Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 97

On February 02 2019 02:03 Spitfiree wrote: You guys seem to be trying to figure out some fundamental truths about the meaning of life here and turn it into a political talk somehow. It's kind of funny on a weird level. Loco your whole argument is based on the fact that you believe human nature is good and that statement is true for everyone, while in fact, if you were correct, you wouldn't even have to defend that point. Aiming at that utopia, while disregarding how easily humans get corrupted is plainly naive. Vice article on that commune says that the townsfolk actually complain of petty thefts from people of Pooles Land (e.g. missing bikes).... A much better solution for the overall, general happiness of people would be investments in mental health, rather than living in communes, that look to be ignoring any technological advancement the past 400 years... they even lack sewage system.... do you realize how big of a health risk that is? I agree that people are generally unhappy in the west and thats due to shittons of factors e.g. from not actually having any freedom since a child in terms of anything (thats why Scandinavian kids are the healthies, their educational system offers highest opportunity of freedom), to being bombarded with information 24/7 (all because of technological advancement). We've just developed so quickly that our bodies and mind simply can't keep up, which chronically stresses us out...

My posts have nothing to do with the meaning of life. I look at life like a biologist. I'm interested in what it is, what it does, how it thrives and destroys itself. Not the 'why' of it. In linguistics (semiotics), this is the difference between the signifier and the signified.

In other words, my concerns are public health concerns and wider concerns related to ecology which I view as inseparable. Political economy has everything to do with it. The economic system that we exist in structures the way we learn to interact with ourselves, others, and the environment. It can either minimize or maximize negative outcomes. There is no perfect system and I don't make arguments in favor of one. Communes are largely positive and if the larger environment was more hospitable to them, they would have a lot less trouble being more hygienic.

You complained about bureaucrats being the cancer of society just a few post backs and now you're saying the solution is "investing in mental health"... like it's not going to be something that is in the hands of bureaucrats. Can you clarify? Also we don't have a mental health system, we have a mental illness system, one which, under capitalism, is designed to make people functional productivists, i.e. to keep them operating at the level where they can do work that benefits a minority of people, not to help them flourish and realize themselves. As long as you're not quite sick enough to not be able to work, you're a resolved case. The only thing that matters to a capitalist society is to maintain its hierarchical structure, and it does so always at the cost of the individuals within it and that is the basis of my anti-capitalism. It has no respect for human life or any life for that matter. It is by definition not a functional society but a pathological one, because it destroys itself by destroying its constituent parts and the systems on which it depends for its existence.

"Vice article on that commune says that the townsfolk actually complain of petty thefts from people of Pooles Land (e.g. missing bikes)...."

People will always complain about the "alien other". If they are so concerned about whatever it is they claim has been stolen, maybe they should just go there and look for it and take it back. It's not locked. It isn't like they magically make bikes disappear. These people are not propertarians. If they took something it's "borrowing" in their minds. This is really a minor issue compared to the kinds of issues that this place, as a social safety net and place of self-discovery can solve. Just in living in the current system we are "stealing" as well. We support its practices of "stealing", i.e. appropriating resources, land and time from people who have no power to defend themselves by participating in the economy.

If you don't support participatory democracy, but you also want to get rid of bureaucrats, then what are you even arguing for?

Also a truly happy human/commune of people wouldn't need to use drugs.. why would it?

Why would you assume that this statement is true? Isn't this riddled with bias/value judgments? Also, did anyone in there claim that everyone is perfectly happy? Why argue such a strawman in the first place? The owner says it's a place where people get to have an experience of their life that is more full. It is a process. He's not saying "we've all arrived at the end of the road and now we are all truly happy." I am not aware of any knock-down arguments against the possibility that drugs can play some part in being happier/feeling more free. Especially when we come from a culture that makes us highly inhibited individuals. If you lump things like magic mushrooms with alcohol and cigarettes and you associate all of them with negative outcomes, then yeah it looks bad, but why would you do that?

Other than it's inhabitants sharing a similar ideology is there anyway that Poole's land is functionally different from any other homeless encampment in any other city? Do they grow their own food, have their own healthcare system, education system, anything? If they do the documentary doesn't do a great job of showing how this is a functioning society and not just a camp for homeless hippies.

