• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:29
CEST 18:29
KST 01:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
Soulkey on ASL S20 BW General Discussion ASL20 General Discussion ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D NaDa's Body
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Ro16 Group C BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2101 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6578

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6576 6577 6578 6579 6580 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 15:11 GMT
#131541
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Biff The Understudy
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
France7904 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 15:24:36
January 17 2017 15:20 GMT
#131542
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific.

Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get.

Every quality newspaper is a good source of information if you have a critical mind. I can sincerely survive very well and stay informed with Le Figaro, a firmly right wing paper, because they are a quality paper, and i know i can trust them on facts. I just don't align ever, at all, with their analysis, so it doesn't provide me with much food for thought, and i get a bit bored.
The fellow who is out to burn things up is the counterpart of the fool who thinks he can save the world. The world needs neither to be burned up nor to be saved. The world is, we are. Transients, if we buck it; here to stay if we accept it. ~H.Miller
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 15:24 GMT
#131543
On January 18 2017 00:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific.

Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get.

I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 15:25 GMT
#131544
On January 17 2017 21:05 DickMcFanny wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 17 2017 20:58 Acrofales wrote:
On January 17 2017 20:33 DickMcFanny wrote:
On January 17 2017 20:19 Velr wrote:
But yeah, globalisation and Immigration are the boogymen... Its not that the bonus of a CEO (or just higher tier Manager) is bigger than the payraise all "low" employes get together - if they get one


Because they're both symptoms of capitalism.

Welfare migrants wouldn't be flocking in droves to the EU states that pay the most if

a) Their countries hadn't been ravaged by war
b) Their farmlands hadn't been destroyed by climate change
c) EU bureaucrats weren't deciding that importing millions of military aged men suppresses wages and makes people favour tighter limits on civil liberties.

And CEO wages wouldn't be as high if capitalism didn't own the political system.

Our economic system lies at the heart of most problems the world faces today.


you could also make the case that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with globalism



Well, with capitalism, not with globalism.

Religious extremism in Islam finds so much breeding ground because of oil wars and US support of extremists.

It's actually a strategy the US has been using for a while now, manipulate votes, kill a popular leader, destroy an economy in a socialist / Islamic country and then point at that country to say: ''See, socialism doesn't work''.


I hear non-stop this thread saying capitalist when they really mean greed.

Capitalism is not a "thing" you don't *do* capitalism since idealized Capitalism is allowing the market to do what it wants. The assumption of Capitalism is that people, when allowed to pursue their base natures, will naturally form a capitalist system.

That there are greedy people in a Capitalist system is not because Capitalism needs it, but because people are naturally greedy.

Most of the problems of this world comes from Resource scarcity. Back in a more feudal/monarchical era, that meant that nations were at war with each other constantly for those resources. Now that we are in a more peaceful era, the war becomes more economic; price gouging, emigration, immigration, tax reforms, tax shelters, etc... which creates the feel that "globalization" is killing people. But the truth is that its still the same people in power fighting the same wars over the same resources just in different battlefields.

It will happen no matter what economic, governmental, or social systems will be in place because it is just in humanity's base nature to do so. When one person gets ahead, he does what he can to get more ahead, and it snowballs into class inequality, social inequality, which leads to race inequality, gender inequality, so on and so forth.

The issue is not what systems are in place--people are the issue.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 15:27 GMT
#131545
On January 18 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific.

Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get.

I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility.


Its about statistical relevance right?

A person can read X news sources of the Y available
Of the Y news sources, some are fantastic A% of the time, others are fantastic (A+B)% of the time.
Even if neither are close to fantastic 100% of the time--why waste time on the one that's fantastic less often?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Biff The Understudy
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
France7904 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 15:34:06
January 17 2017 15:33 GMT
#131546
On January 18 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

Well i think telling and explaining people why The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and The Guardian are better sources of information than Breitbart and Infowars has never been more urgent than now. That's what this chart contributes too, even if it's simplistic and of course a bit arbitrary. It's really not meant to be scientific.

