3 ms·

You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example

You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN! Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect." As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"

svnt 4y ago
You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article. edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.
- aschearer 4y ago
  Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
  - svnt 4y ago
    I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make. Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.
Izkata 4y ago
> As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.
keneda7 4y ago
Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death. Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20incorrect https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc... As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  >In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Ok, but he is in fact taking those steps, and going beyond what Trump did in the process.
- aschearer 4y ago
  I don't think both parties are the same, but I do think both parties are having public, ongoing debates about globalization. Their answers vary over time and candidate. It's not being controlled by shadowy elites, nor is it being shamed as "politically incorrect" speech. Using your definition -- no one thinks this discussion is "offensive." It's hard to see the major legislation being passed or presidential campaigns being run and say otherwise -- I think the onus is on you or the OP to submit evidence wherein the elites or whatever shut down the conversation or react with indignation. I've provided my evidence in this thread already. As for globalization versus not. Again, what is the alternative? Be concrete. To me, globalization is capitalism or free marketism. Put another way, it's a market based economy. Once upon a time, people believed that planned economies were an alternative to globalism, but I'd say the jury is in and no one really believes that anymore. So, seriously, what is the alternative? I imagine most people agree that child / slave labor are abhorrent and that we should add safety rails to globalization to address those issues. But that's still globalization.

svnt 4y ago

You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article. edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.

aschearer 4y ago
Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
- svnt 4y ago
  I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make. Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.

Izkata 4y ago

> As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.

keneda7 4y ago

Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death. Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20incorrect https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc... As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?

eli_gottlieb 4y ago
>In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it. Ok, but he is in fact taking those steps, and going beyond what Trump did in the process.
aschearer 4y ago
I don't think both parties are the same, but I do think both parties are having public, ongoing debates about globalization. Their answers vary over time and candidate. It's not being controlled by shadowy elites, nor is it being shamed as "politically incorrect" speech. Using your definition -- no one thinks this discussion is "offensive." It's hard to see the major legislation being passed or presidential campaigns being run and say otherwise -- I think the onus is on you or the OP to submit evidence wherein the elites or whatever shut down the conversation or react with indignation. I've provided my evidence in this thread already. As for globalization versus not. Again, what is the alternative? Be concrete. To me, globalization is capitalism or free marketism. Put another way, it's a market based economy. Once upon a time, people believed that planned economies were an alternative to globalism, but I'd say the jury is in and no one really believes that anymore. So, seriously, what is the alternative? I imagine most people agree that child / slave labor are abhorrent and that we should add safety rails to globalization to address those issues. But that's still globalization.