Might be a little off-topic, and I dont know how much politics is allowed in this sub -
but the current discourse (atleast around reddit) regarding the US actions in Venezuela seem to be settling on grudging acceptance of the need for the removal of the venezuelian dictator, while maintaining outrage about the US's way of carrying out the action, irrespective of what a majority of venezuelians themselves (again atleast on reddit) seem to think.
This situation reminds me a bit of Hermione's plea to all the teachers when Snape was deducting points from her because of her SPHEW antics, and Dumbledore and all other professors quietly sat and watched, while Prof. Quirrel gave her 100 points back and had this to say, "If you observe good people, by the time they have finished weighing up their moral actions and handwringing about the possible consequences, most often what they end up doing is Nothing, and in the rare circumstances where they take action, their actions can hardly be differentiated from someone who is not altruistic at all. Whereas I am evil, and therefore I can give a little girl 100 points whenever I want, and think nothing of it. "
This really resonates with the Venezuela situation atleast in my opinion (happy to expand perspective on this) - they have been under an oppressive regime since the early 2000s / late 90s, and the entire world has just watched - condemned, sternly talked to, sympathized but ultimately just watched, while their situations went from bad to worse, and most of the world was already happily taking part in exploiting them (china and russia directly taking their oil, and EU and Brics indirectly buying it from Rus and Chin). For someone to now look at them being free and form the opinion "yes, but it should have been done properly" rankles me because the world had a quarter of a century to do it "properly" and chose not to, and all the people saying these things now, happily pretended venezuela didn't exist up to 5 days ago.
And Yes, continuing the analogy, I am quite aware that Hermione dies two chapters later by Prof. Quirrels hand, and he turns out to actually really be the bad guy after all, and therefore Venezuela is not actually free or safe as long as USA has taken an interest in its affairs and their future might not be the best case for Venezuelans, or indeed as bright as some Venezuelans must be expecting right now.
My friend, the Americans want to sell off everything the Venezuelans own to international capital. These are the same kind of people that gladly supported Pinochet in Chile. You know they have no concern for human rights and democracy. A world in which international capital can just topple any government that challenges them is not a happy world to live in.
Seeing Machado talk about carving up her country for foreign investment in the consent manufacturing push prior to this was genuinely chilling.
But so what happened in that case? It would seem she's being side-lined by the USA.
Did the USA find it more convenient to work with Delcy Rodriguez? It does seem unlikely that they didn't reach out to her in preparation for this.
Were they ever really considering Machado? Are they keeping her as leverage? Or is this simply Machado making her own moves?
And even as Quirrell was giving Hermione 100 points he was planning to kill her. Seems to fit quite well actually.
I know that US is no saint, but trust me, coming from a country which actually doesn't bother with human rights, I'd much much rather live under US hegemony than under 90% of the other countries regimes. The US, while having it's problems, is still the MOST benevolent superpower we have experienced yet, acc to me, if US interest expanding means, Russia/China dwindling, I'll gladly accept it. I guess that's why I relate to Venezuelans a bit more, whereas people born and raised in the US actually see the pessimistic side a bit more.
Have you actually read about what the CIA did in Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba? They've tortured thousands of people to death on behalf of the American empire and international capital.
Yes I have actually. The CIA is only an exception in terms of their scale and resources, not on their principle. A lot many other countries have committed a lot many other atrocities, some of which absolutely dwarf whatever the CIA has done. Also, targeted torture of even "thousands" of people, as you say, while being morally abbhorent and not what I think I'd be capable of doing given power, is absolutely miniscule compared to the sheer scale of some regime's atrocities, even in South America itself.
The CIA often supported and empowered those other parties to commit atrocities. In South America particularly.
You know there is more than just the 2 choices of living under a dictatorship or living in US, right?
Yes, but Venezuelans were not presented with such a choice in the last 25 years, so I guess there's no point in talking about theoretical utopias that didn't happen.
I am just pointing out the silliness of saying you rather live under US hegemony than a dictorship. But I agree with you that the people of Venezuela didn't really get to choose either option.
