@albats First, @navalny did not technically "call" anyone cockroaches. When making an argument about "too big cockroaches" he illustrated it with a photo of Chechen rebels. This can and will be understood as a reference to generalised Muslims, but (technically) not to "Gastarbeiters"
Second, @albats framed it as an occasional verbal remark, almost accidental "called somewhere". But there was nothing accidental about it. Verbal narrative, visuals, a TV tune, everything was intentionally dehumanising
@albats not only framed the cockroaches as an occasional remark, she also (intentionally?) left @navalny an easy way out, by describing the video slightly inaccurately. Navalny did not technically say anything about Gastarbeiters in *this* video
@navalny could say "no, I never called Gastarbeiters cockroaches" and still be *technically* right. Why? Because of the way @albats formulated her question. She (intentionally?) left Navalny a way out. He could've denied an inaccurate accusation and technically be right. Did he?
Best thing @navalny could've done would be to narrow down to an inaccurate Gastarbeiters = cockroaches description by @albats and just deny it. She left him a loophole to save his face. He didn't use it. He attacked his critic comparing him with Putin's propagandists instead
Best thing @navalny could've down is to stick to original incorrect description and deny it. That would not technically make him a liar. Instead he starts passionately denying ever using this metaphor at all. He chooses to lie
"Or may be someone [saw] something like this. So you are sure that in no video clip, nowhere..."
Notice she is narrowing down her original question, talking about a "video clip", which @navalny had produced very few by then
I think she saw it
@albats@navalny@navalny respond with another ad hominem attack against a critic who pointed out to a verifiable fact. @albats left him a loophole to deny it, while saving his face - the inaccurate description. But Navalny resorts to lies and ad hominem slander
Why is this video is even important? Well, because it illustrates a typical reaction of @navalny and his followers to *any* sort of criticism. And pointing out to their past words & actions counts as criticism:
1. Ad hominem attack against a critic 2. Make up some lie about him
Honestly, I cannot comprehend why @navalny@leonidvolkov etc. propagate so many *factual* lies. Navalny's Chief of Staff could attack me with some opinion statement ("He's a liar!"). Smarter people do. But he makes a verifiable statement - that I'm paid by Tatarstan President
Let me be clear: I see nothing wrong with working for Tatarstan. I just cannot comprehend why @leonidvolkov is randomly making up verifiable factual statements requiring the burden of proof?
My answer: Because these fellows have never been called out
That is almost amusing. I understand these "oppositionaries" strategy: when facing criticism, always respond with ad hominem against the critic. I'm ok with that. But why are you making *factual* verifiably false statements, I can't get this?
That's just childish
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.