You asked about the impracticality of implementing communism... I responded with two examples of something close to it, which include the things that you are mentioning here (healthcare, education) so that you could see the practical steps that can be taken but you decide to focus on Poole's land, which is obviously a lot less organized than the ones I gave you as examples (and doesn't have those things). I mentioned Poole's land in response to Baal's comment. Places like Poole's land serve more as an example of something resembling an ecovillage, where people need very little money to live and try to be as self-reliant and environmentally sustainable as possible (yes, they do grow as much of their food as they can). If you ask "other than their ideology [...]" then you are basically saying that ideology doesn't influence functionality... which doesn't make any sense. It is functionally different than an homeless encampment that just contains homeless people in the same space if the homeless are not organizing in any way. Members of Poole's commune are (or were) not necessarily homeless and they are actively helping one another and building shit together. The homeless groups basically just suffer the same indignities day in day out; they don't have land to build anything and they don't feel in control of their lives.

On February 02 2019 16:15 Loco wrote: It is "the" question of course, and it is one that I ask myself all the time, even though I can't do anything about it right now. I have a chronic illness that when is active absolutely requires a specific medication (and it is right now) and it basically prevents me from having a social life. (This is an illness that is virtually non-existent in so-called poor countries, so again, rich countries have their own problems). I also have obligations that I "signed up for" before I radicalized and can't abandon. WIth the Zapatistas, I would have to find a way to contribute, because like you said, I probably can't adjust to that labor intensive lifestyle (though I would like to learn more about ecology hands-on). It would have been more suitable for me to go to Rojava for a while. Although I dislike war, Edgar Morin said that his war experience was a form of psychoanalysis, and I think it could do me some good as a one time experience. I know there are two anarchists who went there from Montreal and they said they met "the best human beings on the planet" during their stay. It's something I'm still in the process of learning about. I would probably want to go to a place like Poole's first. It's in the back of my mind to take a road trip there probably next year. I have little experience with drugs, only did mushrooms once in a bad environment, so I think there could be something in it for me. I'm definitely not a hippie and I'm resolutely against New Age thought so I wouldn't fit in into a purely hippie commune. It's the ecological sustainability aspect and the solidarity aspect that inspires me. "We all suffer a little so that no one has to suffer a lot". But I'm more of an individualist than these guys and I need a lot of quiet time to myself. I would not do well in an environment that is always noisy.

Is it lyme disease?

It's IBD

you need more protein

+ Show Spoiler +

Okay so a bit back to reality:

https://news.sky.com/story/venezuelan...gainst-nicolas-maduro-starts-11626037

This is happening, whether its good or bad, or if its orchistrated by the USA or not is irrelevant, Venezuela will remove Maduro, the only problem is that there are two ways it would go. Either the army would back up "democracy" which I doubt will happen in Venezuela any time soon, considering the military is the one that holds the oil ... thus holds the country, or the army would back up Maduro and there will be a blood bath :/

It only makes sense for the military to cause some false flag occurence(doesnt have to be an attack) or leak some questionable information and blame Maduro for it, then switch sides to Guaido. I mean, they can't just switch sides, just because of reasons, the military is in a very tricky situation and have a lot to lose in the long run. The blood bath situation would happen if there is an internal struggle for power within the military though.


@Loco I would say investment into mental health is kind of a wide area the way I've stated it, but the money would not go into bureaucrats. An example would be investing into NPOs that try to influence society by implementing mentally beneficial policies into all social areas - from kindergartens to universities, from hospitals to government institutions, to the private sector. This is a very, very broad suggestion, I realize that. Except that there are quite a few physical activities proven to beneficial to one's mental health. Let's take breathing techniques as an example, what if kids from an young age are persuaded to learn breathing techniques and be given a few minutes a day to exercise. It would be a much more efficient activity than sports class in schools imo, it takes less time, brings a lot of value and requires not too much effort (im not saying cut off sports class). That was only meant as an example of things that could be done.

If you don't support participatory democracy, but you also want to get rid of bureaucrats, then what are you even arguing for?

