"empowering an authoritarian who trampled over innocents and waged unaccountable violence of its own" -- Sounds like US policy from the 1930s (and episodically before) until . . . NOW, throughout Central America. Viva United Fruit Co.! Viva La Escuela de Americas! Abajo land reform, campesinos, Indios, constitutions, independent judiciary, due process and other civil rights, etc.Of course I mean to express no sympathy for MS-13 or Barrio 18, except that so many of their "associates" had no choice in the matter. The cops and National Guard are as brutal and uncontrollable as the gangs.
This substack never say nothing about the dictatorship running right now in Brazil, by the liberal president and Supreme Court, also liberal. The brazilian Supreme Court has been destroying democracy in Brazil, by not give the legal process to the charged. And, for example, the judge Alexandre de Moraes (Xandão) is, at same time, the judge, the prosecutor and the victim; all this with the consent of the drunk and corrupt president Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. I now why this substack is silence about this: its because the writers of this substack have a false concept of democracy: to they, democracy is a regime under baton of totalitarian progressive regimes that imposes by force "democracy", silence conservatives, justify that this imposition is a protection of democracy. These celerated was never will talking nothing about El Salvador if, conterfactually, today the old elite of this country, that celebrate "democracy" - like this substack -, would be in the power, "preservating" the "democracy". Because to this substack is more importante the formal democracy rather the actual democracy: if the formal democracy was preservating today in El Salvador, even with the population slave of crime, this substack was clapping the "democracy". I challenging some of the writers of this substack go to El Salvador and talking all this things in the face of a citizen of El Salvador that was enslaved by crime in the past, in the "democracy". Really, people in El Salvador thanks God that one "dictator" is destroying crime, rather preservating "democracy". If it were done from your perspective, population going to suffer with crime. That's why that the perspective of this site, the progressive democracy, is going bankrupt; and just a damned elite believe in this; the population, ostracized and oppressed by this elite - for example, censor conservative ideas against the evil Theory of Gender, labeling conservatives of "fascists". This elite, like Christopher Lasch agues in his book, The Revolt of Elites, its traitor of his people, getting away from them, try to imposes progressives ideas by force - because the liberals and progressives today thinking they are the "lights of civilization" and the conservatives, the people are brutes and rabbles. But, in the end of the day, the people are opressive by this liberal elite - who only think about themselves -: have your convictions desrespected and lost your jobs in a society even more inequal. And, equal El Salvador, the elite of El Salvador have the same think of this substack: they never fought against the crime of the manner that have to combate, because they was a great preocupation with "democracy". But its very easy to an elite preserving "democracy" while they have a great security in theirs fortresses. In the same time, however, the people was devasted by the crime. Nevertheless, if was this the case - the liberal elite preserving "democracy" on top of their fortresses, while the people were ravaged by crime - this substack would be celebrating the vigorous "democracy". Its very ease, in the armchair of the writers of this substack, criticize the El Salvador, without see, in fact, the complexity and suffer of the people of El Salvador.
Whataboutism is not an argument, neither is your rambling wall of text filled with strawmen. Not only did you not address any of the criticisms of Bukele levied in this article, you act as if it has to be a false dichotomy between a crime ridden corrupt democracy and a due process disrespecting autocracy that’s hard on crime. Why not a non-corrupt democracy that’s appropriately hard on crime?
So actually point to one criticism of Bukele this article levies, and address it instead of arguing against the rambling strawman you constructed in your fizzled or mind
You don't had any structural moral to say to me that I'm doing whataboutism and at tack straw man? What straw man? Does you, after all, read my commentary? My critic is more global than just what this article says about Bukele - I approach the silence of the totalitarism of my country, the cinism of progressive elite and the completly two weights and two sizes that this substack and progressive made when they talk about democracy. I said as well that the concept of democracy of the progressists is wrong. Its you that creat a straw man of what I say and do not understanding nothing what I say - so, you do not have a moral structure to say nothing what I say (well, its really not a novel, because progressists are dogmatics and have serious cognitive problems).
