What does that have to do with anything? And still, so what?
Do the rich hate him because he exploits the working class? Because they think the way he got rich is obscene? No! It's because he won't shut up, and says the quiet parts out loud. They only hate his personality. You would know if they hated his policies, which they don't, because he'd be out on his senile ass before you could say dementia.
Brazil's poor industrialisation isn't an issue caused by caring about the climate though. Destroying the Amazon to continue the same bullshit of exporting unprocessed minerals won't improve Brazilian society.
Why exactly is Brazil disadvantaged about climate policies to industrialise given it has enormous potential in renewables (hydro, solar, wind)? Could even have more nuclear power. Industrialisation accelerates with cheap energy which Brazil has plenty of.
Have you thought that maybe the nonsense is coming from inside your skull?
Flávio Bolsonaro proposed the creation of railways in the Brazilian north and northeast. Historically, efforts like these always end up abandoned due to complaints from leftist environmental NGOs. Leftist parties like PSOL have taken these environmental battles all the way up to the supreme court, which just sits on it without deciding for years.
So, are you prepared to ignore the complaints of the environmentalists?
It's a stupid proposal, railways should cover the most populous and economically active areas first since rail in Brazil is nearly non-existent outside of transporting raw mined ore. Replace the fucking trucks going up and down Brazil's south-southeast, which historically the car lobby blocked that to push for more trucks and cars. I'm very sure environmentalists would support a push to replace those trucks with rail.
Are you prepared to understand you are being swindled?
Unfortunately I have a few like you in my family, completely rotten brains from antipetismo and falling for stupidity like "building railways on the most difficult and least economically active area of the country", do you understand you are being lied to?
Nobody is "falling" for anything. I just used Bolsonaro's debate promise for the sake of argument. I agree that we should keep prioritizing the development of the south and southeast, and I have nothing against new railways there.
As for the rest of your comment, the truth is I don't particularly care either way. There is exactly one thing, and one thing alone, that I want from this government:
Impeachment and imprisonment of the supreme court judges.
They have four years to put those judges in jail. If they do, I am satisfied. If not, I will never vote for them ever again. It's that simple. I'm aware of the possibility that they could turn out to be swindlers. I'm using frontier AIs to monitor every last one of them.
Everything in the attention economy is. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube. They are paired with some genuine uses like sharing knowledge or connecting with distant friends/family but ultimately the main engine in them is to steal attention and that will always be their most prominent effect on society.
I mean, there are plenty of social media mind viruses. But Zuck and Sheryl exhibit especially naked intent to get in bed with any dictator who will let them in, at the drop of a hat. The only metric they care about is growth. If burning America to the ground improved their numbers they would do it.
Figuring out how to provide more for people using less resources, isn't that a great achievement?
I think reducing this discussion into only two polar opposites is rather juvenile, the struggle we face is on how can we be more efficient, and less damaging to the our general environment while providing for people.
That's a lot more sci-fi to me than sending rockets to Mars to colonise it.
When the state is a full 30 degrees of latitude southern than Sweden, with consistent sun throughout the year, yeah, it will generate more energy through solar.
Parent had a sarcastic reaction to Texas burning fossil fuels - which they have a lot of. They also have sunshine. Sweden seems to have neither but has hydro.
Point is each geographic entity is maximizing their resources. And they have every right to without outside interference.
No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
yeah...that's my point, these namings are pretty devoid of _consistent_ meaning, both with respect to what they reference (as in your democratic people's republic of korea example) as well as across time.
Anybody claiming to believe that Nazis were socialists need to provide evidence of themselves eating urinal cake. Otherwise we know that they are misusing the etymological fallacy on purpose.
i have no idea what you're going on about, because my entire point was that the terminology meant different things at different times, purposefully obviously.
Yes people misuse words on purpose sometimes. I don't know what point you're trying to make here - calling AfD the far right and fascists isn't controversial, just because they don't call themselves socialists like Hitler did.
I don't happen to know what AfD is, so i definitely didn't call them anything.
My point was that terminology can be overloaded in contradictory ways; it's been clarified multiple times above that such is the point, including in my original comment's short last sentence.
p.s. I think we're saying essentially the same thing(s).
I think you downplay the role of social media in fanning the flames.
"Careless People" talks about it and how it was the inception of Meta's powerplay into politics by becoming indispensable for politicians to use their platforms to reach voters. The only thing they cared about is engagement and avoiding regulations, both are easily achievable if polarisation becomes the norm, the obliteration of proper political discourse into the form it exists now is a consequence of that.
I don't believe those far-right parties would have this much support if public discourse wasn't mostly focused on online platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Twitter/X, etc., they wouldn't have the reach nor the tools for creating information bubbles as existing right now. Those platforms allow for the formation of entire separate realities that are self-reinforcing.
Sure that’s a factor. But I think it’s pretty obvious in reality that a lot of people are not having a good time in contemporary western society. Social media didn’t invent that.
Hence why I started with "fanning the flames". It means the issues are there, they need to be worked on but with social media we are stuck, solving complex issues require compromises, long-term thinking and planning, nothing that is enabled by social media's knee-jerk reactions, ephemeral messaging, etc.
I think both can be true: there are issues with affordable housing and integration of immigrants. But at the same time parties are poisoning minds with mass-scale disinformation, propaganda, trolling, through social media. These are even more effective when issues already exist.
Sadly, some of the parties that are involved (tech bros, Russia, etc.) are not going to do any good when it comes to these issues. They'll only make the housing issues worse (by accumulating even more wealth and invading your country, respectively). But blaming everything on immigrants and elites has always worked extremely well, in-group vs. out-group is something that our brain needed for survival in the past, so it is very easy to trigger.
The saddest part is that those that push the anti-elite narrative (Trump, Musk, etc.) are often the elites themselves.
That's like saying the establishment would have an easier time controlling the unruly populance if they still had an iron grip on all public communication. True, but doesn't exactly advance the argument that I think you want to.
reply