That is because you are describing the EU as an union of colonizers,

Not at all. Yes they started with their neighbors. You mentioned a couple of examples, another would be Ireland and the UK. Still, some common things tho between european colonisers was their sense of superiority and their brutal practices towards indigenous peoples and their environment.

On the one hand, the current refugees are not coming to Europe from old European colonies, but from Russian ones.

This is not my understanding, for 2 main reasons

• Practically such a huge amount of the world has been colonised by europeans. Btw check out the maps in the wiki page of the colonial empire.
• About the Russia thing, I don't think so. I found these stats that present a different picture about the countries of origin. See our world in data (sort by Refugee by country of origin). If you have some info that changes significantly this picture, please share.

Edit: I moved around some sentences to make it more coherent. Hopefully.

I also believe that migration, refuge status and asylum are very difficult topics but I don't agree with the framing you make because it seems to me you present the issue as something that came out of the blue.

For me, the context mainly derives from European colonialism, since this is how global inequalities have been established in the first place. European countries have exhausted the resources from formerly colonised places for their benefit. We also need to examine if this so-called "post-colonial era" has really shifted towards decolonisation or to a neo-colonialism in practice.

Without using taking into consideration these aspects, I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on the topic.

Of course, and I should have specified that the military occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal according to international standards, as well as the longest one in modern history.

For Lebanon and Syria, I believe you are right.

For Gaza, not so sure because it is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel, for many decades now.

I found the following article from 2019 that contradicts several claims in this article (archive link). I am not familiar with this tech, so if anyone of you is, could you share your thoughts?

Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

I don't like the Washington Post neither. After reading a few articles on this topic from other outlets that are compatible with this community's rule about MBFC, I chose to post this one because it's content was relatively ok imo.

Maybe I missed a better article? Sure.

At the same time, kinda tragic of the state that western mainstream media are? I would argue, totally.

I found a site called Committee to Protect Journalists and I though of sharing some relevant info:

As of April 16:

• 175 journalists and media workers were confirmed killed: 167 Palestinian, two Israeli, and six Lebanese.
• 93 journalists were reported injured.
• 2 journalists were reported missing.
• 84 journalists were reported arrested.
• Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings of family members.

Capitalism works this way, unfortunately.

Here is one more article based on a 2025 report saying something similar.

Only 9.5% of plastic materials produced globally in 2022 were manufactured from recycled materials. The findings, reported in Communications Earth & Environment, are part of a comprehensive analysis of the global plastics sector, which also reveals a large increase in the amount of plastic being disposed of by incineration and substantial regional differences in plastic consumption.

Plastic production has increased from 2 million tons per year in 1950 to 400 million tons per year in 2022 and is projected to reach 800 million tons per year by 2050. As a result, plastic pollution is a pressing and growing global issue, posing major challenges for the environment, economy, and public health.

Totally. According to the IEA map, it is ideal because Taiwan is close to the borders of tectonic plates.

Ok so it looks like they try to shift to the sociocracy model.

Coincidentally, I have a friend who worked for some years in a company that was trying to shift from a typical hierarchical structure to a co-op with a horizontal decision-making processes, using sociocracy. For them, and to my understanding, it was not going great. They actually kinda kept replicating the typically centralised structure for too long but this time using the "circles" deriving from sociocracy. That said, maybe by now they have managed to move on from this transitional phase, but I don't know since my friend doesn't work there anymore. That said, from the conversations we had, I got the understanding that there has been successful approaches in other coops, in the sense that they had achieved consent-based decision-making processes.

This could be a promising project. If anyone knows what is the decision-making processes within this community, could you share a link?

Thanks for the recommendation and btw I just found a link to download it.

For me, many variation of direct democracy could be great.

As briefly as I can: instead of voting every few years for someone to represent the interests of your area in a national parliament, we would vote on a local level for our local maters, more often. When I say matters imagine the questions asked to be more like the ones at referendums.

I think it's capitalism in crisis specifically, because during crisis common people may turn to leftist ideas, so in order to prevent that, capitalists promote nationalim and fascism as better alternatives to leftist ones. Of course, I could not pretend to be able to resume all parameters in one sentence.

Apart from that, and if I got you right, I am surprised you mention that for Germany it's the lack of education. I was under the impression that since WW2 there was a lot of effort through education to avoid specifically the rise of fascism again. Did I get this wrong?

I wanted to have a conversation with you, this is why I asked your opinion specifically. I believe it's important for people with different point of views to be able to talk about them. For me, it's a pity that you don't want to have one but at least I tried.

I understand that you see things differently, so I would like to ask you a couple of things to get your point of view.

For you why did fascism emerge in the first place and why did it re-emerge nowadays.

I just wrote a comment to a person that said we should kick out fascists. Copy-pasting it here:

I would like to add that we should also kick out capitalism and representative democracy out of the way because fascism is a byproduct of both of them.

Capitalism, when in crises uses fascists to restore its status quo and this is how they get elected in parliaments. We can now tell with certainty, that all the worldwide measures/reforms that took place after WW2 were not effective. If they had been, fascists would not be on the rise everywhere.

There are plenty of alternative systems of organising societies for the benefit of the people, they are just not promoted by the media, this is why we don't hear about them as solution. I often use the example of kings to illustrate my point. During their era, everybody thought that this system could never change, but it did. So we can do this change as well. Actually we have to.

I would like to add that we should also kick out capitalism and representative democracy out of the way because fascism is a byproduct of both of them.

Capitalism, when in crises uses fascists to restore its status quo and this is how they get elected in parliaments. We can now tell with certainty, that all the worldwide measures/reforms that took place after WW2 were not effective. If they had been, fascists would not be on the rise everywhere.

There are plenty of alternative systems of organising societies for the benefit of the people, they are just not promoted by the media, this is why we don't hear about them as solution. I often use the example of kings to illustrate my point. During their era, everybody thought that this system could never change, but it did. So we can do this change as well. Actually we have to.

Do you think that morality is relative to each person's view point or do you think that moral facts do not exist at all?

I think that morality is relative to each person and in the same time it is shaped from social and cultural norms.

In relation to your answer to my question, I came to realise that I don't think that I will get a satisfactory one, because of our different backgrounds. What I mean is that you talk with philosophical terms to a commoner. For example (and to my understanding) you talk about moral facts as a given term, and for me this notion doesn't even exist. Don't get me wrong, good for you!

Also, taking into consideration that our answers are getting longer and longer, maybe this could be a good exit point. So, I would like to thank you for the time you spent on this conversation, because I enjoy thinking and you gave me food for thought.

This is amazing! I imagine flat tires on bicycles are a common thing where keas live?