Firstly, you mistake liberalism, the ideals advocated for by this sub, with progressivism, not what this sub supports.
And if your best evidence that this sub supports what you allege is happening in Brazil is that they haven’t yet criticised it, then you need to find better evidence. Just because I didn’t criticise Person B doesn’t mean I approve of Person B’s actions. Absence of criticism is not the same as approval.
I did mistake about liberalism of this sub. As I exemplify in my comment, this sub did defend ideas against Israel, stand in the side of terrorists of Gaza, and a view very radical with respect moral (identitarism, transgenderism, for example). And Brazil doesn't is the unique evidence - I just gave an example -; as I comment, this sub implicity defend the censorship institute against conservatives by the pretext that this censorship its good because its to save "democracy". I could give more one example: the nazi canadian presidente: Trudeau - they never write one caracter about this sociopat. Or, they never talk about the radicalism of the transgender agenda in United States or in Europe. Or, they never talk about orwellian policies in UK about the persecute people just because this people post some opinion in twitter.
In question of Hamas, again, and this is the substance of my argumentation, they implicit are pro-Hamas in implicit mode. For example, in an article, a few months ago, they minimize the antissemit protests in the campus, instead of deliberated criticize the antissemit nature. In concern of censorshio of conservatives, they silent about this; and this silence is very condenscendence. You never thinking why they just critic the iliberalism in the right - as a this problem would be the problem just the right -, and never criticize nothing about the iliberalism of the left and liberals? I gave various examples of iliberalisms; but you just dismiss this saing that "the trans rent a apartment in my brain"... Well, if was to doing diversionisms, we don't arrived in any place. But, I continue my point to give you an example. A person that is truly in favour of liberty and free speech will criticize all ideologies. For example, I'm a social conservative. In Brazil we have two iliberals movements: in the left, parties like PT, Psol and the principal politician - Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -; in right, in my ideology camp, we have bolsonarismo and politician Bolsonaro. I criticize the two movements and politicians, in the same manner that various conservatives criticez the two, even if one of this politicians and movements are conservative. So, again, the true spirit of classical liberalism and classical conservatism is criticized all forms of iliberalism - no matter if they are of left or right. This substack is not compromised with classical liberalism - they are iliberal progressives. Because they criticized just one ideology. And, again, wouldn't it be more consistent if this substack criticized the iliberals regimes of two ideologies, like, for example, Orban, of right wing, and Trudeau, of left-wing? Why they never do it? Its because they consider the iliberalism of liberals good and democratic? Or its because they are tribalists, and they think that, despite the iliberalism of liberals, its not good to criticized them because this would favour far-right? There is no good explanation for behavior of this substack; this behaviour is tipical of people that said that is defensor of democracy, but, at same time, favour approaches that its not democratic.
Some of those set piece events like the armed group entering the legislature and others mentioned seem like he is deliberately aping Caesar or Napoleon
The level of backwardness and extreme leftism of the Democrats surprises me. Defenders of the narco guerrillas that frightened people. No, this whole article is wrong.
The whole article makes no sense, for the simple reason of analyzing from the first world, and thinking that here in Latin America we are like you. Here we have barbarism, here we have judges who are complicit in terrorism and drug trafficking. THERE ARE NO INSTITUTIONS to be able to resolve these problems democratically and with due process. People have already voted at the polls and more than 80% of Salvadorans do not feel that Bukele is violating their human rights.
Who in the world are you talking about? Literally NO ONE "defend[s] the narco guerrillas." How about Republicans who are defenders of violations of human rights, suspension of due process of law, right-wing death squads, government torture, guilt by remote "association," and the other atrocities effected by the brutal "governments" of failed states effectively created by US "anticommunist" policies?
