'Bolsonaro is Hitler!' Venezuela's Maduro exclaims amid Brazil spat - Polidicks

Let's not forget that the Northeast is a crime and misery fest right now because of their previous governments, who were mostly members of PT. And interestingly enough, after all these problems that PT claims they will solve election after election, they are still elected in the region. They don't care about the poverty and criminality there, and they never did. They used it for votes. Take a look at Ceará. While people were dying from starvation or robbery at gun point, the politicians were diving in pools made of money. It's quite hypocritical to embrace this division, saying it is unfair, when you're doing nothing to solve it. We need better politicians.

Are you going to cite any fucking examples like the multiple ones I have cited from Bolsonaro, or am I supposed to take you out of all people at your word? And the victimized scapegoats are... rich people? And l-fucking-mao dude the north-northeast and south-southeast divide is anything but a case of equal prejudice on both sides. Northeasterners suffer the brunt of racism (stats from the city of São Paulo show northeasterners are the second most targeted group behind blacks - for the record, the north and northeast also possess the highest populations of afro-brazilians in the country), get branded as inferior (football manager with 20 years of experience, and just as many clubs under his belt speaks of prejudice against NE managers, and how not only is their football knowledge questioned, but their culture and education as well), and in face of it all get scapegoated by their own president as having a victim complex, despite being the poorest region in the country (side note: class prejudice is most common in the southeast) "It's all victimhood. Poor blacks, poor women, poor gays, poor northeasterners, poor piauienses*. We're going to end that." *Person who comes from the state of Piauí And now he talks the same crap you do (or rather, the other way around). "There is no such thing as not liking northeasterners, after all, it's the other side that preaches that"

The victimized scapegoat is a straw man of the elite, not the actual elites. And Lula quotes? "A polícia só bate em quem tem que bater" "É uma crise causada, fomentada, por comportamentos irracionais de gente branca, de olhos azuis, que antes da crise parecia que sabia tudo e que, agora, demonstra não saber nada" "Uma mulher não pode ser submissa ao homem por causa de um prato de comida. Tem que ser submissa porque gosta dele" "A DILMA não é nenhuma nordestina, A Dilma é uma mulher bem formada!" "Pelotas é cidade polo? Exportadora de veado" I could go on.

2/3 of the most violent cities are from the Northeast region North and Northeast region have 52% of the homicides in the country Violence rates in Pernambuco are high and homicide occurrences are bigger than Rio de Janeiro Using the data from G1's article (2014), let's check it up. Ceará had 46.9 deaths per 100k habitants Sergipe at 45 Pará at 40 Now let's check who was governing back then Bahia's governor was Jaques Wagner, from PT. Here's an article from Reinaldo Azevedo talking about him and the violence in Bahia. Violence rates increased during his administration. He was also denounced by the MPF for administrative improbity. He's also being investigated by the PF for receiving bribes from Odebrecht. Jackson Barreto (MDB) was governing Sergipe from 2013 until last year. He opened an incomplete hospital to the public when the building was still under construction. People found no medical equipments or doctors in it. Simão Jatene (PSDB) in Pará. Being investigated for corruption. He transferred the problem to the federal government by suggesting few things that depend on the federal government (while implicitly claiming he can't do anything about it if the government doesn't do what he suggested) There are other examples I can write in here, if you wish. And I may have written that the majority of them were from PT - MDB and PT were almost one single party before Dilma's impeachment.

Not a single word for what I brought up, as expected Those are all terrible quotes, save for the one about Dilma. Lula is northeastern himself, he is mentioning this because that "uneducated northeasterner" stereotype is how he was described. The police quote is dumb and short-sighted, and I can see which political camps it would alienate, but I fail to see how it's an example of scapegoating rhetoric. Or is this just to show the environment Bolsonaro comes from? In that case it's fine. Same thing with the quote about women. It's objectifying, but are you seriously arguing that Lula scapegoated women as a central point of his campaign? Lula did attack the elite. Because Brazil is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to wealth inequality. It was politically useful to him as a populist, as I have said countless times before, the best way to get away with ulterior motives is to hide them beneath true, agreeable things. With Brazil's insane consolidation and capitulation to corporate interests, that true and agreeable thing is that the inequality we face must be solved. The big difference is that the elite is the most well-equipped - particularly well equipped by comparison, due to the aforementioned inequality in Brazil - to deal with issues. Meanwhile the groups Bolsonaro attacks are extremely vulnerable already. It is a real, serious worry for homosexuals to be targeted for their orientation, for women to face sexual assault and harassment in this culture of misogyny, for natives to be steamrolled under agricultural industries. They don't have money to throw at politics and the media. They don't have corporate deals or political dynasties. It is the elite that is best prepared to deal with attacks - however undue and strawmanned they may be - and it is the elite that is best prepared for literally everything else in life. To think you can flip the sides, as if they were equal opposites, and there was no clear disparity on how vulnerable each group is to being scapegoated, is a level of horseshit I can only describe as "totally what I expected from the guy who said this" https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/eda2fea9-e0dc-4466-972f-18c2544c23b4/image.png