Don't read junk, and be aware of the partisanship of what you are reading are two piece of advice everyone should get.

I've read plenty of unjournalistic bullshit from WSJ, The Economist, The Guardian, and the like. Yes, it's probably more common on Breitbart and especially Infowars, but at the same time it isn't true that the former are good sources and the latter are just trash. Even Infowars has, at times, given some really good and effective insights into certain matters - though it isn't unfair to criticize it for lack of credibility.

And once Hitler saved a kitten.

Of course you will find shit on the Guardian, occasionally. Of course you will find a decent article on Breitbart. Occasionally.

Yet Breitbart is a fucking junk of a media with a sub 0 standard, no integrity whatsoever and an agenda of systematic propaganda, and the Guardian is one of the most respected paper on the planet with a fantastic record and a very strong sense of journalistic ethics.

You know that a fact stated in the Guardian is very probably accurate, and that none of what you read in Infowar should be trusted blindly because it's written by liars.

That's what this graph is about.
The fellow who is out to burn things up is the counterpart of the fool who thinks he can save the world. The world needs neither to be burned up nor to be saved. The world is, we are. Transients, if we buck it; here to stay if we accept it. ~H.Miller
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 15:37:49
January 17 2017 15:35 GMT
#131547
On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:
On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world.

Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere.

Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument?

I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them."

Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability.

As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 15:46 GMT
#131548
On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:
On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:
On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world.

Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere.

Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument?

I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them."

Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability.

As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then.


Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing.

Service industries will be where the rich are.
Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are.
Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit.

If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much.

Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LightSpectra
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
United States1730 Posts
January 17 2017 15:58 GMT
#131549
Reuters is the only news source that's never pissed me off with laughably terrible reporting. BBC is generally alright. The Guardian and the Washington Post have good breaking stories, but their editorial/opinion sections are dominated by morons. Won't even say anything about NYT, WSJ, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Vox, etc. because they're too biased for my tastes.

It's also very important to read The Intercept to get stories that aren't reported elsewhere, although sometimes their editors veer into inappropriate editorializing.
2006 Shinhan Bank OSL Season 3 was the greatest tournament of all time
CatharsisUT
Profile Joined March 2011
United States487 Posts
January 17 2017 15:58 GMT
#131550
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.


The positioning of the rankings might be wrong, but it does raise a crucially important point. Many people just view news sources as spots on a left/right line. As a result, I see people (not here, but elsewhere) argue "well the left has MSNBC, it's biased, so Infowars is fine too."

That is obviously wrong; National Review and Infowars are both on the right, but they aren't equivalent sources of information. One of them cares about facts. Evaluating news sources requires at least two dimensions, bias and factual content. The posted image makes that point fairly effectively.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 16:03:51
January 17 2017 16:00 GMT
#131551
On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:

Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability.

Nuclear weapons are a 75 year old technology. Any country can develop nuclear weaponry as long as they are organised enough. It's just a question of availability and intent and time (about 5 years if not a country with pre existing infrastructure assuming non-interference). Even North korea despite difficulties can develop nuclear weaponry given time. That's why it is important to prevent non proliferation with good relationships.
Krikkitone
Profile Joined April 2009
United States1451 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-17 16:05:34
January 17 2017 16:03 GMT
#131552
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:
On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:
On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:
On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world.

Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere.

Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument?

I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them."

Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability.

As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then.


Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing.

Service industries will be where the rich are.
Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are.
Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit.

If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much.

Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you.


Except as you point out many Service industries (call center..I don't think you were manufacturing anything there) can also be in middle of nowhere. Not to mention farming doesn't have to be in range of the rich people, farming is where the soil and weather and cheap labor is...unless the country is protectionist (anti-globalization) about its farming... which most rich countries (especially Europe) are to a large extent.

Also while most people don't want a shit job, many of them would rather have that than no job.

Basically globalization helps the rich in all countries and the poorest of the poor... those in the middle run into trouble, unless they are one of the few well paid jobs that actually require physical proximity to the rich.