"empowering an authoritarian who trampled over innocents and waged unaccountable violence of its own" -- Sounds like US policy from the 1930s (and episodically before) until . . . NOW, throughout Central America. Viva United Fruit Co.! Viva La Escuela de Americas! Abajo land reform, campesinos, Indios, constitutions, independent judiciary, due process and other civil rights, etc.Of course I mean to express no sympathy for MS-13 or Barrio 18, except that so many of their "associates" had no choice in the matter. The cops and National Guard are as brutal and uncontrollable as the gangs.
This substack never say nothing about the dictatorship running right now in Brazil, by the liberal president and Supreme Court, also liberal. The brazilian Supreme Court has been destroying democracy in Brazil, by not give the legal process to the charged. And, for example, the judge Alexandre de Moraes (Xandão) is, at same time, the judge, the prosecutor and the victim; all this with the consent of the drunk and corrupt president Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. I now why this substack is silence about this: its because the writers of this substack have a false concept of democracy: to they, democracy is a regime under baton of totalitarian progressive regimes that imposes by force "democracy", silence conservatives, justify that this imposition is a protection of democracy. These celerated was never will talking nothing about El Salvador if, conterfactually, today the old elite of this country, that celebrate "democracy" - like this substack -, would be in the power, "preservating" the "democracy". Because to this substack is more importante the formal democracy rather the actual democracy: if the formal democracy was preservating today in El Salvador, even with the population slave of crime, this substack was clapping the "democracy". I challenging some of the writers of this substack go to El Salvador and talking all this things in the face of a citizen of El Salvador that was enslaved by crime in the past, in the "democracy". Really, people in El Salvador thanks God that one "dictator" is destroying crime, rather preservating "democracy". If it were done from your perspective, population going to suffer with crime. That's why that the perspective of this site, the progressive democracy, is going bankrupt; and just a damned elite believe in this; the population, ostracized and oppressed by this elite - for example, censor conservative ideas against the evil Theory of Gender, labeling conservatives of "fascists". This elite, like Christopher Lasch agues in his book, The Revolt of Elites, its traitor of his people, getting away from them, try to imposes progressives ideas by force - because the liberals and progressives today thinking they are the "lights of civilization" and the conservatives, the people are brutes and rabbles. But, in the end of the day, the people are opressive by this liberal elite - who only think about themselves -: have your convictions desrespected and lost your jobs in a society even more inequal. And, equal El Salvador, the elite of El Salvador have the same think of this substack: they never fought against the crime of the manner that have to combate, because they was a great preocupation with "democracy". But its very easy to an elite preserving "democracy" while they have a great security in theirs fortresses. In the same time, however, the people was devasted by the crime. Nevertheless, if was this the case - the liberal elite preserving "democracy" on top of their fortresses, while the people were ravaged by crime - this substack would be celebrating the vigorous "democracy". Its very ease, in the armchair of the writers of this substack, criticize the El Salvador, without see, in fact, the complexity and suffer of the people of El Salvador.
Whataboutism is not an argument, neither is your rambling wall of text filled with strawmen. Not only did you not address any of the criticisms of Bukele levied in this article, you act as if it has to be a false dichotomy between a crime ridden corrupt democracy and a due process disrespecting autocracy that’s hard on crime. Why not a non-corrupt democracy that’s appropriately hard on crime?
So actually point to one criticism of Bukele this article levies, and address it instead of arguing against the rambling strawman you constructed in your fizzled or mind
You don't had any structural moral to say to me that I'm doing whataboutism and at tack straw man? What straw man? Does you, after all, read my commentary? My critic is more global than just what this article says about Bukele - I approach the silence of the totalitarism of my country, the cinism of progressive elite and the completly two weights and two sizes that this substack and progressive made when they talk about democracy. I said as well that the concept of democracy of the progressists is wrong. Its you that creat a straw man of what I say and do not understanding nothing what I say - so, you do not have a moral structure to say nothing what I say (well, its really not a novel, because progressists are dogmatics and have serious cognitive problems).
Pace and Bene.
Firstly, you mistake liberalism, the ideals advocated for by this sub, with progressivism, not what this sub supports.
