hopelessbyanxiety

i thought monopoly is just the natural development in a competition, which (the competition) is pretty relevant in any market economy. I mean, an alt history line could have every monopoly in the market being prevented by gov regulation. But that would require gov that's not payed in any way by the 1%, who benefit from inexistent competition, to serve its own interest. That's really far from today's reality, in most countries i guess.

I'm assuming you're either western or liberal, both?

Aside from the fact that the prophet arguably isn't worshipped because of his child abuse and it happend centuries ago (maybe you found instances of more recent child abuse), you don't need to look far away from home to find violent and regressive people that act in the name of religion. I'm talking about misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. I get it, maybe its too difficult and these problems can't be solved. Still, its unnecessary to put your self on the high ground of moral righteusness. Muslim people have problems to solve, I'm sure you do too.

I've heard something like this, but imo it's only partly true. Why would anyone want to "rule the world" as you said? To me it seems like the feudal system, from wich colonialism was born, concentrated so many resources in the hands of very few people. It's not just that europe was regularly ravaged by famines. It was the system on top of the disasters that worsened the scarcity situation, also with kings going to war on a yearly basis. This is the kind of trauma that lasted for centuries, and got embedded in our culture. I mean, to this day the relations of unequal exchange are still standing, as if that was just how trade works.

I don't see anyone else in history trying to do imperialism, not even china or india in their golden period. And although even them had their own feudal periods, i struggle to believe it was as disastrous as in europe. Their rulers didn't feel the need to conquer the world

Again you've added a good point. Although i have empathy for op, since me too i lurk most of the time, never posted, and yet i see the thing being centered around either the us or europe.

glad to know you're not generalizing, and correct me if i'm wrong but this is how i interpret your reply: some muslim people are really uneducated. Clearly these governements have no intention of educating their people (btw i can see that in a sense in my western country as well, the education system is collapsing figuratevely and physically).

My own conclusion: what you said is true, and we'll have to see how the situation will turn out. We have no control over our own governments let alone those abroad; unless nato is going to bring peace and democracy yet again. We saw how that turned out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, and probably others that i don't remember

i'm glad you know that. Apparently poland isn't on the same page. I doubt he's the only one thinking like that https://youtu.be/asGHu2NzvbI Sorry i don't have any more sources, but if you've followed european immigration policies in the slightest, you might have noticed that most middle eastern are rejected at the borders. Many times the skin color is no different from southern europeans, yet they die by the hundreds in the mediterranean.

Thanks for clarifying that you're not racist, but its curious that you describe the islamic world as savage, again centering yourself in the west as the enlightened and modern person. And who decided we are at the center of the world? Colonialist slave owners?

I didn't mean to come across as someone who would turn a blind eye on any atrocities. Its just that the instability, and therefore violence that ravages the Middle East (maybe that's what you mena by savage?), more often than not comes from coups or the imf restructuring those economies on behalf of the US and the EU. I have no explanation for the Saudis, not sure how they've got to that point. I don't turn a blind eye on this violence, I just try my best to not put such a big group of people in the "bad" box. (at least thats how i make sense of this)

Also i'm 100% sure, at least most of the poor nations have the capacity to develop, and we can see that recently with at least some diplomatic ties being reinstated or made stronger (Iran - Saudi Arabia - Syria - ...), and trade routes that escape the sanctions, which affect a really long list of poor countries. For a problem that is out of our control, its weird to expect that everything gets solved in 2 seconds, with rationality and friendship. Does this make sense or should i back this with some sources?

sorry, was only suggesting

Thats a valid option. Problem is, the user base of most social media si overwhelmingly from north america. When having not as many users from other regions, its difficult to have a balance. I agree that there should be a community specifically for US news and politics. Also, i bet the second most large user base is western european.

There are better alternatives to doing any damage as a loner. Be part of a mass movement, so that when the "crime" is done, pretty much everyone is backed by lawyers, as they should. Also any mass movement has easy access to explosives, exactly because of how many people are in it.

Blowing up a fossil fuel industry is hardly a crime when they already destroy our environment and our lives for the pleasure of a few.

fuck corporations, especially the big ones.

I would add that successfully creating the vaccine is not enough. I mean, it has to be injected on a global scale, if not it keeps evolving into new variants, right? But even if there are enough shots available, they're still in the hands of corporations. And as we saw in the past two years, many poor countries didn't get enough to vaccinate even half of their people. Solving the problem doesn't give as much revenue as this scenario.