In sum it is good, but it doesn't work unless
-countries manage the process
or
-the free trade area is united under one empire that regularly eliminates all dissenting cultures. (see US)
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 16:04 GMT
#131553
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

Curious how you reconcile these two statements.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 17 2017 16:04 GMT
#131554
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

I haven't bothered commenting on the chart because it is patently garbage. My favorite is sticking CNN right in the middle as having "no partisan bias." Yeah, okay.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
January 17 2017 16:05 GMT
#131555
You would think that but looking at UK, there are many who seem happy being unemployed in a first world country and blaming immigrants than have a shit job in a first world country.
mustaju
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Estonia4504 Posts
January 17 2017 16:14 GMT
#131556
Instability is part of rapid technological advancement, and it will probably lead to a restructuring of the economy.
WriterBrows somewhat high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFysO2JunE
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 16:15 GMT
#131557
On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

Curious how you reconcile these two statements.


Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans.

The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job.

Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 17 2017 16:16 GMT
#131558
On January 18 2017 01:04 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

I haven't bothered commenting on the chart because it is patently garbage. My favorite is sticking CNN right in the middle as having "no partisan bias." Yeah, okay.


The only bias CNN has is desperation and trying to not be Fox News.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
January 17 2017 16:26 GMT
#131559
On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world.

Curious how you reconcile these two statements.


Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans.

The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job.


So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well?
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Biff The Understudy
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
France7904 Posts
January 17 2017 16:27 GMT
#131560
On January 18 2017 01:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 18 2017 01:04 xDaunt wrote:
On January 18 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
That chart is so symmetric that it's almost as if they tried to draw a bunch of equivalencies here ("Right wingers have Infowars, left wingers have Natural News"). Truth is that there is no reason to believe that is the case - and furthermore it's telling what is included in their ranking as much as what isn't. Many very useful (even if inconsistently so) news sites are not here).

It's just a stupid attempt to rank something that doesn't lend itself to being ranked. Nothing to see here.

I haven't bothered commenting on the chart because it is patently garbage. My favorite is sticking CNN right in the middle as having "no partisan bias." Yeah, okay.


The only bias CNN has is desperation and trying to not be Fox News.

They put CNN super low in quality which is frankly deserved too.

The graph is not about partisanship, it's about quality. And it says rightfully so that if you go fir a heavy partisan media (and there is nothing wrong with that) it needs to be really good.
The fellow who is out to burn things up is the counterpart of the fool who thinks he can save the world. The world needs neither to be burned up nor to be saved. The world is, we are. Transients, if we buck it; here to stay if we accept it. ~H.Miller
Prev 1 6576 6577 6578 6579 6580 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 17h 31m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SpeCial 150
JuggernautJason105
ProTech80
UpATreeSC 32
Codebar 10
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 31392
Bisu 3367
Horang2 2374
EffOrt 1064
ZerO 392
Mini 379
Hyuk 378
Light 359
Soulkey 165
hero 154
[ Show more ]
Soma 133
Rush 111
ggaemo 107
Snow 93
Hyun 63
Mind 54
Aegong 36
Free 30
sorry 26
ToSsGirL 25
JYJ24
Terrorterran 21
Yoon 19
scan(afreeca) 15
IntoTheRainbow 10
Sexy 7
Dota 2
Gorgc7292
qojqva3713
Dendi1166
XcaliburYe198
League of Legends
Trikslyr62
Counter-Strike
ScreaM979
fl0m355
oskar202
markeloff96
Other Games
gofns22877
tarik_tv22152
FrodaN657
Mlord436
Lowko365
Hui .270
RotterdaM252
byalli243
ArmadaUGS122
QueenE68
NeuroSwarm36
ZerO(Twitch)15
Beastyqt9
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 18
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix16
• Michael_bg 7
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV390
League of Legends
• Nemesis4343
• TFBlade561
Other Games
• Shiphtur198
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
17h 31m
Zoun vs Classic
Map Test Tournament
18h 31m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 10h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 15h
RSL Revival
1d 17h
Reynor vs Cure
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.