[flagged]
It's kind of fascinating actually how Americans turned the whole pop culture into genitalia regulations and racist wealth redistribution. Before that in EU we had all this stuff and wasn't a problem. These stuff were about minorities and minorities stuff don't bother most people as these are just accommodations for small number of people.
I'm kind of getting sick and tired of pretending that stuff that concern %1 of the people are the mainstream thing. It's insufferable.
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Post-...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/refo...
It thought you were going to explain how "woke" is a bad thing, and how Japanese were counter progressive stuff.
Instead, you give me two links to the current fascist White House propaganda - which makes me wonder if for you, woke is the exact opposite of "christian"?
And a link about a video game which is... related how to woke/progress or conservative/fascism?
It isn't about what % of the population is affected or number of people. It is about PRINCIPLES. Yes it matters just as much to enshrine dishonesty in law if it is dishonesty abour 1 person or 1000 people or 1m people. It matters.
Like, by the same principles (called, the law), the man that you made your president today should have been in jail for months, if not years; or, as in any decent democracy, should not have been able to run with so many pending lawsuits (hey, principles).
But, somehow, he got a pass. And he got elected, so that gave him another pass. And now he disrupts the principles he's supposed to uphold (a thing called the Constitution). And he gets another pass.
But. Sure. Principles. Of course.
As their neighbours to the north we recognize this as always having been there in the form of "manifest destiny" and talk of "God's Favoured Nation" and "greatest nation on earth" and so on, and were on the receiving end of this mindset in 1812 and prior and other times... but there's also always been (small-l) liberal counter-veiling forces that led to a more just balance and the encouragement of trade and legality and constitutionality and cultural interchange over dominance and control (for some).
What we've seen from the American people is that at least 50% of them now want those guard rails completely removed. I see it all over comments sections on social media now. A bully mentality. Appeals to justice or sanity are met with a Nelson Muntz "ha-ha" and "what are you going to do about it?"
It's very hard to feel hopeful right now.
After WWII, we had found kind of an agreement of balance, and a dynamic indeed to institute legality and coordination across nations for peace and progress. And the USA were the foundation and support of that, almost even as if it had been its mission. No wonder UN is based in New York for that matter.
The most striking is the pace at which this unfolds.
It's hard to feel hopeful, but hard to feel hopeless too. It's like grief. Something is broken and lost forever, but also, with darkness comes clarity of where the light comes from. So resolute to speak up and organise, yes.
Why would you need such a rule anyway? If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable. It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
He certainly hasn't done anything I am aware of to deserve to be in prison for years.
I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution. Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation? People test the boundaries of the constitution all the time. When Trump does it, he is held to a different standard.
That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort.
> It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works.
> If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable.
I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone.
See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone. I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall.
> I don't see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution.
Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then.
> Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor
I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now.
> that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation?
You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.
The world would be a much better place if everyone had a gun and not fear for reprisals from law enforcement when it is used to defend itself/family and bystanders. Like to have the Castle doctrine everywhere with a very very low threshold.
We have a balanced and proportionate self-defence law here, and that is way enough. With the Castle doctrine, we would build up an issue that is non-existent in the first place. We don't want to be a violent society, that's a choice.
But they aren't trustworthy. That is the point. The US system sucks. Elected judges. Elected prosecutors. Elected police commissioners. Clear pressure from above in the federal justice department. President-appointed politicised courts. It is nuts. The US justice system is political. It is not independent from politics. It is not designed to be.
It is so funny to me you say "trust your democracy" then argue why the person that got the most votes shouldn't be allowed to be elected. That is trusting democracy? Democracy is elected leaders. Democracy isn't always good (see above) but it isn't ambiguous.
>> It is up to the electorate who wins the election.
>That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works.
This is blatant double speak, how do you not see that? Democracy is when the most votes wins the election. He didn't cheat to get those votes. His victory was legitimate.
Why would it invite corruption for voters to choose who wins elections?!
>I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone.
Because it isn't up to me. It isn't up to you. It isn't up to a judge. It is up to the electorate. The voters balance all the factors and make a decision. Is he perfect? Of course not. But it isn't a choice between him and perfection, and the voters picked him over the other options. That is all the qualifications required (well, and being 35 and being American by birth).
>See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone.
I don't think anyone wants corruption.
>I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall.
I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically. In Germany though it is the left fighting democracy, constantly demanding that AfD be banned from competing in elections because they are terrified of losing their grip on power and the leverage they have over the CDU/CSU by forcing them to always compromise to the left and not to the right. It has boosted AfD in the long run by making it impossible for the CDU to pass popular migration controls that are desperately needed. Yet if you ask the left they say they are "defending democracy", by banning parties! "Orwellian" is overused but here it is the only word that fits.
