasing global economic interconnectedness (ww1 or ww2 Europe were much more globalized than in the 18th century, a time of relatively few and smaller wars) [/QUOTE]
This is a really terrible pair of examples to support your point
In WW1 the main combatants had immense access to resources within their own imperial borders, as with the Triple Entente, including the two largest global empires on the planet, or they had immense local production and allies that could supply them with resources, as was more the case with the central powers, and in the case of the central powers they still had major economic problems as they struggled with declining trade due to Entente naval superiority
You could make a very strong case that because of the limitations caused by globalisation the war ended when it did - Germany knew Britain depended on its atlantic trade and resorted to unrestricted submarine warfare, bringing the US into the war. Germany was also increasingly under the pressure of the British blockade which caused widespread food shortages, leading to malnourishment and starvation
In the Second World War, one of the fundamental principles of Hitler's economic policy and imperial vision was Autarky - the Third Reich would never have to be dependent on outside states and trade, and would be entirely self-sustainable. Hitler was a national socialist who believed in a fascist culture where everyone would work for the good of the Volksgemeinschaft rather than for the individual self. Hitler's ideas in this regard can be considered a reaction to the effects of globalisation as he was trying to work against its limitations. This makes WW2 a bad example because Hitler either was the last to the best of my knowledge, or one of the last leaders in the west to try make an entirely self-sustainable state that escaped the Malthusian trap
In 2017 there are no global empires, the only comparable power block is that of NATO, and on top of that there are nuclear weapons that world wars politically unfeasible.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;52460981]You could make a very strong case that because of the limitations caused by globalisation the war ended when it did - Germany knew Britain depended on its atlantic trade and resorted to unrestricted submarine warfare, bringing the US into the war. Germany was also increasingly under the pressure of the British blockade which caused widespread food shortages, leading to malnourishment and starvation[/quote]
which is why a heavily interconnected world dependent on trade is going to suffer badly in war.
again, people were arguing back then that global interconnectedness made war unfeasible and therefore would not happen. the fact that one happened (not just once, but twice) refutes you.
what will you say after a potential war rendered "impossible" by globalization ends up happening anyways?
[quote]In 2017 there are no global empires, the only comparable power block is that of NATO, and on top of that there are nuclear weapons that world wars politically unfeasible.[/QUOTE]
don't come up with bullshit like "nuclear weapons make world wars politically unfeasible"
if it can happen, then you have to assume that it very may well happen. politicians and states are not always rational and can (and have) undertake decisions such as nuclear weapon use or large total wars
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52461019]which is why a heavily interconnected world dependent on trade is going to suffer badly in war.
again, people were arguing back then that global interconnectedness made war unfeasible and therefore would not happen. the fact that one happened (not just once, but twice) refutes you.
what will you say after a potential war rendered "impossible" by globalization ends up happening anyways?
don't come up with bullshit like "nuclear weapons make world wars politically unfeasible"
if it can happen, then you have to assume that it very may well happen. politicians and states are not always rational and can (and have) undertake decisions such as nuclear weapon use or large total wars[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but a world war with nuclear weapons would make economic problems the least of everyone's concerns. I don't even see why there's a need to discuss this
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52461019]which is why a heavily interconnected world dependent on trade is going to suffer badly in war.
again, people were arguing back then that global interconnectedness made war unfeasible and therefore would not happen. the fact that one happened (not just once, but twice) refutes you.
what will you say after a potential war rendered "impossible" by globalization ends up happening anyways?
don't come up with bullshit like "nuclear weapons make world wars politically unfeasible"
if it can happen, then you have to assume that it very may well happen. politicians and states are not always rational and can (and have) undertake decisions such as nuclear weapon use or large total wars[/QUOTE]
What even is your point in regards to the OP
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52461019]which is why a heavily interconnected world dependent on trade is going to suffer badly in war.
again, people were arguing back then that global interconnectedness made war unfeasible and therefore would not happen. the fact that one happened (not just once, but twice) refutes you.
what will you say after a potential war rendered "impossible" by globalization ends up happening anyways?
don't come up with bullshit like "nuclear weapons make world wars politically unfeasible"
if it can happen, then you have to assume that it very may well happen. politicians and states are not always rational and can (and have) undertake decisions such as nuclear weapon use or large total wars[/QUOTE]
That first bit is a strawman argument. The thrust of my argument was that you are horrifically muddling three completely different historical contexts (1914, 1939 and 2017) and treating them as A) effectively the same and B) using the first two to make extrapolations about the third, to make a single point about how globalisation doesn't stop wars, sprinkled with "xyz people pre-1914 said this before" What do I care? My personal perspective is completely independent. There were also people who saw the war coming. That doesn't refute anything. One main reason some people predicted the war also wouldn't happen was because of the competing superblocks of powers.