Back to your original post, yes the lawful "good" people are ineffective and didn't do anything to help over the past decades. But I don't think the chaotic evil people like Prof. Quirrel is going to make things any better; probably a lot worse actually. I am still waiting for a chaotic good world leader like Harry to show up. :)
I think the sad part of our real world is there exists no chaotic good leaders like Harry, because actually every leader is chaotic good in their own personal worldviews.
Also, I dont think Harry would be a popular real world leader at all, because ultimately he operates on the same principles of "my way or the highway" and has a lot of trouble respecting that people might have different value hierarchies to him. The one thing Harry, and by extrapolation even Eliezer I think, fails to get, is humanity's unending resolve to irrationally say "fuck you, I'd rather burn everything than accept your version of the world" which is something Dostoevsky understood in his "Notes from the underground" essays.
I think that "chaotic good" and "leader" are not very compatible in the real world. Chaotic means that there is no due process or long-term strategy, which means that a person doesn't get to become a leader.
I think in large part that's the bad thing about what is happening with the US intervention in Venezuela. Maduro is an awful person and an evil dictator, and it's good that he has been removed. However, the way that Trump has gone about it is awful for the world order, US standing, precedent, etc.
In the long term it will likely lead to a much worse outcome than even if at least Trump has kept his mouth shut, let alone if his administration worked more on building a world consensus on what was to be done. I am not sure that his administration even has a plan on what to do next, and you know what they say about not having a plan. Failure to plan is a plan for failure.
In venezuela right now, not really.
Even if we accept a purely utilitarian logic, you have a very simplistic take. Also, mate, you cannot be serious if you think Trump has any concern for the Venezuelan people.
The method IS a major issue yes. You consider the "Maduro removed" as the only immediate, directly relevant outcome. But there's other outcomes, and many of them are attached to the fact that the USA just operated a brazen coup with greed and power as the declared motive.
Even solely considering the extreme blow to international law, decency, multilateralism and the return of imperialist logics is daunting.
You have a naive but dangerous way of thinking that can easily be manipulated. You're the target audience for the "nacroterrorist" narrative btw.
I don't regard for a second that Trump is concerned about the Venezuelan people. Trump is concerned about American interests, both nation wise and private, and thats about it.
But there's multiple contradictions in your comment, for example - Madura was neither recognised by the US nor the EU as the legitimate governing power in Venezuela, he was a wanted criminal, with an international bounty on his head from multiple world powers (US and EU) who's policies I find preferential to the world powers who supported Maduro (i. e. China and Russia). Removing a criminal from his non-legitimate seat is not a "coup".
I think you're being the naive one if you think international relations are in any way related to "decency". In reality its way more concerned with spheres of influence and the ability to project such influence. The US has simply decided to act on its powers in the international scene. This is neither unprecedented nor unexpected.
Point out the contradictions because I do not see them.
Being glad that Maduro is gone while being outraged by the USA's actions is not contradiction, it's nuance; You seem unable to comprehend nuance.
If a nuke falls on Mar-a-Lago, I'd be glad Trump's gone, but I would still be able to see the other catastrophic outcomes.
Any intervention of the sort would need to be decided by the international community—the UN. The US or the EU not recognizing a particular state of affairs in another state does not warrant any and all action on their part. It goes directly against the right to self-determination of a country.
And again, you're way too focused on Maduro. It's one thing to remove a dictator, it's another to blockade a country, threaten war, exert extreme pressure, take over the government, steal their resources.
That is indeed the "realist" take that the major powers like the USA, China and Russia subscribe to, and that they want to normalize. But this is a self-fulfilling idea.
The world post-WW2 saw many idealistic initiatives and ways of doing that didn't follow a pure logic of power—though yes, of course that was always part of the equation. Entire concepts like international law and multilateral institutions like the UN rose out of this. And while they've never been infallible, they undoubtedly have had a major impact.
We're rapidly losing this. Whether this is simply a return to 'normal' can be discussed, but it is something to be mourned. And let's not fool ourselves that there aren't actors that deliberately precipitate its downfall, and want you to believe it couldn't have been any different.
You still have faith in the UN? The UN had 25 years to do something about Venezuela, (and many many more countries). they are a bunch incompetent nitwits with their thumbs planted firmly up their arses, who exist only to draw salary. If the UN dissolved this minute, I don't think it would be a net negative in the world.