>You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.
The USA has a constitution. It guarantees gun ownership rights absolutely ("shall not be infringed"). The courts have been clear on this for decades. I don't think it is a good rule, but it is the constitution.
Notice how on this topic you immediately stop talking about the constitution? You start talking about policy merits. What happened to the importance of respecting the constitution now that it says something you don't agree with?
He is not my president, btw. I am not American. Not that it should make any difference.
That has been the discourse of Trump there for years. His platform was based on instillating further and nurturing this perception. Instead of encouraging Republicans to work themselves AND with the left to improve what can be, carefully, progressively, on a rational basis (which is ... the basis of democracy), they've gone full rogue and decided to break it. To rebuild it as a better democracy? Not what it looks like, given both domestic and international situation, and the history and discourse of the man. But I would love to be proved wrong here.
> Democracy is when the most votes wins the election.
No. That is only a part of what a democracy is. If 51% of people voted to kill the other 49%, that would democratic? Of course not.
A democracy requires a Rule of Law, and the protection of fundamental rights for all. It requires three, balanced, separate, opposed branches of power; executive (presidency) is only one of these, not above the two others. It requires protection for minorities.
If all you have is the expression of the majority of the votes, that's not one, that's the tyranny of the majority and that's a completely different, violent system.
> I don't think anyone wants corruption.
No one wants to be corrupted in the first place. Yet, it exists. That's precisely the reason for a democratic system where each branch of a government must have the tools to lawfully take down those from opposing branches that are corrupt or exceed the power they are given.
> I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically.
We'll see.
Reading you, I get what you're saying, as there are people on the right in France holding roughly the same view... Only... if the AfD wins, is it going to be so different than the previous far-right parties have done? (there, in France, in Hungary, in Italy, in the USA, in Russia?)
Rather than the fear of the loss of a grip on power, what I see the fear of the loss of democracy itself and basic principles. It's the so called paradox of tolerance, and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it, at play.
The curious thing is that you Germans always have seemed to be good at negotiation and consensus, at least, compared to us French, where preventive opposition seems to be a too common rule of negotiations. When did that capacity change on your side?
The only ways out I see is a left majority demonstrating actually to the country both: the advantages of immigration (if only for the democraphics that won't support the country otherwise) and the perils of it if not managed accordingly, and enacting effective actionable laws about it.
Why a left? Because the right is incapable of getting rid of hidden far-right ambitions (we have our owns here) that spoil any project or the discussion by getting to racist/supremacist/antisocial tropes.
Will it happen? In France at least, no, the left is not ready for that exercise. The far-left is not helping the left itself, being even more rigid and killing attempts to have a negotiated government.
Will a moderate right succeed to do it? Neither. They're too busy to find a way to survive.
So, a hard right or more likely a far-right? The problem here is that these extremes that acquire the power, even if they do succeed to improve some things, once in power, they will not concede it, they never did in history.
Ultimately, who does all that mess serve?
> Notice how on this topic you immediately stop talking about the constitution? You start talking about policy merits. What happened to the importance of respecting the constitution now that it says something you don't agree with?
I'm not playing ;) I shifted the point there to policy (I could have avoided, true, it dilutes the conversation) because that point of the Constitution is respected/not at stake at all, whatever happens to the state. Contrary to the fundamentals of a democracy.
The way you're using these as labels is embarrassingly shallow, and I would hope, beneath the level of discourse here.
> AI’s workplace impact must align governance, social dialogue, innovation, trust, fairness, and public interest. We commit to advancing the AI Paris Summit agenda, reducing inequalities, promoting diversity, tackling gender imbalances, increasing training and human capital investment
This being culturally rejected by the same America that has itself twice rejected women candidates for president in favour of a man who now has 34 felony convictions, does not surprise me.
But it does disappoint me.
I remember when the right wing were complaining about Star Trek having a woman as a captain for the first time with Voyager. That there had already been women admirals on screen by that point suggested they had not actually watched it, and I thought it was silly.
I remember learning that British politician Ann Widdecombe changed from Church of England to Roman Catholic, citing that the "ordination of women was the last straw", and I thought it was silly.
Back then, actually putting effort into equal opportunity for all was called "political correctness gone mad" by those opposed to it — but I guess the attention span is no longer sufficient to use four-word-phrases as rhetorical applause lights, so y'all switched to a century old word coined by African Americans who wanted to make sure they didn't forget that the Civil War had only ended literal slavery, not changed the attitudes behind it.
