@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
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
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