Sure except you imply that participatory democracy would be a society where no one actually owns anything, thus its an ego-less society (I'm sure i dont have to explain why to you). How would that work exactly? In the current system we are "stealing" in another way. Every person has same rights, and those rights allow him to figure out how to act and what to do. If you believe that "borrowing" someone else's belonging is fine, who would stop 10 people from "borrowing" a house you build with your own hands with the purpose of living there? What incentive would people have to do anything, if they can't protect their achievements?

I was going to say that we would need to reinvent the way we think as species, however thats probably too far stretched out, as we are obviously conditioned to think in a certain way due to social influences. Either way, again, that type of a society is a utopia, as there would be no maleficent intent ever.

------Also about a previous post you had where you were saying how you probably wouldn't fit into a Poole's type of place cause you need time for yourself and can't really do well in a noisy place for too long. I'm guessing the information you have on Poole's is either through media or youtube videos. The whole concept of those things existing is for other people to read/watch them. Obviously you would pick the extroverts to show, so you could spike the interest on the topic. Would you film a guy smoking weed isolated in his room, while thinking about whether he should read Schopenhauer or Hegel, who the fuck would watch that? Also I really doubt there are highly intellectual people living there, that could spark up some kind of a debate which could be filmed either and even if there is, its highly unlikely that it would happen. Anyway what I mean to say is, there should certainly be a fair amount of introverts there, even if they dont appear on the sources you've seen

On February 02 2019 08:24 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 02 2019 03:39 Stroggoz wrote: Don't think that 'champaigne socialist' argument works, you see Somalia as being an improvement under it's anarcho capitalism experiment yet i doubt you would want to live there. There is nothing wrong with being in a privledged position and critiqing a political system you benefit from. I welcome the dissenters in stalinist russia who held priveledged positions, for example. I welcome bertrand russell for advocating womens vote even tho he was in a priveledged position (white, male, rich, aristocratic). Same for Chomsky, he worked at the heart of the military research system his whole life, there is nothing hypocritcal in criticizing military if you work for it. Imo it is the responsibility of those with priviledge to critic their own socities, and offer improvements or alternatives, they have the easiest job in doing so. I cited Zapitista as resistance to capitalism, I don't see how anyone can disagree with it. There are many other examples to choose from. I know its a shitty argument but I used it only because Loco said that he is suffering in the capitalist model and that he lived among bums and hookers and the only reason he hasn't gone into drugs is because he shelters in knowledge and art I'm legitimately asking, actually more than that, I'm encouraging it because I think its quite likely he is happier there or learns a lot. Well tbh he probably wouldn't last with the EZLN these are impovered very uneducated people who have worked long hours of hard labor since they were kids so I dont think many of us could switch to that with ease, but I can see him living in a hippie commune. I've mentioned it before but its funny that most of my friends think like you guys, I have many friends who seriously consider buying land and opening a hippie commune, some friends own a business that sells healing mushrooms, other teaches women to weave in a empowering spiritual way etc, others go to peyote retreats in the desert, get high on frog poison etc, I'm just the cynic of the group and they hold back some of their hippiest stuff because I pounce right away and they aren't as good as you guys at arguing back :D. So what I'm saying is that most of my friens are "locos" but less angsty lol.

The hippie commune idea is largely propaganda, but ofc there are people who see it and like that way of life. Anarcho syndacalism and socialism was never about making small communes, but for organizing large industrial societies. So yes there are people on the left who buy into that idea, if one thinks about autarchic societies like that, they are not appealing to mainstream and prob won't ever be when you seriously consider it, imo. (i wouldn't want to live that way). however anarchism 100 years ago was only only about organizing large industrial society towards fairn and non-heirachical structures.

There is such a thing as personal property in anarchist societies spitfire. Again, the idea that you can just borrow someone's possessions is capitalist propaganda to make anarchism look bad. There are some on the left that buy into this, but it's not mainstream anarchism.

On February 03 2019 02:31 Stroggoz wrote: There is such a thing as personal property in anarchist societies spitfire. Again, the idea that you can just borrow someone's possessions is capitalist propaganda to make anarchism look bad. There are some on the left that buy into this, but it's not mainstream anarchism.

The thing is, a bike would be considered personal property in an anarchist society, which was given as an example and he led his argument further after saying that the people in the commune viewed it as "borrowing", anyway I'm guessing we've defined all of that well by now. I would simply not ignore violation of personal rights, just because it's a minor thing. It opens up a precedent regardless of what kind of a society one aims for.

