• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:50
CEST 03:50
KST 10:50
  • 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
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47
Community News
Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)2BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13
StarCraft 2
General
flash bitcoin software Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group B RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 3 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL19] Grand Finals
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Who’s Getting the Effortless-Chic Look Just Right?
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 Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 17744 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
France7878 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
France7878 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 States1238 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
France7878 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
OSC
00:00
OSC Elite Rising Star #15
LunaSea vs BabymarineLIVE!
Mixu vs Moja
ArT vs INexorable
HiGhDrA vs Shameless
TBD vs ArT
xJustxJordanx4
Liquipedia
Replay Cast
00:00
uThermal 2v2 Circuit: May
CranKy Ducklings78
Liquipedia
OSC
21:00
Mid Season Playoffs
ArT vs ReBellioN
HonMonO vs Ziomek
Shameless vs LunaSea
MilkiCow vs GgMaChine
Moja vs HiGhDrA
Jumy vs TBD
Demi vs NightPhoenix
Solar vs Cham
SteadfastSC147
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft371
SteadfastSC164
RuFF_SC2 127
Nina 20
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 760
Sharp 101
Icarus 10
Dota 2
monkeys_forever451
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K680
taco 556
Other Games
summit1g11758
tarik_tv5536
C9.Mang02235
shahzam1250
ViBE257
ToD126
UpATreeSC68
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream211
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH276
• Hupsaiya 65
• davetesta29
• HeavenSC 21
• practicex 1
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 11
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift6550
Other Games
• Scarra1279
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Invitational
9h 10m
HiGhDrA vs Nicoract
MaNa vs HiGhDrA
HiGhDrA vs Reynor
Nicoract vs Reynor
MaNa vs Nicoract
MaNa vs Reynor
MaxPax vs Spirit
Krystianer vs Spirit
OSC
11h 10m
BSL 2v2 ProLeague S3
17h 10m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 1h
SOOP
1d 7h
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
1d 8h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 9h
Cheesadelphia
1d 13h
CSO Cup
1d 15h
BSL: ProLeague
1d 16h
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
[ Show More ]
GSL Code S
2 days
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
5 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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.