Opinions aside, and my cursory knowledge of Brazilian history and politics; it is really refreshing to see some in depth discussion here, aside from "you dumb, you get 90 boxes and one line replies."

Fucking hell. I didn't read the quoted name. I'll edit the post to acknowledge my stupidity.

Hey, this is a tangent that's not really relevant and I do just want to say that I agree with your point here, but Hitler was not elected. Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg and then granted emergency powers by act of parliament. He actually lost Germany's last presidential election a year earlier. It's Mussolini who was elected.

It wasn't the central point of Bolsonaro's. Maybe I should've pointed that out instead of going into this tangent about retarded quotes, but I'd argue that the central point of Lula's campaign was saying whatever Duda Mendonça told him.

I said a central point. One of many. You know, like how the city center has more than one building? I will repeat what I already said because it was more than enough to address this. And lol still avoiding the shit you can't defend, I see. Keep it going, this list is very good for reference, and quite long To elaborate on why I don't understand this... I already stated the northeast is the poorest region in the country, it goes without saying it is also the most dogged by crime. I am going to assume you are not saying this to justify prejudice. The northeast was left destitute as the decline of sugar cane and the rise of the coffee industry centered the country's industrialization (and with it, consolidation of power) on the southeast. Northeasterners have long felt cast aside by this southern society that only catered to itself. They thus migrate to more prosperous regions, which is their right as citizens in their own country, but it seems this isn't stressed enough. To acknowledge the miserable state the northeast is in and to fight for the rights of its people to have the opportunities that we are allowed elsewhere, those are two things that do not always go hand in hand, in my experience in the south. The acknowledgement is followed by "that's why we should kick them out of our country, make Brazil only the south and the southeast!" by more people than I would wish. Often there's a kind of meritocratic sentiment that betrays a subtle racism, in the form of "if they could help themselves, they would". No, this is not most people, of course, much like it is not most northeasterners who are criminals or dumb troglodytes or uncultured freeloaders. To state the reality of crime in the region and how it inevitably affects its neighbors is necessary to understand how to fix it, but as I have repeated, a true thing may be used for ulterior motives and, in this case, that is using ~interesting statistics~ as a justification of racism. I am not saying you are doing it, but I want to give you context as to why I mentioned it in the first bit, and how I've seen it happen. And I'm just not partisan to PT or PSDB or any other party considered to perpetuate the status quo. I looked at the candidates presented to me, I weighed the pros and cons, and decided Haddad would have been unelectable in a mature, functioning democracy, but that Bolsonaro is a propagandist bigot who should be unelectable if he ran for the fucking Lollipop Guild. That's all.

It wasn't a central point either and if you truly believe that the "kit gay" thing is equal to an actual attack on gays, then you don't really understood what his point was. There's nothing to defend. You clearly think it's okay to falsely attack people to further a campaign on account of what? They have money? Attacking the "elites" is a central point of Lula's. Except he doesn't really attack the elites. He attacks a straw man elite that is composed by anyone that isn't below the poverty line. Attacking gays, women and minorities is not a central point of Bolsonaro's.

Nothing but you, and other forms of propaganda suggest this though, so why would we take it seriously

Why do we seriously have to debate the homophobia of a man who says he would rather have a dead son than a gay one Oh, right we don't

We're not discussing his homophobia. We're discussing if attacking gays was a central point of his campaign. If you really think that attacking gays can lead anyone to political success, I don't know what to say to you.