On February 03 2019 02:35 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 03 2019 02:31 Stroggoz wrote: There is such a thing as personal property in anarchist societies spitfire. Again, the idea that you can just borrow someone's possessions is capitalist propaganda to make anarchism look bad. There are some on the left that buy into this, but it's not mainstream anarchism. The thing is, a bike would be considered personal property in an anarchist society, which was given as an example and he led his argument further after saying that the people in the commune viewed it as "borrowing", anyway I'm guessing we've defined all of that well by now. I would simply not ignore violation of personal rights, just because it's a minor thing. It opens up a precedent regardless of what kind of a society one aims for.

The ownership system for anarchism is 'socialization' of assets, those who work in their workplace ought to be in control of decisions, and management, and ought to own a share of their labour. Though there is some wiggle room on this depending on what the public needs. A fair society will need to be worked out through trial and error and not theory. Should also note that within capitalist societies there are various degrees of anarchism in work places. Software engineers working for google get a lot more freedom in their workplace than the foxconn factory workers; academics get a pretty decent amount of freedom in their work. There are also a lot of business models that are non-heirachical in work structure, in capitalist socities, but they are squashed quickly from being bought out, often.

On February 03 2019 02:35 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 03 2019 02:31 Stroggoz wrote: There is such a thing as personal property in anarchist societies spitfire. Again, the idea that you can just borrow someone's possessions is capitalist propaganda to make anarchism look bad. There are some on the left that buy into this, but it's not mainstream anarchism. The thing is, a bike would be considered personal property in an anarchist society, which was given as an example and he led his argument further after saying that the people in the commune viewed it as "borrowing", anyway I'm guessing we've defined all of that well by now. I would simply not ignore violation of personal rights, just because it's a minor thing. It opens up a precedent regardless of what kind of a society one aims for.

What has happened is the idea of zero personal property appealed to a tiny amount of anarchists, the capitalists focused on that small faction and said that's what anarchism is, to try and deligitimize it. Some people looked at that idea of what anarchism is, and called themselves leftists. So yeah there are a bunch of people on the 'left' who buy into capitalist propaganda, and think we should live like primative societies and there should be no rules, and without personal property, ect. This is how the definition of anarchism has changed over time.

The idea of personal property-it's a gray area on what can be defined as personal and what is private. This is not at all a simple issue and has to be worked out through trial and error by any society wishing to embrace anarchism. Some people can share bikes, and communes can do that as well if they want, this is all something that has to be worked out for each society and it can be a good thing depending on the circumstances-i mean police forces share cars to save on money, so capitalist and facsist socities have deemed it to be efficient in some work places, but thanks to propaganda a lot of people think anarchism is just a society where no one has any personal property.

what matters here is that the word's hippe and commune are used when talking of sharing things. It's done in many work places to save on costs in capitalist socities, but just calling it a hippy commune conveys the right images in people's minds to delitigitmise it.

On February 03 2019 02:21 Stroggoz wrote: The hippie commune idea is largely propaganda, but ofc there are people who see it and like that way of life. Anarcho syndacalism and socialism was never about making small communes, but for organizing large industrial societies. So yes there are people on the left who buy into that idea, if one thinks about autarchic societies like that, they are not appealing to mainstream and prob won't ever be when you seriously consider it, imo. (i wouldn't want to live that way). however anarchism 100 years ago was only only about organizing large industrial society towards fairn and non-heirachical structures.

I'm aware the idea is to have it on mass scale and that is precisely what I dont think would work on the current state of society in a near future.

I'm not sure what you are replying to, I said I like the idea of the POOL guy about satellite communities its interesting at the very least, I think they would face challenges they are not seeing right away like they are going to take so many people with drugaddictions and severe mental health issues, kind of a "nights watch to the wall" kind of things so that perhaps would turn out to bring too many problems for it to succeed but if it doesn't it could become a very positive thing.