This history makes the word itself a very odd thing to encounter in Europe, where we didn't have that civil war — forced end of Empire shortly after World War 2, yes, but none of the memes from the breakaway regions of that era even made it back to this continent, and AFAICT "woke" wasn't one of them anyway. I only know I'm called a "mzungu" by Kenyans because of the person who got me to visit the place.
The EU is even more nuts with their plans that all big companies in the EU should have 50/50 men-women representation in the board of directors.
Believe what you want, but America did not reject Hillary or Kamala because they were women, they rejected them because of their incompetence. And speaking of this, after seeing Kamala talk, it is beyond me how she got to be VP - not one coherent sentence comes out of her mouth.
That fact that you think this is "nuts" tells me you think women aren't equally competent.
> not one coherent sentence comes out of her mouth.
And yet you elected Trump.
Heck, if that's your objection, two counts of GWB. There was an entire genre based on how he mangled his speech.
No, it means that I want people in those places based on competency, not gender, and certainly not 50/50 representation because some bureaucrats think equality should be forced down on people's throats. If you make it about gender or anything else, the problem lies with you.
> And yet you elected Trump.
Well, besides the "beautiful" over use, he actually made sense when he was talking. The word salads Kamala kept making...
If you think that the current hiring discrepancy represents a genuine and real skill discrepancy, it is a logical necessity for you think that women are not equally capable.
Conversely, if you think women are equally capable, then you must think that the hiring discrepancy is not justified by competency. If you get this far, then it follows that there is a huge opportunity for increasing the pool of competent leaders by requiring 50/50. As they do actually have a goal of increasing the economic potential of the region, this means they should push the issue.
> Well, besides the "beautiful" over use, he actually made sense when he was talking. The word salads Kamala kept making...
To quote one of many examples, this one about Biden at the beach in Trump’s Georgia response to the State of the Union:
“Somebody said he looks great in a bathing suit, right? And you know, when he was in the sand and he was having a hard time lifting his feet through the sand, because you know sand is heavy, they figured three solid ounces per foot, but sand is a little heavy, and he’s sitting in a bathing suit. Look, at 81, do you remember Cary Grant? How good was Cary Grant, right? I don’t think Cary Grant, he was good. I don’t know what happened to movie stars today. We used to have Cary Grant and Clark Gable and all these people. Today we have, I won’t say names, because I don’t need enemies. I don’t need enemies. I got enough enemies. But Cary Grant was, like – Michael Jackson once told me, ‘The most handsome man, Trump, in the world.’ ‘Who?’ ‘Cary Grant.’ Well, we don’t have that any more, but Cary Grant at 81 or 82, going on 100. This guy, he’s 81, going on 100. Cary Grant wouldn’t look too good in a bathing suit, either. And he was pretty good-looking, right?”
- from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/06/donald-trump...
I remember when LLMs were that weird, rambling — they were barely usable.
Also:
- https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/incoherent-gibberish-expert...
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-rambling-speeches-r...
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250206195722/https://www.nytim...
Covfefe. Heck, that one became a meme so hard it has its own Wikipedia page.
Trump's confusion and rambling is broadcast across the world, and mocked across the world — that's how I even know about it. Similar with GWB's… well, Bushisms.
I've seen two relatives get Alzheimer's, and have been on the other end of a phone line with a third when they, mid-sentence, started talking as if I was my brother, speaking of me like I wasn't there, telling him how I was doing.
Trump is old.
I believe they are not equally interested in the same fields men are and vice-versa. So I don't see any value in forcing women and men to fields which they don't want to be in.
> Conversely, if you think women are equally capable, then you must think that the hiring discrepancy is not justified by competency. If you get this far, then it follows that there is a huge opportunity for increasing the pool of competent leaders by requiring 50/50. As they do actually have a goal of increasing the economic potential of the region, this means they should push the issue.
I think they are equally capable in certain areas, and less capable in other areas. Just like men are less capable in some areas and more capable in others. It's how nature works, nothing sexist or discriminatory about it. Just like two men are not equal, or two women are not equal.
But trying to forcefully push the narrative that somehow men and women are 100% equal is very detrimental to everyone involved.
Most Senate Democrats have voted against their respective confirmations, by the way.
We are quite fine having women as leaders if they are actually competent and charismatic like it would be the case with men. Neither HRC nor Harris were that; the former was reviled and the latter couldn't even speak coherently. The Democrats can easily get a woman elected President if they would simply choose a good candidate with policies that resonate with the electorate.