I didn't read animal farms, but 1984 is irrelevant to communism. It's about totalitarism. The same kind of things happened in Staline USSR, Hitler Germany, and Mussolini Italy. Also Pétain France, Franco Spain, and probably many others.
Main features are permanent surveillance, even at home, perpetual war, exaltation of patriotism,...
If that reminds you something, it's normal.
You know what's funny? I can say exactly the same about you. I think you forgot what the conversation was even about.
Ce sont des faits énoncés dans la vidéo. Ils illustrent la différence de traitement entre les problèmes liés au nucléaire et les autres quand bien même les dangers sont les mêmes.
Il y a une histérie et une paranoïa face au nucléaire qui n'a absolument rien de rationnel. Comparer avec d'autres problèmes similaires permet de recontextualiser le débat.
Thank you for proving my point: I ask a simple question, and you hide behind arrogance and disdain, abandoning me with no answer. This is precisely what I was saying.
I understand this very well, but that's not my question. This is in fact irrelevant to the subject here. I'm not asking you about the rights minorities should get. I'm asking you about the cis-heterosexual men and women.
I'm not asking about theoretical or abstract things. I'm asking a simple question.
If your answer is that it is too complex, then you now know what the problem is. And that's exactly the problem I'm referring to.
If you can't understand that, then the problem doesn't come from the people who don't understand your complex theories.
Now that's where we disagree, unless there are things you didn't say: progressives and feminism don't offer solutions to modern problems IMO.
And that's what I'm basically saying and asking you from the beginning. If there are solutions proposed, what are they?
What is this argument? I'm trying to understand. Here you're not giving an argument though, merely an analysis. You don't say anything about what's possible about the problem. Except maybe explaining more and better then?
Men have nothing to win out of the Conservative ideology btw. It's very harmful to them. Both physically and psychologically. But people don't choose an ideology after a cost/benefit analysis anyway.
Populism works since Caesar, and there wasn't Internet back then... Napoléon? Hitler and Mussolini? Do you know how it went in antic democratic Athen? Populism goes with democracy. Internet has nothing to do with it.
The society is more complex than ever? I read it at least twice: in a XVth century book, and in an antiquity one.
But this is beside the subject. You've said nothing here to explain why the reactionaries (the alt right, the far right, populism) are benefiting from this more than the left. Are you saying that the left can't win? Are you saying that we should shut down Internet?
You need to go farther in your analysis. There always were political forces opposing each other. The progressists were wining for women until recently. Why is it changing when young are so much more informed and educated than people were 50 years ago?
J'ai pas l'impression que tu aies conscience des dangers des métaux lourds là...
Et du coup tu refuses de faire une radio ou de prendre l'avion pour rester logique vis à vis de cette peur du nucléaire ? Tu fait quoi contre le radon ?
Tu peux essayer de manger des trucs cultivés à côté d'une décharge de métaux lourds si tu veux une comparaison plus honnête.
Le titre n'est pas en opposition. Il est ambiguë, éventuellement. On peut le comprendre comme évoquant le risque qu'il y a oublier ou comme l'idée que ce pourrait être une solution. Le reportage montre ce qui est fait pour ne pas oublier, parce que c'est le rôle de l'andra. Et la fin donne l'avis de l'auteur sur la question à l'aide d'une comparaison avec les décharges à ciel ouvert. Ce qui est pertinent avec le traitement du sujet sous l'angle de la mémoire.
You are twisting my words. I understand what you're saying. But you refuse to understand what I am saying. Just because I don't say "yes you are right and I am wrong" doesn't mean I don't understand you. You're repeating yourself since the beginning.
But the best: you repeat ad nauseam how the solutions exist but are complex, yet you refuse to even try to give the beginning of one to the question I ask. With all the messages spent repeating how complex it is, you could at least have the beginning of something tangible.