On February 03 2019 02:11 Spitfiree wrote: @Loco I would say investment into mental health is kind of a wide area the way I've stated it, but the money would not go into bureaucrats. An example would be investing into NPOs that try to influence society by implementing mentally beneficial policies into all social areas - from kindergartens to universities, from hospitals to government institutions, to the private sector. This is a very, very broad suggestion, I realize that. Except that there are quite a few physical activities proven to beneficial to one's mental health. Let's take breathing techniques as an example, what if kids from an young age are persuaded to learn breathing techniques and be given a few minutes a day to exercise. It would be a much more efficient activity than sports class in schools imo, it takes less time, brings a lot of value and requires not too much effort (im not saying cut off sports class). That was only meant as an example of things that could be done. Show nested quote + If you don't support participatory democracy, but you also want to get rid of bureaucrats, then what are you even arguing for? Sure except you imply that participatory democracy would be a society where no one actually owns anything, thus its an ego-less society (I'm sure i dont have to explain why to you). How would that work exactly? In the current system we are "stealing" in another way. Every person has same rights, and those rights allow him to figure out how to act and what to do. If you believe that "borrowing" someone else's belonging is fine, who would stop 10 people from "borrowing" a house you build with your own hands with the purpose of living there? What incentive would people have to do anything, if they can't protect their achievements? I was going to say that we would need to reinvent the way we think as species, however thats probably too far stretched out, as we are obviously conditioned to think in a certain way due to social influences. Either way, again, that type of a society is a utopia, as there would be no maleficent intent ever. ------Also about a previous post you had where you were saying how you probably wouldn't fit into a Poole's type of place cause you need time for yourself and can't really do well in a noisy place for too long. I'm guessing the information you have on Poole's is either through media or youtube videos. The whole concept of those things existing is for other people to read/watch them. Obviously you would pick the extroverts to show, so you could spike the interest on the topic. Would you film a guy smoking weed isolated in his room, while thinking about whether he should read Schopenhauer or Hegel, who the fuck would watch that? Also I really doubt there are highly intellectual people living there, that could spark up some kind of a debate which could be filmed either and even if there is, its highly unlikely that it would happen. Anyway what I mean to say is, there should certainly be a fair amount of introverts there, even if they dont appear on the sources you've seen

There really isn't anything currently more utopic than this idea that we have the time to keep playing electoral politics in the hope of slight incremental change. There is no greater scientific consensus than that of climate change and the consensus among ecologists that we are causing the 6th mass extinction of species on this planet and that we are well on track to becoming one of them. We have radically altered this planet and we are only accelerating this. The solution to this existential threat has to be radical. What is necessary cannot be dismissed as utopic. This is a poorly thought-out criticism of anarchist theory that should have died out when it was no longer debatable that we had entered the Anthropocene and that the inherent contradictions of capitalism cannot get us out of a self-destructive trajectory. The only reason you make it is because you aren't one of the people who is about to be flooded, or who is living through a terrible drought, or cannot sustain yourself due to things like overfishing and warming oceans. It literally and figuratively hasn't hit you yet, but it is what needs to happen. Let's just take today in Australia. Extreme flooding at one end of the country and deadly fires at the other. You'd think some of them have woken up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-0...am-spillway-gates-fully-open/10774312

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-0...ng-fire-near-hepburn-springs/10774870

There is no reason to make a documentary on a place and only show extroverts. The point of a documentary is to show the full scope of something. It wouldn't have lost people's attention to include a 30 seconds scene with someone meditating or reading in a designated place for it. I'm not saying there is none, I'm saying it isn't clear that it is easy to have quiet time. I mean, when the journalist came and she was given a tent, she was told that she had to wait for the people who were playing music to have finished before she could set up there. If there was a bunch of space to camp, including a lot of quiet spots, she probably wouldn't have been designated that place. There are a few hundred people there in the summer, and now that this documentary aired, it's only going to get more crowded.

On February 03 2019 02:35 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 03 2019 02:31 Stroggoz wrote: There is such a thing as personal property in anarchist societies spitfire. Again, the idea that you can just borrow someone's possessions is capitalist propaganda to make anarchism look bad. There are some on the left that buy into this, but it's not mainstream anarchism. The thing is, a bike would be considered personal property in an anarchist society, which was given as an example and he led his argument further after saying that the people in the commune viewed it as "borrowing", anyway I'm guessing we've defined all of that well by now. I would simply not ignore violation of personal rights, just because it's a minor thing. It opens up a precedent regardless of what kind of a society one aims for.