I have equally little faith in the UN. But while the USA (and others) point at the powerless of the UN, I have enough braincells to recognize that they themselves are responsible for this state of affairs.
The UN is not a government. Its only actions are the ones agreed upon by the member states. The UN being dysfunctional is only a reflection of how member states treat it; particularly the most influential ones.
I'm not even sure this is an argument you're making in bad faith, because you seem to be a good imperialist lapdog.
Anyway, glad to see my other points were so incisive and convincing that you saw no sense in opposing them.
This guy read the passage about Quirrel in HPMOR and his takeaway was that being good is ineffective and being evil is necessary to get results... instead of realizing that taking the simplest course of action is often not the best and good people will not choose to brute force it.
Trump is, was, and always will be, concerned with Trump. That's it.
I'm not sure whether HPMoR even touches on these subjects properly. For all its suggested complexity, you literally need to be an evil mutant (Riddle) to get far enough from Harry's reference ethics to even approach what's normal in international politics. People who trade hundreds of thousands of lives for money could probably hunt mosquitoes with Avadas if they had wands.
As of this writing, Venezuela is ruled by Maduro's VP, while Trump is out there bragging about how he runs the country now and how he'll get all the oil ever. I fail to see how that's an improvement over the status quo, or how it should lead to one. Maybe we'll see a regime change in the future, but right now it's square one except some egos get stroked.
If you insist on making a HPMOR analogy, this would be as though Tom succeeded at taking over Britain the intended way. Voldemort is no more, now Monroe is in charge. Daily Prophet gets lots of material for their "blood impurists owned" column, everyone gets a light mark, positive change is yet to be observed.
While I agree in principle that a lot more positive actions need to take place, I disagree with the statement "positive change is yet to be observed" because I consider the toppling of an oppressive dictator and the clear indication to his successor that crossing certain boundaries will lead to their deposition a "positive change" already.
A clear indicator of what? That they can’t be corrupt? That’s not why Trump invaded; he doesn’t care about their corruption and their current leaders know it. This they aren’t thinking “I have to choose between being corrupt and risking another overthrow and being non-corrupt,” they’re thinking “I have to choose between being corrupt to serve my own interests and the interests of those with power in my country and being corrupt to serve the interests of Donald Trump.” Which isn’t really a mutually exclusive thing. Rather, now they just have to serve the interests of a wider group, perhaps serving Trump’s (and his cronies’) interests as well. Or he might depose them again. That’s they’re choice
Quirrel gave Hermione house points as an ostensible reward for doing good when in reality he just wanted to cause chaos and stick it to his enemies, ruining their efforts to foster peace (if an unjust peace) and causing problems for them. Trump didn’t even do the equivalent of giving Venezuelans house points. They’re at best still under the power of Maduro’s government and his cronies (no house points) and at worst also under the influence of a larger number of corrupt people (fewer house points, maybe?), while also keeping them in danger- and in danger of him
Well I guess, my preference hierarchy places "serving American Interests" on a higher value than "serving China/Russia's interests" which is what the Maduro regime was doing till now. If their current regime has been given sufficient cause to think twice about that, then that is already a good start for me.
Of course in an ideal world, we'd all like to believe that the country was capable of serving its own interests, and collaborating with allies, but we don't live in an ideal world, and from the pick of realistic options, the reality we live in due to the US intervention is still looking better for me, than the alternative. (Which is not to say that it is the best possible reality for Venezeluela, although I hope they become a case study like Panama, and not a case study like Iraq, with all my heart).
Ah yes, much better to be a serf of a despotic client state to the Lockheed/Exxon/Ratheon empire than the Chinese or Russians.
Specifically, the implicit boundary appears to be denying investment from American capital.
Trump maintains positive relationships with Erdogan and El-Sisu, either of which are more obviously tyrannical dictators than Maduro. If he's attempting to send a message, it's a confusing one.
To quote HPJEV, "I notice that I am confused."
Whats confusing about that? Neither Egypt nor Turkey is in the US sphere of influence nor are they geographical locations of significance to the US, specially with their NATO bases in Europe.
Turkey is in NATO. It doesn't get far closer to "the US sphere of influence" than that, nor would it suddenly not be of significance to the US's NATO bases in Europe
Or the U.S. nuclear bombs stored in NATO bases in Turkey.
