Venezualan election 2024

[Silvanus]

The first change has to be lifting the sanctions against him because otherwise he's going to have a (rightly reckoned) siege mentality and the continued destruction of the economy no matter what choices he makes. Sadly that's out of his control.

I agree, the sanctions should absolutely end.

Do those sanctions prevent Maduro from releasing vote tallies, or removing prohibitive monetary costs to voting?

And then immediately launched into apologetics comparing to Venezuela, like I knew you would.

You introduced the comparison. Not me. You're once again complaining that I engaged with what you introduced. And when I did engage, I explicitly said that the British situation remains unacceptable, regardless of what other countries do-- no apologia, a consistent standard.

If you want, I'll apologise. I'm very sorry I responded when you brought up Britain; I should just have entirely ignored it. Though we both know, had I ignored it, you'd be complaining about that instead. C'est la vie.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I agree, the sanctions should absolutely end.

Good.

You introduced the comparison. Not me.

No, I didn't make any comparison there. You did, on your own. You had made the argument in this thread that comparing authoritarian actions shouldn't be done when discussing ethical foibles, but then immediately made a comparison when Britain was shown, in a vacuum, to have authoritarian tendencies.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"You can't criticise countries that aren't your own"? Fuck that noise. You've been griping about other countries' voting management for far too long to try this now.

Which countries? Are they countries in which my government helped to overthrow the previous government and install the new one? Are they countries that my government lavishes with weapons to commit a genocide? Are they countries that are participants in US blob imperialism?

Anyway it's not just about criticism, though, is it? The context is that our governments are blatantly interfering in Venezuelan elections, trying to empower the far right of that country while making it as hard as possible for their government to function. This isn't just some academic exercise (unless you believe the people in our countries have zero say in the matter and so their views don't matter, in which case we have much bigger problems!)

 

[Silvanus]

No, I didn't make any comparison there. You did, on your own. You had made the argument in this thread that comparing authoritarian actions shouldn't be done when discussing ethical foibles, but then immediately made a comparison when Britain was shown, in a vacuum, to have authoritarian tendencies.

"In a vaccuum"? You brought it up in a thread about Venezuela, in response to someone talking about Venezuela.

Look, this is all pointless squabbling at this point. I've stated my position numerous times now. Let's let this get back to topic.

 

[Silvanus]

Which countries? Are they countries in which my government helped to overthrow the previous government and install the new one? Are they countries that my government lavishes with weapons to commit a genocide? Are they countries that are participants in US blob imperialism?

Ahhhhh, so we can criticise countries that aren't our own if they're aligned with the US, but not if they're not. Gotcha.

Anyway it's not just about criticism, though, is it? The context is that our governments are blatantly interfering in Venezuelan elections, trying to empower the far right of that country while making it as hard as possible for their government to function. This isn't just some academic exercise (unless you believe the people in our countries have zero say in the matter and so their views don't matter, in which case we have much bigger problems!)

Do you believe we're obliged to withhold criticism from any entity that's experiencing interference from other entities (and if so, is it only if the latter is the US)? I struggle to find any other rationale that would see US interference in Venezuela as a reason to invalidate any criticism of Venezuela's own policies towards its own people.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"In a vaccuum"? You brought it up in a thread about Venezuela, in response to someone talking about Venezuela.

I just wanted to see if you were as consistent as you said you were, and you weren't. Because if someone brings up other South American countries as direct context for Venezuela's actions, you blow that off. I didn't force you to compare Britain to Venezuela, you could have been consistent and not brought up the apologia. But you went straight for it instead of letting criticism of Britain to stand alone. Once again, absolute morality for countries the Guardian hates, relative morality for the approved countries.

 

[Silvanus]

Once again, absolute morality for countries the Guardian hates, relative morality for the approved countries.

At no time has the standing of Britain (or Venezuela or anyone else) depended on another country being better/the same/worse, in my estimation. Literally never, not once, have I said anything to that effect. You either failed to read it properly and then doubled-down, or you're lying.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

At no time has the standing of Britain (or Venezuela or anyone else) depended on another country being better/the same/worse, in my estimation. Literally never, not once, have I said anything to that effect. You either failed to read it properly and then doubled-down, or you're lying.

Your response to a lone note of Britain engaging in repression was "whatabout Venezuela?", after dismissing other people trying to bring context and nuance to Venezuelan politics as a whataboutism.

 

[Silvanus]

Your response to a lone note of Britain engaging in repression was "whatabout Venezuela?"

My response was to acknowledge that Britain's barriers were unacceptable, regardless of any other countries.

I also talked about Venezuela because we are in a thread about Venezuela. It's literally the topic of the thread. Yet, I made 100% crystal clear that Venezuela's situation did not make Britain's situation any better.

