Hyperglobalisation is not generally used to refer to nor explicitly linked to governmental/political systems.
It isn't a metaphor, it's a literal description, or mistaken/accidental hyperbole presented and/or believed to be literally descriptive.
The primary and most understood usage of the term is with regards to commerce - banks, industry, corporations and multi nationals along with communications and travel.
It can be used and related to governmental and political systems, but it isn't implicit and needs to be explicitly stated.
We need to be careful with these types of terms.
The -ist, ism and -s(z)ation while sharing the same base word, often can mean explicitly different things.
It is often the case that while one variant is simply a neutral/natural and/or literal description of a thing or process, other variants describe an idea, ideology or belief.
Globalism(Ideology) and a globalist(follower of Globalism) are related to by distinct from globalisation(neutral literal description OR used as an ideologically pejorative term).
Back onto ignore then.
Whilst you pretend to enlighten everyone with wiki.
You probably won't see this if you've used the 'ignore' - a rather sad and childish thing to do considering the circumstances:
I don't 'pretend to enlighten everyone with wiki' - It's rather insulting and ignorant to assume that just because someone expresses their views and communicates in a particular way that it can't be their own ideas, knowledge and style.
Isn't it possible that some people may be well read, knowledgeable or have a wide vocabulary and good diction rather than having to 'cut and paste' ideas ?
Not that I am declaring my own knowledge, vocabulary or diction to be particularly expansive, but it certainly appears that it is at the very least, greater than you judge it to be.
Maybe if you opened your mind to the idea that just because you don't understand or can't make sense of a thing, it doesn't mean that others can't. In simple terms, don't place scope and limits on others based upon your own personal understanding, limitations and competence.
I sometimes use cut and paste when a meaning is defined by someone on the 'net who does a much better job than me. As far as -ism goes the definition of 'globalism' was taken off a dictionary website. The rest of my post was mine.
Why I do that is to cut out any verbosity or misunderstanding over definition.
I used a broad definition of hyperglobalisation and you then decided to lecture me and redefine hyperglobalisation using a narrow definition. Now your last paragraph is lecturing me again.
Highly unlikely to broaden my mind with this approach Toko Black, your lectures/posts on religion/bible are tedious, long winded, incoherent, lacking clarity, definition and mired in a disjointed confusion of the scriptural passages and historical thought and customs of the time. That is why I just ignore them.
The general idea is to post in manner that invites a reply, not write a canonised biblical lecture on the letter 'I' in every post. My uni module board has a poster doing the same thing. //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
However other posters might not mind, I can't speak for them. With other members in mind it's best to pop you on ignore, so as not to ruin the thread.
I'm not having a go at people who do 'cut and paste' references, quotes, definitions etc - that's perfectly reasonable - I use quotes myself.
What I was having a go at is accusing or erroneously inferring that someone is cutting and pasting or paraphrasing someone else's ideas, work or in this case 'wikipedia'.
In other words, I was having a go at being falsely accused of something, not the actual thing itself.
It wasn't a lecture, it was stressing something I felt was a very important and significant point of clarification since:
- Many people support strong international political, aid and security co-operation to attempt to solve problems like Climate Change. In other words acting globally.
- Many people support restricting or encouraging businesses and industries to operate jobs, taxation and interests locally to where they operate rather than offshoring profits and outsourcing work overseas. ie Anti-Globalisation movements.
Since neither position is mutually exclusive, you can support both and therefore be a globalist with regards to aspects of politics, communication etc while at the same time being an anti-globalist against multinationals offshoring and outsourcing money and jobs.
The position in the US appears one of popular nationalism rather than just anti-globalisation.
ie being against offshoring/outsourcing jobs AND being against or reducing international political, security aid and co-operation.
...and therein lies the truth of the matter.