And if your best evidence that this sub supports what you allege is happening in Brazil is that they haven’t yet criticised it, then you need to find better evidence. Just because I didn’t criticise Person B doesn’t mean I approve of Person B’s actions. Absence of criticism is not the same as approval.
Peace out, m8
I did mistake about liberalism of this sub. As I exemplify in my comment, this sub did defend ideas against Israel, stand in the side of terrorists of Gaza, and a view very radical with respect moral (identitarism, transgenderism, for example). And Brazil doesn't is the unique evidence - I just gave an example -; as I comment, this sub implicity defend the censorship institute against conservatives by the pretext that this censorship its good because its to save "democracy". I could give more one example: the nazi canadian presidente: Trudeau - they never write one caracter about this sociopat. Or, they never talk about the radicalism of the transgender agenda in United States or in Europe. Or, they never talk about orwellian policies in UK about the persecute people just because this people post some opinion in twitter.
And c’mon, where did this sub ever say or imply that actual, freakin’ censorship against conservatives was good?
Where in the hell did ya get the idea this sub is pro-Hamas? What freaking crack are ya smoking?
And I dunno about you, but trans people sure do live rent free in ya head.
In question of Hamas, again, and this is the substance of my argumentation, they implicit are pro-Hamas in implicit mode. For example, in an article, a few months ago, they minimize the antissemit protests in the campus, instead of deliberated criticize the antissemit nature. In concern of censorshio of conservatives, they silent about this; and this silence is very condenscendence. You never thinking why they just critic the iliberalism in the right - as a this problem would be the problem just the right -, and never criticize nothing about the iliberalism of the left and liberals? I gave various examples of iliberalisms; but you just dismiss this saing that "the trans rent a apartment in my brain"... Well, if was to doing diversionisms, we don't arrived in any place. But, I continue my point to give you an example. A person that is truly in favour of liberty and free speech will criticize all ideologies. For example, I'm a social conservative. In Brazil we have two iliberals movements: in the left, parties like PT, Psol and the principal politician - Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -; in right, in my ideology camp, we have bolsonarismo and politician Bolsonaro. I criticize the two movements and politicians, in the same manner that various conservatives criticez the two, even if one of this politicians and movements are conservative. So, again, the true spirit of classical liberalism and classical conservatism is criticized all forms of iliberalism - no matter if they are of left or right. This substack is not compromised with classical liberalism - they are iliberal progressives. Because they criticized just one ideology. And, again, wouldn't it be more consistent if this substack criticized the iliberals regimes of two ideologies, like, for example, Orban, of right wing, and Trudeau, of left-wing? Why they never do it? Its because they consider the iliberalism of liberals good and democratic? Or its because they are tribalists, and they think that, despite the iliberalism of liberals, its not good to criticized them because this would favour far-right? There is no good explanation for behavior of this substack; this behaviour is tipical of people that said that is defensor of democracy, but, at same time, favour approaches that its not democratic.
*president
Some of those set piece events like the armed group entering the legislature and others mentioned seem like he is deliberately aping Caesar or Napoleon
The level of backwardness and extreme leftism of the Democrats surprises me. Defenders of the narco guerrillas that frightened people. No, this whole article is wrong.
Your logical fallacy is: Strawman
Where did this article defend the gangs? Name where?
The whole article makes no sense, for the simple reason of analyzing from the first world, and thinking that here in Latin America we are like you. Here we have barbarism, here we have judges who are complicit in terrorism and drug trafficking. THERE ARE NO INSTITUTIONS to be able to resolve these problems democratically and with due process. People have already voted at the polls and more than 80% of Salvadorans do not feel that Bukele is violating their human rights.
Who in the world are you talking about? Literally NO ONE "defend[s] the narco guerrillas." How about Republicans who are defenders of violations of human rights, suspension of due process of law, right-wing death squads, government torture, guilt by remote "association," and the other atrocities effected by the brutal "governments" of failed states effectively created by US "anticommunist" policies?