You either failed to read that and doubled down, or you're lying.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

My response was to acknowledge that Britain's barriers were unacceptable, regardless of any other countries.

I also talked about Venezuela because we are in a thread about Venezuela. It's literally the topic of the thread. Yet, I made 100% crystal clear that Venezuela's situation did not make Britain's situation any better.

You either failed to read that and doubled down, or you're lying.

You made the direct comparison immediately to turn it into a competition, something you didn't want other people to do. Because you're a hypocrite.

 

[Silvanus]

You made the direct comparison immediately to turn it into a competition, something you didn't want other people to do. Because you're a hypocrite.

If you're not going to listen when I explicitly tell you what my position is, can we at least just drop this?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you're not going to listen when I explicitly tell you what my position is, can we at least just drop this?

I did listen, that's the problem. You're inconsistent about when you want to make competitions. You can say "They're bad too", but it's clear you provide a different level of scrutiny depending on the country.

 

[Silvanus]

I did listen, that's the problem. You're inconsistent about when you want to make competitions. You can say "They're bad too", but it's clear you provide a different level of scrutiny depending on the country.

You're calling it "making a competition" just because I also mentioned Venezuela in the same post, even though I was very very very very clear that it didn't make Britain any better, and neither reflected on the other?

We're in a thread about Venezuela, I remind you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're calling it "making a competition" just because I also mentioned Venezuela in the same post, even though I was very very very very clear that it didn't make Britain any better, and neither reflected on the other?

We're in a thread about Venezuela, I remind you.

You made a direct comparison and wanted to turn it into a competition. When others in this thread wanted to make comparisons favorable to Venezuela, you said it wasn't a competition and Venezuela's actions should stand on their own. It's hypocrisy.

 

[Silvanus]

You made a direct comparison and wanted to turn it into a competition. When others in this thread wanted to make comparisons favorable to Venezuela, you said it wasn't a competition and Venezuela's actions should stand on their own. It's hypocrisy.

I judged Britain's actions on their own merits as well, saying they weren't acceptable from the start.

I mentioned Venezuela in the same post, because this is a thread about Venezuela. And I did so in a way that didn't absolve Britain whatsoever.

Anyway, I've given you the chance to drop it twice now, and you're just repeating the same empty accusations ad nauseum. I'll just leave you to it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I judged Britain's actions on their own merits as well, saying they weren't acceptable from the start.

I mentioned Venezuela in the same post, because this is a thread about Venezuela. And I did so in a way that didn't absolve Britain whatsoever.

Anyway, I've given you the chance to drop it twice now, and you're just repeating the same empty accusations ad nauseum. I'll just leave you to it.

Now let's look at some proportions

That's a bit beyond "mentioning". Next time be consistent.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ahhhhh, so we can criticise countries that aren't our own if they're aligned with the US, but not if they're not. Gotcha.

Not sure why you refuse to admit that is relevant criteria. My country has purchased the right for me to complain about how some other countries do things (e.g. israel for a very obvious case) and it has forsworn my right to do that in other cases because negative views about targets of the United States and positive views about its vassals within my country are either: going to be weaponized to help destroy other countries or populations or are irrelevant in the face of the much greater problem that our governments are a collection of rogue regimes with no accountability whatsoever to the people they govern (to say nothing of the people they slaughter).

Other countries dealing with the consequences of the US throwing its weight around against them that have not succumbed to that pressure absolutely deserve every benefit of doubt and every consideration. They do not have the luxury of prioritizing your views about what they are allowed to do in the pursuit of their own safety.

Do you believe we're obliged to withhold criticism from any entity that's experiencing interference from other entities (and if so, is it only if the latter is the US)? I struggle to find any other rationale that would see US interference in Venezuela as a reason to invalidate any criticism of Venezuela's own policies towards its own people.

when the "criticism" is as arcane as "I don't like how they deal with overseas voting" and the context is "my government is participating in trying to overthrow their government", and you think the upshot of handling the issue differently is that there would be a lot more votes to elect a fascist regime, then you should keep your tedious thoughts to yourself, yes. You especially shouldn't present your disagreement as if it is some kind of human rights abuse when it is very clearly not that big a deal.

Unless you're just an overly meddlesome dickhead, I don't think you would care how other countries handle overseas voting at all without prompting. It looks like you decided you wanted a reason to criticize Venezuela, thought that "it's expensive to be able to vote from overseas" could constitute such a criticism, and so you inflated in your own head the importance of everyone being allowed to vote from overseas until you came to believe that overseas voting is some kind of well-established universal democratic principle and not just a matter of a country's preference. Now you're doomed for the rest of your life (or at least until you forget about it) to have this kind of nutty view about the importance of overseas voting because you decided you wanted to flex your liberal "I'll criticize the targets of the United States like a good little unpaid spook" credentials. Tragedy.