Or Turkey's capability to project it's significant swagger in neighboring countries, the black sea.
Syria is an example.
So the US sphere of influence being referred to here is I believe the kind of great powers doctrine term that means something rather more specific than you're reasonably assuming. There is an implicit assumption in that doctrine that larger powers get to carve up the world via force and that it's illegitimate for unrelated powers to go sniffing around areas where the great power has obvious vested interests and geographic proximity.
It's why proponents of that ideology uttered a giant "meh" when Russia conquered Ukraine, and why they have no moral objection to China taking Taiwan(only a Finders Keepers objection if they're American).
The US constantly meddles in the Middle East. They don't care that it's not in their "sphere of influence". Last year they conducted military operations in Iran, Lebanon and Yemen (while also providing extensive support to Israel for their war on Gaza).
There have been many many many many many previous situations that involved “toppling an oppressive dictator“ that didn’t clearly, quickly, causally lead to an improvement to the general population.
You’re just making a (vague) assumption here. It might be right, but it’s very far from certain, and you seem very overconfident.
(Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, 90s Somalia, Congo multiple times, Sudan, Egypt, Uganda, Iran,…)
You can be glad that Maduro is gone while also sanely seeing that 99.99% of the work is still ahead. And Trump‘s moves make much of that work way harder, not easier. Sadly.
He gave her a 100 points "because he was evil". He also... Killed her... You're reiterating that you know that but it acknowledging it doesn't downplay the hypocrisy in his statement.
Ie his actions are hardly different from someone who isn't altruistic. Teachers give and deduct imaginary points. Points that did nothing other than pay lip service to her cause. Evil people kill little girls. He played his role like an NPC.
There is a big difference:
In HPMOR, the problem is how to deal with bullying in a school.
In Venezuela's case, it's about how to deal with a country ruled by an oppressive regime.
The two problems don't share the same level of complexity and the consequences of possible mistakes are not on the same magnitude. If everybody acted like Trump, even with good intentions, the world would be in chaos. Moreover, Trump intentions were not good. He is only interested in Venezuela's oil reserves. We can quote the 108th chapter here :
" "Part of what you rightly call complication is because the first version of my plot did not go as planned, and I had to modify it. I came to Miss Granger in the hallways wearing the appearance of Professor Sprout, to offer her a conspiracy. My first attempt at suasion failed. I Obliviated her and tried again with a new presentation. The second bait failed. The third bait failed. The tenth bait failed. I was so frustrated that I began going through my entire library of guises, including those more appropriate to Mr. Zabini. Still nothing worked. The child would not violate her childish code."
"You do not get to call her childish, Professor." Harry's voice sounded strange in his own ears. "Her code worked. It prevented you from tricking her. The whole point of having deontological ethical injunctions is that arguments for violating them are often much less trustworthy than they look. You don't get to criticize her rules when they worked exactly as intended." "
I get your point, but I'm not sure I agree if what you're saying is "beware of touching the status quo even if it seems reasonable because of future implications of doom."
I think that logic only applies if the current status quo is already not sufficiently doomed, which venezuela under Maduro definitely was. Atleast this is hope of positive change, however miniscule. People harp on a lot about US taking Venezuela's oil, but fail to consider - in the alternate reality where Maduro was still Venezuelas president, its not like venezuela was getting rich off its oil reserves anyhow, the same oil was being shipped to Russia and china, for pennies on the dollar by the corrupt regime.
Are they free though?
Judging from the numerous venezuelan first hand accounts, and videos on various social media, they're definitely more free than under Maduro, now whether that freedom will last, is yet to be seen on what the exact US policy is, but I don't think its arguable that the common Venezuelan man's situation has considerably improved from 4 days ago.
I'm living in Russia, if something like that would happen to Putin I'd probably be happy too, but I have zero illusions about what would happen next.
Imho they might sound happy, but it doesn't mean they are free. US/Trump will say many words, but we both know what is this all about. Although I must admit being under the US control might be a better option for them, this way you'd only get killed if you are a trouble for one of the oil corporations :/
But despite that, being under control is like the literal opposite of being free. They might have better lives (I mean better than now), but they aren't free.