[quote]what will you say after a potential war rendered "impossible" by globalization ends up happening anyways?[/quote]
I never said globalisation makes war impossible, I said it disincentivises states to go to war. I'm sorry but if you can't actually come up with any alternate solution or any imagining of any feasible diverging path whatsoever to globalisation, as I've pressed you to do several times now, what is your point?
Yeah so this strayed really far from the topic of the video, which is in short how Youtube alt righter "intellectuals" lie. The crucial thing about this though, is how the people who took Lauren's video to heart will never watch this video. Youtube has become a hotbed for extremists because of how hard it is to expose users to adverse opinions. This video won't show up anywhere in the recommendations for Lauren's video.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52459997]You're kinda biting your own tail to complain about having to move to greener pastures because migrants did the very same thing, especially since by moving somewhere else you're yourself increasing the demand for housing where you moved.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/PUP0kie.png[/t]
Your """""point""""" was already destroyed here and in other posts in that thread where you dismissed peoples objections to the muslim ban and the wall and denied Trump being racist and yet here you are complaining about dem mexicans d e s t r o y i n g muh culture, and ALSO forgetting that the [B]United States stole California from Mexico[/B] to begin with.
Sad.[/QUOTE]
They misread/extrapolated what I/Jordax said and incorrectly assumed that I support Trump (and am therefore an idiot, cuz all Trump supporters are retards lol amirite?), derailing any possibility of further discussion
For instance, you're doing that right now:
[i][b]> you are complaining about dem mexicans d e s t r o y i n g muh culture[/b][/i]
I never said that, let alone implied that, you are projecting
Thanks for that wakeup call btw, if you didn't make that reply I probably would have wasted a shitton of time deflecting a bunch of bullshit like Sobotnik is currently doing, now I know that's fruitless
I need to stop posting in these types of threads, there's no point in participating in these types of discussions
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52461170]Yeah so this strayed really far from the topic of the video, which is in short how Youtube alt righter "intellectuals" lie. The crucial thing about this though, is how the people who took Lauren's video to heart will never watch this video. Youtube has become a hotbed for extremists because of how hard it is to expose users to adverse opinions. This video won't show up anywhere in the recommendations for Lauren's video.[/QUOTE]
Laurens videos on the other hand appeared
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52461170]Yeah so this strayed really far from the topic of the video, which is in short how Youtube alt righter "intellectuals" lie. The crucial thing about this though, is how the people who took Lauren's video to heart will never watch this video. Youtube has become a hotbed for extremists because of how hard it is to expose users to adverse opinions. This video won't show up anywhere in the recommendations for Lauren's video.[/QUOTE]
You've probably seen or heard of red feed/blue feed. People get shown what they're interested in, targeted advertising has naturally created a bubble.
Linustechtips mentioned this other factor too: if you get a fuckton of dislikes, regardless of it's because of a circlejerk, your video just doesn't show up anywhere but subscriptions and nobody will see it.
If there are enough dislikes on this video the same will happen.
One more thing Sobotnik: What's your opinion of a (rather fantastical) idea of humanity overall being united under a single governing body?
[media]https://twitter.com/shaun_jen/status/887231688656474114[/media]
huh, so /pol/'s idea actually worked
I'd like to make aware to anyone who currently believes there is no replacement underway, that "Replacement Migration" is actual UN policy.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;52481312]I'd like to make aware to anyone who currently believes there is no replacement underway, that "Replacement Migration" is actual UN policy.[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. This is a term referring to immigration as a way to curb a decline in the working population, caused by low birthrates and an ageing population. It is not UN policy, because there is no such thing as UN policy, the UN does not dictate policy in any country, all you did was search for the term and found a Google hit on an [I]article[/I] called "Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?", which is simply a study, not a piece of legislature.
Had you either watched the video, or actually read the report, you would have found out that immigration as a way to combat population decline is not only a very viable solution, it might just be the only one, as even a sharp increase in fertility rates in the short term wouldn't help either.
[QUOTE=th0rianite;52481312]I'd like to make aware to anyone who currently believes there is no replacement underway, that "Replacement Migration" is actual UN policy.[/QUOTE]
Just becaue it uses the same word, it doesn't have the same meaning.
God some people are dense
Video down?
[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;52481411]Video down?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFAUFglW0AAWz7H.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a mirror:
[video=youtube;QRO3qtTSr2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRO3qtTSr2Y[/video]
This is very interesting, I always thought this whole "replacement" was an actual thing, I just never checked because I did not care about it.
But I don't get one thing. Why is it so frowned upon when people say they don't want to become a minority? Like... you could be a full-time activist (say native german) for battling racism and helping out minorities and still not be happy about becoming a minority yourself, because you've seen that more often than not minorities are treated poorly by the majorities?