 

[Silvanus]

Not sure why you refuse to admit that is relevant criteria.

Because it doesn't change whether the specific actions are acceptable or not, which is a question that rests on the merits of those actions.

when the "criticism" is as arcane as "I don't like how they deal with overseas voting"

Yeah, "voting shouldn't cost $200 for a quarter of the eligible voterbase" is sure a mega arcane criticism, who could possibly engage with it??

you think the upshot of handling the issue differently is that there would be a lot more votes to elect a fascist regime

Complete bollocks. The upshot is that the legally eligible voterbase are actually able to vote. Now call me idealistic, but I think that's a worthy aim in and of itself.

If you think that those millions with refugee status would all vote against the government, and thus must be stopped from voting, don't drag me into your assumptions and justifications.

Unless you're just an overly meddlesome dickhead, I don't think you would care how other countries handle overseas voting at all without prompting. It looks like you decided you wanted a reason to criticize Venezuela, thought that "it's expensive to be able to vote from overseas" could constitute such a criticism, and so you inflated in your own head the importance of everyone being allowed to vote from overseas until you came to believe that overseas voting is some kind of well-established universal democratic principle and not just a matter of a country's preference. Now you're doomed for the rest of your life (or at least until you forget about it) to have this kind of nutty view about the importance of overseas voting because you decided you wanted to flex your liberal "I'll criticize the targets of the United States like a good little unpaid spook" credentials. Tragedy.

This last paragraph is brainworm stuff, pretty unhinged. I criticised a government policy, bud. You can weave that into a strange elseworlds narrative about my state of mind if you want, but it's not that deep-- and you've already spent more page space breathlessly defending it than I wanted to devote to the criticism.

 

[Agema]

This last paragraph is brainworm stuff, pretty unhinged.

Increasingly, the tone from those quarters is deeply intolerant of disagreement - seems to be all about how there's them, and everyone else is a Nazi stooge.

At least it's good groundwork to mass murder the opposition if the revolution ever occurs. At your trial, if it were merely that you doubted Maduro won the 2024 election they'd just send you to the gulag, but seeing as you also supported Ukraine against Russia, I guess hanging or firing squad will be better.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yeah, "voting shouldn't cost $200 for a quarter of the eligible voterbase" is sure a mega arcane criticism, who could possibly engage with it??

the 'voter base' that isn't present in the country. yeah, that's pretty arcane. telling that you can't even describe it completely when trying to justify your objection, because if you actually include 'outside the country' then it definitely sounds like a quibble.

and i did engage with it. you haven't engaged with my criticism of it as far from some kind of obvious bedrock principle at all. oh, i don't want to compare them, but it's super interesting how these comparable things that I'm definitely not comparing are treated differently by some people.

Because it doesn't change whether the specific actions are acceptable or not, which is a question that rests on the merits of those actions.

what on earth do you mean by 'acceptable'? because it is not at all your prerogative to decide what Venezuelans should or should not accept.

Complete bollocks. The upshot is that the legally eligible voterbase are actually able to vote. Now call me idealistic, but I think that's a worthy aim in and of itself.

If you think that those millions with refugee status would all vote against the government, and thus must be stopped from voting, don't drag me into your assumptions and justifications.

lmao

You're the one who made the case that somehow requiring passports for overseas voting would result in gains for the opposition. Which is fascist. Do you need me to go and link it for you?

Well, here it is:

Put in more than a minute's thought. If they've left the country, as ~a quarter of the population has since 2024 (most with refugee status), then they're more likely to be dissatisfied with the situation at home. At that point, any measure that drastically suppresses that vote is likely to assist the gov.

Interestingly, the country with the most Venezuelan refugees is Colombia, another South American country with a socialist gov, but one with transparent and fairer elections. What's interesting is that Colombia's observers were also barred from Venezuela's 2024 election.

also, about Colombia: yeah, it's SUPER WEIRD to not allow observers from a country that has, among other things, hosted training camps for soldiers to cross the border into Venezuela and attempt to overthrow the government. Venezuela really has no respect for democratic marauding.

Were you ignorant of Colombia's history of collaboration in US antagonism toward Venezuela? Or is this just another case of omitting inconvenient facts?

This last paragraph is brainworm stuff, pretty unhinged. I criticised a government policy, bud. You can weave that into a strange elseworlds narrative about my state of mind if you want, but it's not that deep-- and you've already spent more page space breathlessly defending it than I wanted to devote to the criticism.

yeah, you haven't bothered defending how it's important that people elsewhere absolutely have to have a say in the governance of Venezuela. But neither have you conceded the point. You're stuck with a pretty silly idea that seems to have come from deciding to criticize Venezuela before actually finding a reason, as I said.