Well, I guess then you know better than most of us. But I mean, theoretically speaking, are any of us actually free? We're all under different states of control.
Well US and EU citizens at least have a chance to change something. While democracies aren't perfect, they are way more preferable than an authoritarian system or a colonial
True indeed, but I'd like to re-point to the fact that a better yet system was not offered to the Venezuelan people at any point in the last 25 years, when the entire world and the UN had a chance to do so, and thus atleast them getting something which is better than what they had before is cause for celebration without lamenting theoretical utopias.
Not arguing with that, just pointing that they aren't free, just under a new management :/
Also some could say that they returned to a starting point before the revolution, so not a progress either.
HPMOR should be THE text book for high school physics and social sciences classes everywhere.
I rather agree with your take, but have some nuqnces.
Now I come from Denmark and a lot of people on the right in 🇩🇰have quite quickly been after the left for hand wringing. Why isn’t it just good that Maduro is gone? Something like a quirrell POV.
But we can’t disregard international law. If might is right then Denmark in no way shape or form have anything to do in Greenland, and the 54.000 people who live there would be under russian, American or Chinese rule.
But they aren’t.
Why do the super powers of the world leave Greenland alone? It’s prime real estate. Filled with rare earths. It’s the quickest route from China to Europe by sea. And safe when the ice melts. But they leave it up to 54.000 who are protected by three boats a couple kayaks and to dog sleds.
Probably in some part because of international rule of law. Not only, but in part. And that’s worth protecting for a small country like Denmark, Greenland or holland. Because without some form of restraint, lax as is may be, I think we could descend into a much more brutal world than we already see.
But I see the point. Why should 33 million Venezuelans live under dictatorship when the rule of law is flimsy at best? Why should the Iranians? The Israelis are doing ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank, why is that okay but taking out a dictator not?
I don’t think the answer is easy, but I don’t know what a world with unchecked super powers looks like, especially where USA quickly is turning fascist.
What I do know is Europe is FAR behind on re-armament AND on more integration. EU needs a stronger voice or we’ll get trampled
And regarding Greenland, my opinion is that Greenland should be left alone, because it is doing fine alone, the people do not want their power structure to change and the country is not a net negative influence on the world in their current state. So yes, they should remain what they are.
Thank you, I quite agree with you. And yes, I'd much prefer a world where US doesn't need to act as the world police. But in the current world, I'm much happier with the US acting as the world police rather than Russia or China.
You say world police, I say vigilante. Or better, privateer.
When Captain Morgan "liberated" some town in Central America, he didn't do it because the Spaniards were exploiting the natives.
So this seems terribly ignorant as a take.
Maduro being gone is a tiny tiny silver lining on this shitshow.
The Maduro regime is still as of now in place with the VP set to assume power.
The US motivation might be anything from distraction from pedophilia, to fucking over China and Russia(small bonus), to pillaging Venezuela of it's resources as a servile state. Likely some combination of all of these.
That is to say nothing of other Central, Southern, and North American powers looking on these events and seeing an unrestrained fascist at the helm of US empire who might gin up some charges and rendition their leadership if they don't capitulate to his demands. Canadians are unironically advocating for pursuing nuclear weapons in secret to defend themselves from the avarice of one of their oldest and closest allies. That is fucked up.
Finally Americans can view this domestically as another escalation of executive power and a further erosion of norms regarding separation of powers.
Trump, his political base and backers are a rabid dog. You do not give them a treat because he happens to bite someone you dislike.
"unrestrained fascist at the helm of the US empire". My friend, I had hoped that at least in the rational community, people would have more respect for words and their proper meanings. Trump is a man of distaste, and he might even be a criminal on multiple counts pending conviction, but fascist he is not, and labelling him either a fascist or a dictator lessens the importance of the suffering of people at the hands of actual dictatorial regimes, like China for example.
He is in fact already a convicted felon. The question is how much of a pedophilic rapist he is, not if he is a rapist, or if he is a deplorable rapacious piece of excrement.
He tried to orchestrate a coup when he lost an election. He is steadily eroding the rule of law within America, constantly tries to end run around the constitution and then let the results stand as fait accompli. He is belligerent to other countries for no apparent reason apart from a simple desire to be known as an expander of American Empire, he cozies up to dictators and strongmen. He sends the military to operate in cities he regards as politically hostile to him routinely.