[QUOTE=buu342;52481413][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFAUFglW0AAWz7H.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
YouTube being stupid as usual?
I don't get what is so bad about everyone being a little coffee-coloured eventually. Seems like if humans last long enough it is inevitable that the extremes of all black and all white will middle-out anyways. Besides, culture is independent of race, its more about a common experience of place and history.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52481750]This is very interesting, I always thought this whole "replacement" was an actual thing, I just never checked because I did not care about it.
But I don't get one thing. Why is it so frowned upon when people say they don't want to become a minority? Like... you could be a full-time activist (say native german) for battling racism and helping out minorities and still not be happy about becoming a minority yourself, because you've seen that more often than not minorities are treated poorly by the majorities?[/QUOTE]
Because it shows an underlying motivation in certain contexts.
IE holding both the view that minorities aren't oppressed and that you don't want to be a minority you might just be trying to pretend racism against blacks doesn't exist for example.
"I don't want to become a minority" is sort of becoming a part of coded language like "white genocide". They're perfecting that shit.
[QUOTE=01271;52481869]Because it shows an underlying motivation in certain contexts.
IE holding both the view that minorities aren't oppressed and that you don't want to be a minority you might just be trying to pretend racism against blacks doesn't exist for example.
"I don't want to become a minority" is sort of becoming a part of coded language like "white genocide". They're perfecting that shit.[/QUOTE]
But if you hold the belief that minorities are oppressed then surely it's understandable that someone who isn't a minority at the time doesn't want that same thing happening to him (regardless if that particular person is mistreating minorities or not)?
To me it's just as hypocritical as saying that minorities are not oppressed and opposing becoming a minority.
I think I might have messed up while writing somewhere in there about the greater point.
The question "what's wrong with not wanting to be a minority in your country" is a trap.
It sounds like a genuine concern and it could be construed as such but it's a coded language concern trolling question that's made to be hard to answer. If it was asked in the context of an academic debate it would have some standing but as soon as there's an audience it's just a rhetorical weapon to lump on your opponent.
It puts the fear of becoming a minority into people, they start thinking of the 1950s American landscape and they see whoever answers it fumble which gives it validity and interest and creates an opening later for white nationalism sympathy.
I personally don't care about becoming a minority I'm already a double minority and the government protects me from shit. I don't see myself as characters on tv as much and that's it.
Where's Big Bang? he's better at this than I.
[QUOTE=01271;52482030]I think I might have messed up while writing somewhere in there about the greater point.
The question "what's wrong with not wanting to be a minority in your country" is a trap.
It sounds like a genuine concern and it could be construed as such but it's a coded language concern trolling question that's made to be hard to answer. If it was asked in the context of an academic debate it would have some standing but as soon as there's an audience it's just a rhetorical weapon to lump on your opponent.
It puts the fear of becoming a minority into people, they start thinking of the 1950s American landscape and they see whoever answers it fumble which gives it validity and interest and creates an opening later for white nationalism sympathy.
I personally don't care about becoming a minority I'm already a double minority and the government protects me from shit. I don't see myself as characters on tv as much and that's it.
Where's Big Bang? he's better at this than I.[/QUOTE]
Okay so it's sort of a loaded question then?
Does saying something like "I don't want to become a minority in my country" or hinting that becoming a minority in your own country is a bad thing also the same tactic for a lack of a better word?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52481960]But if you hold the belief that minorities are oppressed then surely it's understandable that someone who isn't a minority at the time doesn't want that same thing happening to him (regardless if that particular person is mistreating minorities or not)?
To me it's just as hypocritical as saying that minorities are not oppressed and opposing becoming a minority.[/QUOTE]
As the video already say, you are a minority. Your status as one only depend on what your surroundings think the dividing line is, and your treatment depend on how much they hate that line. Its hypocritical to be concerned about becoming a minority when the concerned people's concern are the reason the disadvantaged party are treated as so in the first place.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;52482190]Okay so it's sort of a loaded question then?
Does saying something like "I don't want to become a minority in my country" or hinting that becoming a minority in your own country is a bad thing also the same tactic for a lack of a better word?[/QUOTE]
It is a loaded question because you already a minority in your own country, and the dividing line is drawn at arbitrary by the speaker asking the question. There is no answer, although its use implies the speaker has one and is meant to instill misplaced concern.
I travel in and out of quite a handful of conservative circles and I've never heard of "The Great Replacement" until now. Reading up on it I don't really hear anyone legitimately fearing this in real life. I hear people talking about how there are certain values from other countries they don't want the west to adopt but I dunno if that's exactly the same thing. This seems to be more about race than actual ideals.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52481762]YouTube being stupid as usual?[/QUOTE]
The uploader speculated on Twitter that it was /pol/'s doing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