I think you've missed my point. I was saying there's a particular notion of theft that's ingrained in propertarians that doesn't apply in the same way to someone who doesn't care about owning things. My point was that if someone went to the commune to find something that went missing, and they found it near some guy's tent, they probably wouldn't be met with a response like 'it's mine now, go away'.

Theft is a symptom of deeper societal issues brought up by artificial scarcity and ideological belief in private property, and it's something that is most minimized in an anarchist environment as long as people's needs are met. It's not simply an individual moral problem. You have to realize a lot of people visit that place and they don't stay there for long and they're not anarchists. There's no evidence that a lot of the theft is done by anarchists who live there, but if they did ended up stealing things they absolutely needed from well off people, I have no moral issue with that. I have more respect for someone who takes something they need from someone who doesn't need it and passes it along when they no longer need it, than for someone who steals something when they don't need it or begs for it when they do. Using the word "stealing" as if it were an absolute moral evil to take something without permission rather than being context-dependent is pretty silly. This falls under a discussion of Illegalism, which Max Stirner is most famous for.

Big "shocker":

As expected the EU continued the snowball effect:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...uaido-interim-venezuela-leader-europe

It's not the whole EU but the countries that matter.

Maduro is not backing off and I believe he might be dumb enough to basically suicide into a war.

Maduro is not "backing off" lool.... "backing off" from the US interventionalist/imperialist agenda that is supported by nations that benefit from not opposing it... what an inversion of logic. You can't back off when you've been driven into a corner. The only thing you have left is your dignity, you either give it up, let your sovereign country become a neoliberal slave state, or you stand up to the bully. As much as Maduro bears a significant responsibility for issues in Venezuela (most of which he inherited from Chavez, which did much better than the previous neoliberal government) he has been elected democratically, it was the opposition that boycotted the elections as part of the plan for this coup. They told the UN not to come observe the elections. All of these news article that push this view that Guaido would "restore democracy" are pushing propaganda... 81% of Venezueleans don't know him and 86% don't support an intervention. There is no reason to read any mainstream news on the problems in Venezuela. The US government has been spending tens of millions to fund the opposition through regime change fronts like USAID and NED, which inevitably leads to a strong pro-opposition bias in the narrative. So apparently according to your article he doesn't want another election? ...

"HH: Ceausescu and Mussolini met bad ends. Idi Amin and Baby Doc Duvalier did not. Is that the choice facing Maduro right now?

JB (John Bolton): Well, I tweeted yesterday, you know, I wish him a long, quiet retirement on a pretty beach far from Venezuela. And the sooner he takes advantage of that, the sooner he’s likely to have a nice, quiet retirement on a pretty beach rather than being in some other beach area like Guantanamo."

What is there to say...

At this point it doesn't matter, he is obviously going to get overthrown. It would be much better for his whole country if that happens peacefully instead of the usual coup which leads to total chaos and mass destruction.

There was a bunch of people that were unable to participate in the elections due to surprisingly being arrested or other stuff. The second he got "elected" he started arresting people. There're hundreds of thousands of people that are fleeing the country and you're still supporting Maduro?

The European Union rejected the elections right away in 2018, it's not something they are doing now. Right now they were wondering if they should support the opposition or leave it be.


Also, the chick bought 7 papers and displayed them really? Who the fuck reads physical papers anymore? I would very much like an analysis on what's shown on TV, online media and social media. Giving physical paper as any kind of evidence for anything anymore is a joke... I almost forgot they existed

On February 04 2019 22:54 Spitfiree wrote: At this point it doesn't matter, he is obviously going to get overthrown. It would be much better for his whole country if that happens peacefully instead of the usual coup which leads to total chaos and mass destruction.

Total chaos and mass destruction is always what happens when the US meddles in a sovereign country. People are not going to stop fighting just because some well-off Westerns are sitting comfortably at home being fatalistic. There is no way to predict that he will be overthrown; they attempted to do it to Chavez, they successfully kidnapped him but the propaganda against him wasn't successful and he was brought back because the people rose up. Maduro is a lot less popular than Chavez was, but he's still more popular than Guaido, and most Venezuelans clearly do not want an intervention. The US wants their revenge, they want the complete annihilation of Chavismo, and the people will never accept it, they are a proud people and they also know their lives will be worse once the US takes control because that's how Chavismo came to exist in the first place, as a movement of resistance against the impoverishment caused by neoliberalism.

