loathsome dongeater

he/him

a cool (brr) dude

  • 377 Posts
  • 6.45K Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 14th, 2020

help-circle
  • I think it is mostly because of heavily ingrained western chauvinism and white supremacy. If you are normal, decent human being in the imperial core and if you have a sober view of the collective atrocities committed by the colonial, settler and imperial powers, I find it hard to see how you are not consumed by tangible disdain of the foundation of your civilisation that you have the time and energy to stand shoulder to shoulder with neocons in criticising global south countries for their perceived flaws. I think it’s because of racism more often than not.



  • I wouldn’t put it that way. I assume they are only doing it by default for some folders like ~\Desktop, ~\Documents etc. For the average user this “feature” must be transparent in the sense that mostly you won’t notice that this “feature” is in effect. Just that the onedrive daemon is gonna be syncing changes to these folders to the cloud. They will only notice this “feature” when they get a notification saying that their cloud storage is running out of space to sell them a subscription to expanded storage space.




  • I really don’t understand what NATO’s understanding of the situation and goals have been in the post-USSR.

    Putin tried to reconcile with the Atlantic bloc but they categorically rejected any possibility of that. I can’t say how much of an opportunist Putin would have been but we never got to find out. If he were extremely opportunistic the Russia-China partnership of today would be much less solid today. Instead there has been this extremely strong to antagonise Russia. I can only guess but they probably want Russia have a pro-US government, deindustrialise them and balkanise them further. But any chances of that seem all but gone now. Their war failed. Their sanctions failed. Putin remain popular. Ties with China and the global south as a whole remain strong. Where do they go from here? On the current path the only possible outcome is further escalation, possibly provoking a nuclear war at some point. Is the US reich even capable of reigning in their belligerence at any point?







  • which country is actually more democratic?

    As yogthos once said for these people democracy is a procedural thing. Whether how closely the outcome approximates the will of the people is inconsequential. It is all about multi party elections and ballots.

    India is below DPRK in Global Hunger Index. DPRK for context is the most besieged country in the world with a geography that is inhospitable to agriculture. Malnutrition in India is such a problem that it has its own wikipedia article and the government has stopped publishing the stats for it (democracy moment). I walk around where I live and I see so many stunted adults and children. It’s really sad. China on the other hand is one of the most well fed countries in the world, which is crazy considering their size and their non-colonizer origins.





  • They are comparing post-independence India and China. They say that while China has done better than India in most cases, China has had a major famine while India has had none. This is the part that talks about democracy:

    On the other hand, given the political system of post-independence India, it is extremely hard for any government in office—whether at the state level or at the centre—to get away with neglecting prompt and extensive anti-famine measures at the first signs of a famine. And these signs are themselves more easily transmitted given India’s relatively free media and newspapers, and the active and investigative role that journalists as well as opposition politicians can and do play in this field. The adversarial participation of newspapers and opposition leaders is, as we have discussed earlier, an important part of the Indian famine prevention system. It yields a rapid triggering mechanism and encourages preparedness for entitlement protection.

    The contrast with China is striking primarily in the second respect. Given its system of public distribution, China did not lack a delivery and redistribution mechanism to deal with food shortages as the famine threatened in 1958 and later. Despite the size of the decline of food output and the loss of entitlement of large sections of the population, China could have done a much better job of protecting the vulnerable by sharing the shortage in a bearable way.

    What was lacking when the famine threatened China was a political system of adversarial journalism and opposition.[31] The Chinese famine raged on for three years without it being even admitted in public that such a thing was occurring, and without there being an adequate policy response to the threat. Not only was the world ignorant of the terrible state of affairs in China, even the population itself did not know about the extent of the national calamity and the extensive nature of the problems being faced in different parts of the country.