On explaining differences:
Here's a link to information on the term "social democracy." Here's another to the term "democratic socialism," which the entry notes is not to be confused with "socialist democracy." Here's yet another to an organization for democratic socialists. And here are links to two politicians, whose entries include how they describe their political stance. Here, let me highlight those bits:
- One "describes himself as a democratic socialist."
- The other "embraces the democratic socialist label as part of her political identity."
- On the lines of media and perception from earlier, here's news on government officials getting vaccinated, with competing examples from either side. (Ooh, these people are getting vaccinated! Boo, these people are getting vaccinated. Talk about unity, and then pull this mess. Laugh and a half.) There's a common thread between these, though - see if it helps to think of them all as guinea pigs. (Squeaky little fuzzballs. I want a guinea pig. Digression.)
- Not immediately related to the above, but part of the purpose of this post, is a collection of news on financing and interference in multiple fields; in mainstream entertainment, in news outlets, in higher education, and more recently, in government. At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, I'll say it's really difficult for even a casual observer not to see a concerted effort behind all these actions. (Bit of an aside to mainstream entertainment, this, but watch out, memers),
- Along the lines of concerted effort, I'm wondering why this sort of article is coming up on the issue of conspiracies. Am I just imagining things (because 'tis the season apparently), or am I right to be suspicious (if you're wondering how to go past sus, that's how it's spelt*) of the sort of highly educated people who make a living looking for ways to make things like plaid out to be racist? I'm also inclined to side-eye the dubious tool that assumes these topics to be suitable recommendations to repeat, because part of evolution means keeping one's eye on what a part of one's environment is capable of.
- I'd also like to keep an eye on how a weakness is encouraged in new neighbors, even as I appreciate how it points out the need for improved civic education in existing citizenry. Reducing a cost burden and improving processing time for paperwork, I can understand. (Years of waiting can provide that sort of insight.) If these people would prefer to spend their down time in their native tongue (also understandable), what free or low-cost on-the-job resources could expose them to the language they need in what's likely the biggest block of time they'd spend outside their home? Would it be a burden to have a nearby TV permanently set to children's shows that have simple language lessons, or a music playlist curated to focus on mainstream songs with clear, repetitive, easy-to-follow lyrics? (Not Friday. For crying out loud, not Friday.)
In that same bit of news, I'll point out that the reference article from over the northern border included an example from overseas of what some of these barriers are meant to prevent, because in this case, abolishing safety measures in an effort to provide aid ignores a real and existing risk. Those measures aren't xenophobia when what they're meant to prevent has already happened. (I think I posted earlier about a kindness abused, in relation to toilet chaperones IIRC.) Statutory in the stars has already been in this publication - must this same publication encourage ignorance as well?
I hope these folk don't wonder why their work garners disrespect, because I'm totally OK with calling this situation a form of gaslighting.
Also keeping an eye on who else the 敌害 have managed to needle this time.
Ending with this bit of awesome-despite-the-pink.
*Oh, fine, spelled. Seriously, expand your library.