There was a bunch of people that were unable to participate in the elections due to surprisingly being arrested or other stuff. The second he got "elected" he started arresting people. There're hundreds of thousands of people that are fleeing the country and you're still supporting Maduro?

None of the media outlets that push this narrative bat an eye at an open fascist who was just elected in Brasil and got his opposition arrested (who was ahead in the polls), interestingly enough. Former US president Jimmy Carter said: “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” His observations were echoed by all other international observers. This was in 2012 but they still use the same system. The only chance that the opposition had of winning public opinion was to push their propaganda and boycott the elections. Guaido was not imprisoned, he didn't run because he knew he wouldn't win, and because the US's plan for regime change called for the boycott:

"The leading opposition contender for Venezuela's May presidential election, Henri Falcón, was told by U.S. officials that the Trump administration would consider financial sanctions against him if he entered the presidential race. (The U.S. State Department did not return requests for comment.) The U.S. has backed the main opposition coalition decision to boycott the election."

I'm not pro-Maduro. Did one need to be pro-Hussein in order to be against the US war on Iraq? I am pro the people choosing. That's democracy, remember? The people of Venezuela don't want Guaido, they don't want a US-educated neoliberal puppet giving up the resources of their nation, and if you have any integrity whatsoever you should support them, not the US' warmongering, no matter what you think of Maduro. How many times do they have to do this and make things worse before people say 'enough of this sickening imperialism and paternalism'?.

The European Union rejected the elections right away in 2018, it's not something they are doing now. Right now they were wondering if they should support the opposition or leave it be.

What do you think that proves? It just says that the EU have been hostile to them. They didn't care about free elections any more than the US. The United Nations currently recognize Maduro as the legitimate president.

Also, the chick bought 7 papers and displayed them really? Who the fuck reads physical papers anymore? I would very much like an analysis on what's shown on TV, online media and social media. Giving physical paper as any kind of evidence for anything anymore is a joke... I almost forgot they existed

That's such a terrible argument. First of all, because I gave evidence of the TV channels being opposition-led, so you could have just looked at that. Secondly, this is a poor country where most people don't use the internet, of course they are going to read the papers more than you. Thirdly, if a government is censoring the opposition, they are going to crackdown on all media. Can you name one single authoritarian regime that made exceptions? ...

If you want to know the truth about the Venezuelan media and censorship, here is another perfect example of the propaganda that is levied against them. I wanted to find some facts and figures about the stations and see how much it has changed since the Chavez era, so I went to to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Venezuela

The 'Regulation' part of the article is purely one-sided and makes it look like Chavez was a big authoritarian who was silencing everyone who criticized him. There is only one source for this paragraph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Venezuela#cite_note-3

One source and the link to the source doesn't work. But I recognized the name Naomi Klein and I was stunned. I found the article they are referencing elsewhere. If you actually read the article, you will see that it is the extreme opposite that is true. Shameful shit. The "condemning" Chavez quote they use is, “Don’t be surprised if we start shutting down television stations”. Now let's look at the context in the article, shall we?

https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuelas-media-coup/

"Izarra says he received clear instructions: “No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him.” He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn’t make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn’t tell. When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations gave up on covering the news entirely. On one of the most important days in Venezuela’s history, they aired Pretty Woman and Tom & Jerry cartoons. “We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chávistas,” Izarra says. “[but] the information blackout stood. That’s when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave.” The situation hasn’t improved. During the recently ended strike organized by the oil industry, the television stations broadcast an average of 700 pro-strike advertisements every day, according to government estimates. It’s in this context that Chávez has decided to go after the TV stations in earnest, not just with fiery rhetoric but with an investigation into violations of broadcast standards and a new set of regulations. “Don’t be surprised if we start shutting down television stations,” he said at the end of January.

The article concludes with:

"It is absurd to treat Chávez as the principal threat to a free press in Venezuela. That honor clearly goes to the [wealthy] media owners themselves."

None of that made it into the Wiki.