An academic might indeed quibble and find a more specific category of authoritarian populist, that is contemptuous of laws restraining their powers, who is happy to use mob violence as well as the violence of the state to crush their domestic enemies. But that's rather like when somebody says they're a Hebephile rather than Pedophile, it might be true as a "defense". But no one cares as either way they're into fucking kids.
TDS is a real thing. Hatred of him seems to cause a 30 IQ drop whenever he is relevant to a conversation.
Your entire comment is blinded by politics, leading you to sincerely express opinions that a clear headed person can easily see are nonsensical. The final paragraph is the most obvious.
The Trump admin is far too functional to be rabid. Regardless of your political position, you can see that his side has been getting what they consider wins over and over again. The benefit is debatable, but they have been getting what they want.
With that in mind, as long as the dog is not rabid, you absolutely should give them a treat when they attack someone you want them to.
I'll not take advice from weird incel adjacent people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/CF5ANnHc9K
Also you're wrong regarding the popularity of the Trump Admin
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2026/01/05/donald-trump-2025-approval-unemployment-national-debt/87944878007/
They are more unpopular than ever.
Fwiw, these links are from sky's comment history.
I had to look up who specifically was getting dragged.
If you find rationality so objectionable, why hang out in this subreddit?You bring up unrelated things I have said to other people elsewhere, and then you argue claims I never made.
You don't seem to have internalized much of the message of the book
I don't know why you think other statements you have made elsewhere are not relevant for determining both your motivations, and your underlying character.
From your statements here and elsewhere I infer that you're an odious person, damaged by seething resentment, and a supporter of the Trump admin in full.
Which, as I have already pointed out, are entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Cool, and? What does that have to do with anything?
If it was done "the right way", Russia would have pitched a fit. This is only possible
Nothing will actually change except we'll skim off the oil reserves and stop Venezuela from trading with Cuba. Regime change for democracy was never the goal, it is the talking point that makes the goal sound nicer.
I appreciate the metaphor, but unlike in the chapter, where evil does the obvious thing doesn't really change much and that also improves his public image, the US has done a non-obvious thing that overturns every foreign policy assumption, and also makes us look like dangerous expansionists.
The US already had a historical image of "dangerous short term destablisers" and its that image that's getting propagated if anything. I don't believe the US will actually annex Venezuela, they are overwhelmingly more likely to setup a servient regime and push their interests via political alliances. They're not really expansionists, at least not from this action.
Setting up a banana republic isn't exactly a better outcome for the people than formal annexation, and still very expansionists. And given that "It's our oil!" I'm going to assume expansionism until proven otherwise.
The people were already IN a banana republic, one that half the country was trying to flee from. Even in the worst case, an US backed banana republic is better than a Russia backed one.
I'm using "Banana Republic" to mean an ostensibly democratic nation governed by foreign business interests for the purpose of colonial resource extraction. You seem to be using it to mean a fake democracy. These are both correct usages of the word but we are talking about different things.
Why is Russia Backed Banana Republic the alternative you are proposing? If it's because of the current paradigm, another more obvious alternative would be to loosen the US sanctions, so that countries other than US enemies could back them instead. Possibly with ultimatums like Trump was already giving.
And not "We don't like you and you've got stuff we want, so we're going to steal your head of state".
Biden already tried loosening sanctions to get Maduro to hold a fair election in 2024. It didn't work.
Oh right, my bad. Unworkable. I forgot that Trump really cares about Venezuelan democracy. /s
You would prefer Venezuela to be a dictatorship backed by the West instead of the East right? Well there you go. Solved. And solved without flipping the table on long-standing international policy.
Not that he cares about that either, but the point is that this isn't Evil Quirill doing apparent good costlessly. This is, at best, as destructive as it is beneficial, and there were other options on the table.
I know Trump doesn't care about Venezuelan democracy since he doesn't even care about American democracy. I'm just saying that loosening sanctions has already been tried and the Maduro regime wasn't willing to change. I'd rather Venezuela return to democracy, but if it's a choice between a pro-Russia/China/Iran dictator and a pro-US dictator then I'd take the pro-US one any day.