51–60 of 124 posts
What I think many of the jaded comments about how "it was ever thus" miss is what it means that American soft power is reduced to AI slop. During the Cold War, the CIA famously funded all sorts of cultural endeavors, but much of the output (if not directly CIA-created, then at least bolstered by the Agency) is still held to have been culturally relevant: abstract expressionism ( https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being capitalist implies being right wing Oh boy, no it does not. Supporting low-intervention markets ( i.e. brutal competition among corporations) alongside high taxation of gains (and strong services for individuals) is absolutely coherent and both capitalist and not right wing. (It's a decent description of my politics.)
Aren't you a venture capitalist? A left wing one?
Pretty much.
> A left wing one?
Wouldn't say that. I like wealth redistribution and taxation as a tool of both economic empowerment and political equalisation.
I do have friends whom I'd consider left wing. I agree with them on many issues, from unionising bars to raising the minimum wage. I disagree with them on others, e.g. regulating everything for the sake of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's strange that people look at the millions dead from starvation from communism, and the quite recent destruction of Venezuela, and still think communism can somehow work this time .
Nordic style social democracy works quite well though. Communism sucks, but too much unregulated Capitalism isn't great either, as we can see in USA and many other countries that suffer from extreme inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems some AI propaganda has already worked on you.
It's strange that people look at the millions dead from starvation from communism, and the quite recent destruction of Venezuela, and still think communism can somehow work this time .
Or, what system is not responsible for human atrocities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems some AI propaganda has already worked on you.
It seems you're not from LatAm.
The real threat has always been corrupt governments and corporations meddling in politics that gave away the birth of guerrillas (and even sponsored them) like here in Colombia.
The "socialism bad" has been in many cases just an excuse for so many here to hold themselves in power and make the lifes of the less fortunate completely miserable.
Power just corrupts, be it from "left" or "right".
What I think many of the jaded comments about how "it was ever thus" miss is what it means that American soft power is reduced to AI slop. During the Cold War, the CIA famously funded all sorts of cultural endeavors, but much of the output (if not directly CIA-created, then at least bolstered by the Agency) is still held to have been culturally relevant: abstract expressionism ( https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20…
Genuine question, were we ever great at this?
1. I think the examples I linked to are real, in the sense that they were both a) CIA funded (or boosted) and b) are broadly credible cultural output.
2. Voice of America was a real media outlet with real cultural impact.
There are also non-American examples. The BBC World Service is (or was) pretty widely listened to, which strikes me as a pretty big soft-power boost for an otherwise waning colonial power.
I do think what separates those from (apparently) this example is that they were all output that had genuine value to the target audience. That's sort of like the discussion around USAID: it was, indeed, also often CIA-adjacent and, during the Cold War, was anything but a purely altruistic endeavor (which is why it's so funny to see reactionaries describing it as some sort of bleeding-heart operation), but it nonetheless provided genuine value to recipients of its relatively meager budget.
What seems to be the dominant philosophy in Washington now is either a) America can get all the same cultural influence for cheap via AI, or b) soft power influence doesn't matter anyway because America has the Tomahawk missiles.
I think both of those views are likely to be incorrect.
If the American system is so good, why does it always need to be promoted in such strange ways? LA people should be so eager to be pro-America