2 ms·

Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the Unite

Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? And hopefully not to be pendantic about it but you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. I am still confused about your point there, but it doesn't really seem important to your conceits anyway.

lurk2 2y ago
> Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? No, you've misunderstood me. There is no exogenous force. South America is itself a product of Iberian colonialism. You could, I suppose, say that South America did not have problems with ineffective governance prior to the arrival of the Iberians. This is somewhat dubious, though, because those governance structures look nothing like our own. The Aztecs were probably effective governors during the time that they ruled, but would anyone really prefer to live in a world where they had won? People who live in impoverished countries create these narratives to avoid acknowledging their collective failures. There are plenty of examples of countries that have been colonized which are today completely peaceable, as well as countries that have never been colonized which are nonetheless comparatively unstable. South Americans are particularly susceptible to these narratives. It is usually associated with leftist ideas surrounding decolonialism, but this is by no means exclusive - plenty of conservatives will blame the gringo for problems that are squarely within the realm of their control (at least insofar as anything can be "within our control," but the premise that such a culpability exists is already accepted by anyone arguing that "It's all the Americans' fault."). > you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. Petro's exact words were: "La cocaína es ilegal porque la hacen en América Latina, no porque sea más mala que el whisky." This is manifestly not the case. The sort of blase attitude he takes towards a substance that has done so much to destroy his country is emblematic of the civic incompetence I alluded to.

lurk2 2y ago

> Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? No, you've misunderstood me. There is no exogenous force. South America is itself a product of Iberian colonialism. You could, I suppose, say that South America did not have problems with ineffective governance prior to the arrival of the Iberians. This is somewhat dubious, though, because those governance structures look nothing like our own. The Aztecs were probably effective governors during the time that they ruled, but would anyone really prefer to live in a world where they had won? People who live in impoverished countries create these narratives to avoid acknowledging their collective failures. There are plenty of examples of countries that have been colonized which are today completely peaceable, as well as countries that have never been colonized which are nonetheless comparatively unstable. South Americans are particularly susceptible to these narratives. It is usually associated with leftist ideas surrounding decolonialism, but this is by no means exclusive - plenty of conservatives will blame the gringo for problems that are squarely within the realm of their control (at least insofar as anything can be "within our control," but the premise that such a culpability exists is already accepted by anyone arguing that "It's all the Americans' fault."). > you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. Petro's exact words were: "La cocaína es ilegal porque la hacen en América Latina, no porque sea más mala que el whisky." This is manifestly not the case. The sort of blase attitude he takes towards a substance that has done so much to destroy his country is emblematic of the civic incompetence I alluded to.