In several years time, when Argentina has a full blown collapse, everyone will look back and say “see we knew this guy was bad news!” while all trying to convince each other they didn’t vote for him.
several years? he is speedrunning Argentina 2001
Nah. They’ll just repeat all the (in their mind) very legitimate reasons why they had to vote for him, because the establishment politicians failed them.
Watch, you should probably see the proof of this in real time.
It’s your fault, all you idiots who couldn’t stomach voting for Hilary, that Trump was elected, that the SCOTUS is fucked for a generation or two, that women’s rights has regressed by decades, etc.
Because that was the sticky wicket in Argentina that needed addressing. Should be smooth sailing from here.
That’s the first thing i thought. I’m quite sure Argentinians have more important issues to care about.
Lol, coming from the guy that almost cried when he met trump. Typical.
He looks like a 1970s British working men’s club comedian.
Very much so. I hear he has deliberately taken his style from that era as it evokes memories of strong Argentinian leadership, or something. Kind of like Nigel Farage wearing tweed so people accept him as part of the British leadership class. It’s all very cynical image manipulation.
Most “libertarians” in the world are just conservatives who don’t like the label. The fraction of them who actually embrace libertarianism in its truest form, especially when given any amount of power, is vanishingly small.
I’ve always said “Libertarians” (ignoring the fact that the word originally referred to libertarian socialists) are just conservatives who like weed and pedophilia.
Thats cause libertaianism isn’t a viable form of government, it technically can only lead to anarchy, but I feel like it’s used more by conservatives as a cover.
If you haven’t this is a great book about a town that tried to see what libertarian policies actually lead - https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Walks-Into-Bear-Liberate/dp/1541788516
Thats cause libertaianism isn’t a viable form of government
Its viable in so far as it is a marketing slogan used to distract and disguise the policy these assholes genuinely want to impose.
The libertarian mantras are seductive and libertarian populism - the theory of perfect economic independence via personal strength - is appealing to upwardly mobile / financially secure portions of the electorate. Using “the government” as a rhetorical punching bag when you’re out of power means you’re never on the wrong side of an issue. Whatever anyone’s complaint, you can sympathize by complaining that the government is doing things wrong.
If you haven’t this is a great book about a town that tried to see what libertarian policies actually lead
Its worth noting how and why these folks took power originally. Lots of money spent on advertising combined with a personal beef with the existing city council that had them undermining the basic functions of government even before they took office. Lots of empty promises and outright slanders of sitting officials. And a city that was already in financial decline, without a state or federal government willing to spend counter-cyclically and get them back on their feet.
This isn’t just a failure of libertarianism. The libertarianism is a symptom of a broader failure of a laisse-faire national economy.
2020’s libertarians aren’t very libertarian, are they?
They never were. Libertarianism is a more or less a fake ideology that is, in practice, just a thin veneer over garden-variety conservatism.
People who actually care about being staunch defenders of individual liberties call themselves liberals because that’s what the word means.
Depends on the “they” you’re talking about. Some conservatives like the name “libertarian” because it gives them air cover to like things like sex and drugs. Although, there are libertarians put their who border on anarchist, and basically want institutions out of most everything public and private.
This is definitely going to work out
economy about to rocket straight to the moon now surely
/SARCASM
narrator: It didn’t. And stop calling me shirley.
Seems like every country now has or will have a bad hairday leader
Reverse Wolverine strikes again!
There is nothing more Libertarian than taking rights away from people so Libertarians can live free!
Lmao, banning gender-inclusive language is such a funny way to put it. Like they cant even accidentally not mention a gender. Imagine like a police report: “The dog, WHICH WAS A BOY BY THE WAY WE CHECKED HIS DICK, was hit by a blue Lexus on Vermont St at 12:07am”
I had no idea gender-inclusive language caused catastrophic inflation
Oh Milei, I had such hopes for you. The only place that Libertarian-ism has in the “Culture Wars” is ensuring that all citizens have equality under the law.
Although to be fair a LOT of Spanish speakers don’t like the changes being forced into their language to meet a seemingly undefined “gender inclusive” standard.
Nobody is forcing anything anywhere here. It’s just some people that like to use gender neutral stuff, with some made up rules (as all languages are, made up stuff). If this picks up culturally, it will just get added to the massive amount of made up stuff Argentina’s Spanish had already. Supposedly he is defending the purity of language, while we already have a pretty forked version of it.
Also, you had high hopes for the dude whose political statement was waving a chainsaw around, lol you are lame.
Is there a rule that politicians with extremely stupid haircuts have to be subhuman conservative shitbags?
It doesn’t matter to me, but I understand that the prohibition applies to official documents (which frankly seems fine to me because they have to be as neutral as possible) and nothing more.
It’s not that for saying “TODES” in an AFIP department they’re going to cut you off.
Basically, you can talk like a mental retard if you want, but in official communication a certain degree of professionalism and correctness is expected.
In the same way that an official document should never say “tipo asi como ke ah re que la ley esta que zakamos esta ree picada perro, se prohibe la letra EEE” If you want to talk like that, you donyou, in official settings, NO.
The best thing is that the 2,000 departments of the state stop spending on “educational” resources. Don’t forget that there is gender management secretary, which is 50 people per entity because it is required some type of gender graduate to “authorize” that the communication is correctly following the norms on a gender focus.
Well, no, now it is not necessary to spend a fortune on “educational” resources.
Waste of money like few others
But muh freedomz!
Don’t take “freedom” as an absolute of “ah, so I can do whatever I want ña ña”. The regulations still exist. In this case because the official documents are written in the official language. Not with idioms, not with slang, not with emojis, not with cartoons, not with colloquial language.
And that doesn’t make you “less free.”
If someone in public administration wants to write text message style documentation? They can’t, is that going against freedom? No.
But it is not prohibiting freedom in a private sphere, it is in official documents. If tomorrow at work I start writing technical documentation in Esperanto, they will put a bullet in my ass.
So, no brother, you can’t write public documents however you want, because everyone has to understand you. It’s a job. Inclusive language promotes a political agenda that the voters of this government do not share.
The big problem Kirchnerists have behind this is that inclusive language ended up becoming Kirchnerist language. It became something of the party’s identity. If the intention had really been to change the way people express themselves, the strategy of sticking it to specifically this party didn’t work. They should have sought followers across the political spectrum.
I feel like you don’t understand the position you’re attacking or the word “neutral.”
Read again then. You clearly understood nothing
I understand that “neutral” doesn’t take a position and explicitly gendered language does. I understand that using generic (not gendered) plural third person pronouns in a singular form is both grammatically correct and universally accepted in languages that do not already have a gender-neutral pronoun. Notice the use “neutral” in “gender-neutral” to refer to the generic (not gendered) pronoun.
I don’t understand where you explain how a lack of gender-neutral pronouns is neutral. Could you show me where you did that? If you didn’t, you “clearly” don’t understand the point I was making.
Bro you need to learn Spanish, you clearly understand nothing