I applaud your patience with these two.

I don't care that you don't know how to explain this. It's a fact that around the globe over the last 10 years, and to this very day, being against gay people, and the LGBT community as a whole, works with a very specific sect of people who typically back right wing dictators or socially conservative governments. Trump himself ran on being "Pro LGBT" but has done nothing but impinge and impede the lives of LGBT americans. People predicted that this would happen. Bolsonaro has outright stated he dislikes gay people in many different forms, why do you want to give him even more "Benefit of the doubt" on this subject? It's entirely un-earned.

He said but he didn't act against them. He's not done anything that sought to impede the lives of brazilian LGBTs. I remember my teacher being a cry baby saying "oh if bolsonaro gets elected I'll buy a guy in a supermarket, and if I argue with you and don't want to hear your arguments I'll just shoot you" and "if he gets elected everyone will be able to say women are bitches, because he thinks that way and if he gets elected it'll be okay to do so". This happened like 2 weeks before the elections. following the same line of thought: if this was logical, then one could say they are raping children because catholic priests and the pope have done it. That clearly didn't happen. As far as I'm aware I haven't seen any statement from him that says women are bitches. There's this illogical thinking that "if Bolsonaro has a personal opinion that 2+2=5 then when he's elected everyone will be able to claim that 2+2=5 because he did"

"Nothing bad can happen because nothing bad has happened" This is categorically, one of the dumber sentiments shared on facepunch over years.

He has no track record of going against LGBT legislation and there's nothing in his government plan that goes against LGBT rights.

Oh there absolutely were. Maduro is a thug, a vile thief and a murderer, Maduro must be ousted.

I don't know why you'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this when he has expressed his personal views extremely strongly, and has no problem bringing his personal views to bear on any other issue. Are you going to eat crow when you're wrong, or will you just deny the existence of the crisis? No one here needs a crystal ball to see what's coming lol

I think Venezuela might go to an all out civil war soon. The parliament is offering amnesty to militareis that refuse to recognize the new Maduro presidency.

and nobody knew what Hitler really had in store for the Jews until it was far too late the argument of "oh ho ho it's just rhetoric, they don't ACTUALLY mean that" is how we allow crimes against humanity to grow and fester unimpeded

If I'm wrong, I will oppose any injustices he commits. Besides, he's not king of Brazil, he's just the president.

He's given in to public pressure before moving to Brasilia. That means if he does something that tries to deny human rights to LGBT, and there's a massive uproar about it (not just from the opposition by opposition side), he'll probably turn back. I'm giving the benefit of doubt because he has a different mindset than what we've been used to in the last 14 years.

There wasn't even any need to have a conversation before because nobody disagreed with that. But suddenly a *different* sort of unhinged populist thug shows up, and it's time to take an ice pick to the critical thinking part of the brain.

So basically our first plan is pray he doesn't do anything. Then if he does do something we have to pray that there will not only be a national revolt but a non partisan national revolt. How much of his base/political party would be enough before he could no longer claim to speak for the silent majority? Besides the only reason that people are changing their minds anyway these days is leftist propaganda so maybe we can ignore protesters? Do you see how this just isn't good enough if your life might be at risk if things don't turn out just fine? If I play russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber I don't marvel about the fact that things might end up okay after all. Honestly I think this thread so far has been a pretty good case example of the back fire effect. https://educationblog.oup.com/theory-of-knowledge/facts-matter-after-all-rejecting-the-backfire-effect Or rather the modified version that can stand a bit more scientific scrutiny. On another note since I believe this might be a productive question: What does leftist or the left mean to you? If you had to describe leftism how would you do so? What would you describe as your primary sources of information that you have used/are using to get information about the left?

Exactly what it says on wikipedia. And people who think any amount of individualism is retarded, that say they are hypothetical to a certain situation but do nothing to fix or make it better. SJWs. I'd even say everyone who doesn't have a functional brain but that's not exclusive to the left. Primary sources are teachers, history books, articles written from people by both sides. Personal, weak and strong opinions on a certain subject.

What would you consider left wing media? Would you say that most of your sources are Brazilian? What exactly do you mean with both sides? I'm sort of american so when I hear both sides I become cynical since I get reminded of fox news and the potential to create the illusion of a balanced debate.