ormr

Thanks, I need to change accounts anyway and I will move to lemm.ee I think :) The policy sounds good to me.

A lot of it is truthful information for sure. But sentences along the lines of "the west has never forgiven Haiti" are quite obviously biased and tell of a rather black-and-white view of the world. The west is not monolithic. Haiti is so far away from those countries that most of the west probably couldn't care less about what's happening in Haiti. Just like most South American countries couldn't care less about what's happening in Ukraine.

With the former colonial powers of Haiti, especially France, that's of course a different case and they contributed a lot to the sad state of affairs in Haiti.

Or "if I were president of Haiti, first thing I would do is remove Haiti from Caracom". Yeah... Okay why? Whatever the history was, why would someone think that less regional cooperation would improve anything for Haiti? Also what kind of undemocratic mindset is that? You could at least say "I would do a referendum." Alright, she was probably joking... But she's definitely far from unbiased or objective.

In any case I think if you asked the average Haitian what they would like to see in their country it's probably the same thing people need and crave everywhere: Peace, and a good economical perspective to improve their livelihood. And for that it doesn't matter if you're part of an empire or not. You can very much be free and be part of an empire.

Ultimately you need stability to achieve peace and prosperity and the chances for that are often even higher when you're part of an empire. Most people on earth would always prefer peace and stability over revolution if there's any alternative to the latter.

Lol, sounds totally unbiased to me...

After all, why wouldn't you believe in unbiased reports from a channel named "neutrality studies"?

Ist das der China scare?

Natürlich das geht damit einher. Also ich frage mich ja was du willst: Willst du dass die Grünen möglichst stark sind um möglichst viel für einen Wandel bewirken zu können? Dann brauchst du Wählerstimmen um Macht zu bekommen.

Oder willst du "reine Lehre" Grüne die das Weltbild der Basis streicheln, aber am Ende nichts bewirken können weil keiner sie wählt?

Die Grünen könnten heute schon eine viel wichtigere Rolle in der Bundespolitik spielen, wenn sie Habeck zuletzt zum Spitzenkandidaten gemacht hätten. Aber aus wokeness-Gründen, weil keine andere Partei eine Frau als Spitzenkandidatin aufstellte entschied man sich für ACAB. Sie war aber die schlechtere Kandidatin: Politisch weniger erfahren, nicht so charismatisch, angreifbar und mit einer schlechten Kampagne.

Ich wünsche mir Parteien die nicht aus Ideologie heraus solche dummen Entscheidungen treffen, sondern strategisch überlegen, wie man eine macht Option hat.

Das funktioniert aber v.a. weil man den europäischen Markt mit Strafzöllen vor den chinesischen Herstellern schützen will. Eine schlechte Entscheidung für Verbraucher und für das Klima. Der Markt würde hier tatsächlich mal regeln und wir könnten, wenn es den politischen Wille gäbe, viel schneller umstellen.

Die geschützten Arbeitsplätze und damit auch gezahlte Steuern wird man an Klimafolgekosten mehr als aufzehren.

Deswegen braucht er ja auch mehr Macht. Weil die FDP in der Fiskalpolitik so durchregieren kann, sind den Grünen für viele wichtige Projekte die Hände gebunden. Gut, diese Forderung wird sicher wenig bringen, schließlich ist Scholz nicht dumm und wird den Teufel tun, seinen stärksten Konkurrenten um den Kanzlerposten innerhalb der Koalition zu stärken.

Aber die Forderung ist verständlich. Wenn die Grünen irgendeine Machtperspektive haben wollen dann ginge das nur mit einem Kanzlerkandidat Habeck, der aber grade aus einer eher schlechten Position starten würde.

Ich respektiere die Wahl für BSW. Diese Partei als "Demokratiefeinde" abzukanzeln ist wirklich Hardcore polemisch und absolut daneben.

There may be parallels but there are also such huge differences that I cant really buy into that comparison. Most of all before WW2 no one had nuclear weapons. It's a difference that can't be underestimated. You may think that Putin is a lunatic but you can be sure that above all he cares about his own survival. So why should he do anything that could provoke a 3rd world war? The moment that there's an open war with NATO... He knows that he's a dead man.

Moreover, Russia is in no position to fight against let alone occupy any NATO country. They couldn't even occupy half of Ukraine so far and they've lost so many troops. Yes they're trying to build a war economy but Russia has no population that's expendable. They're already in a deep demographic crisis and this war will only cripple their economic outlook for a long time to come.

I really don't see how Russia is supposed to pull of the Hitler playbook. Putin would risk everything without a prospect of success. They'll keep fighting in Ukraine and continue their hybrid FUD war but that's all there is.

The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don't understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it's all about networking, all about names. I don't know why we can't just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

Sorry, my irony detector must be malfunctioning.

And which reviewer or publishers verifies how "significant" a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like "visualization" or "experimental design"? That's right, nobody. It's not even remotely traceable who did what if you're a reviewer.

Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it's all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.