3 ms·

This is how it has been functioning til now. Of course. But one should have 1% critical/analytical brain to understand that this is not how it should be going.

This is how it has been functioning til now. Of course. But one should have 1% critical/analytical brain to understand that this is not how it should be going. If you don't consider yourself subject subject to change you are doomed to disappear.

lucasfcosta 7y ago
I think that the problem here is not agreeing on whether this is awful. It's already pretty clear that it is. However, other countries cannot intervene. Brazilian borders are Brazilian, any other country that wants to help needs to be authorised by Brazilian authorities. The real problem here is that Brazil's leaders are awful and there's nothing that can be done in regards to that. It's only possible to protest and fight against them in a legal manner. Romanticizing revolution is ineffective. It's not only extremely hard but also infeasible to destroy all power structures already in place.
- hjrnunes 7y ago
  Funny how no one proposed to remove California from US sovereignty when the fires were raging awhile back. Or the Gulf of Mexico coast with the Deep Horizon incident. --- Não vai encontrar razoabilidade aqui, amigo. Esta gente julga que manda no mundo inteiro.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    There's only one person in the thread even suggesting anything close to "removing sovereignty", yet you're already seeing a horde of enemies.
    - hjrnunes 7y ago
      I count the parent, and a couple more replying with something-must-be-done answers at the suggestion that the territory be forcefully or otherwise removed from Brazilian sovereignty. There are other comments in other sub-threads. Also, this pretext isn't a new idea, and there's heavyweight international support for it. “Contrary to what Brazilians think, the Amazon is not their property, it belongs to all of us,” Al Gore, then a senator, said in 1989. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18barrionuevo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18barrionuev... The Latin-American Bishops Conference denounced this back in 2007: The growing assault on the environment may serve as a pretext for proposals to internationalize the Amazon, which only serve the economic interests of transnational corporations. Pan-Amazon society is multiethnic, multicultural, and multireligious. The dispute over the occupation of the land is intensifying more and more. The traditional communities of the region want their lands to be recognized and legalized. https://www.celam.org/aparecida/Ingles.pdf https://www.celam.org/aparecida/Ingles.pdf Paragraph 86 The Brazilian Amazon territory borders British, French and Dutch interests in Guyana, French Guyana and Suriname, respectively. So, I don't see a horde of enemies, but I see an agenda. In my view, Bolsonaro's tenure is viewed as an opportunity to further this agenda, and that's if he's not in it himself.

lucasfcosta 7y ago

I think that the problem here is not agreeing on whether this is awful. It's already pretty clear that it is. However, other countries cannot intervene. Brazilian borders are Brazilian, any other country that wants to help needs to be authorised by Brazilian authorities. The real problem here is that Brazil's leaders are awful and there's nothing that can be done in regards to that. It's only possible to protest and fight against them in a legal manner. Romanticizing revolution is ineffective. It's not only extremely hard but also infeasible to destroy all power structures already in place.

hjrnunes 7y ago
Funny how no one proposed to remove California from US sovereignty when the fires were raging awhile back. Or the Gulf of Mexico coast with the Deep Horizon incident. --- Não vai encontrar razoabilidade aqui, amigo. Esta gente julga que manda no mundo inteiro.
- icebraining 7y ago
  There's only one person in the thread even suggesting anything close to "removing sovereignty", yet you're already seeing a horde of enemies.
  - hjrnunes 7y ago
    I count the parent, and a couple more replying with something-must-be-done answers at the suggestion that the territory be forcefully or otherwise removed from Brazilian sovereignty. There are other comments in other sub-threads. Also, this pretext isn't a new idea, and there's heavyweight international support for it. “Contrary to what Brazilians think, the Amazon is not their property, it belongs to all of us,” Al Gore, then a senator, said in 1989. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18barrionuevo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18barrionuev... The Latin-American Bishops Conference denounced this back in 2007: The growing assault on the environment may serve as a pretext for proposals to internationalize the Amazon, which only serve the economic interests of transnational corporations. Pan-Amazon society is multiethnic, multicultural, and multireligious. The dispute over the occupation of the land is intensifying more and more. The traditional communities of the region want their lands to be recognized and legalized. https://www.celam.org/aparecida/Ingles.pdf https://www.celam.org/aparecida/Ingles.pdf Paragraph 86 The Brazilian Amazon territory borders British, French and Dutch interests in Guyana, French Guyana and Suriname, respectively. So, I don't see a horde of enemies, but I see an agenda. In my view, Bolsonaro's tenure is viewed as an opportunity to further this agenda, and that's if he's not in it himself.