Not America, England, France, Italy, Portugal or Spain. This was my meaning. Simplistic or not, I want to hear from the rest of the world.

I just used the term “post war” to define the second half of twentieth century. A knee jerk reflex from history classes. The participation in the war is actually tangent to my request.

“Leftist” in 2000s Italy meant either a) communist or socialist party outside the established Communist parties, also mostly excluded from parliamentary politics…or b) lifestyle progressive in the extended network of ‘a’, also understood as “lite center-left”. There is no way to quantify the “amount of Left” since these two meanings of the word are in opposite directions.

Understanding this in terms of US politics is a lost cause. This is the only correct response so far:

As for the US, it actually uses the term “liberal” correctly, the US just has thoroughly shut out the left to the point that liberal is the farthest “left” mainstream discourse is traditionally allowed to go.

Different culture, different meaning. But if I had to, I would say that “b” above is the one introduced by the American far-right into the political discourse.

Kimmel is back on air, and the American liberal establishment has heaved a collective sigh of relief. Not because liberals and their Democratic Party have learned from the incident and used it as an opportunity to galvanise meaningful opposition to Trump’s authoritarian surge, but precisely the opposite – because it allows them to go back to their blissful slumber, ignore reality, cling to cognitive dissonance, denial, ahistorical wishful thinking, and the complicity that is integral to white privilege within a white supremacist order.

In fact, liberals do not even substantially disagree with the core of Trump’s policies. After all, both right-wing and liberal elites are loyal servants of empire, the latter just give it a veneer of humanitarianism.

Both support policies that sustain the oppression of poor and marginalised people: the corporatisation of healthcare and education, labour exploitation, mass incarceration, militarised policing, censorship, corruption through corporate donations, and extractivism and militarism abroad. The liberals have put their spin on all these with talk about human rights, rule of law, and diversity.

Other than the semantics of “liberal” (substitute for Centrist or Democrat to taste), this is very well conceived. These are the same people who tone police and chastise the victims of being too angry, and will through as under the bus to appeal to “the middle of the tent”.

This piece is really a breath of fresh air. If Democrats were so precious about other topics as they are about their late night comedians, we would have not descended that far into fascism. And this is why they are actually complicit.

Well, this is something that felt off indeed. But please explain. So http(s) is the world of http requests, but you can also have other services like ftp, ssh, bittorrent and what not. Is that what you mean? So the WWW is just the global interconnection of web pages strictly, over the Internet? Would this apply to any internet? /genuine

Is this …mansplaining?

An internet in theory is a network of other computer networks (not single computers). The Internet is the world wide web.

Todays news outlets if sent back to 1945: Underrated painter shot in the head by maniacal racist in Berlin. German outrage over frantic celebrations across Europe.

It was too woke for them. It features People of Color.