Society defined controversial, as it always has, and always will.
And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly?
And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly?
For instance, Germans have a vastly different cultural and legal stance on when it's acceptable to film strangers. The same can be said about nudity, free speech, borders, and perception of historical events.
Globalist is a misnomer. It's US-centric. The call on what is acceptable shouldn't be left to a somewhat homogenous group of Californian middle-class employees.
You honestly think there aren't powerful opinion shaping efforts underway? If so I wish I lived in your world - I cannot get away from the incessant politics on any media platform whatsoever.
> And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly?
Are you seriously suggesting there's no alternative? And seriously questioning the legtimacy of the term globalist by putting it in double quotes? If so that's the end of the conversation from my side.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
> noun a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
I don't know many people who think we shouldn't take world events and developments into account with regard to our economic and foreign policy. So any time someone uses globalist as an insult or pejorative term, I have to wonder what they really mean. Because it's always code for something else.
For examples, see the international spread of excessive copyright, anti-circumvention laws, "free trade" agreements that include criminal enforcement of trade secrets, and require governments to submit to investor-state dispute settlement, effectively subjugating their laws to unelected international arbiters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...
Then there's the chilling effect on lawmaking. It cost Australia $39 million to defend their tobacco plain packaging law [1], the USA was forbidden from enforcing country-of-origin labeling on beef [2] (despite politicians at the time lying the free-trade agreement wouldn't impact sovereignty), and Canadian and Mexican governments are known to severely restrict their environmental law-making to avoid getting sued under NAFTA [3]. Other impacts of free trade as dictated by globalist organizations such as the WTO are also far from clearly positive [4].
In fact, anti-globalism used to be extremely well represented by the political left [5,6]. But somehow, all that opposition faded away. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Now is there any other extremely well documented and reported-upon term you'd like to pretend to be ignorant of?
Edit: I committed the same sin as my sibling comment. Defining globalist as "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world" is a much too broad definition (since it describes almost everyone, including die-hard nationalists). Similarly, the definition that I gave is much too narrow. To qualify as globalism, sovereignty in economic matters wouldn't have to be 'banned', as I wrote. 'Significantly reduced' would be enough.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/02/revealed-39...
[2] https://www.ecowatch.com/country-of-origin-labeling-meat-257...
[3] https://ejsclinic.info.yorku.ca/2018/03/naftas-effect-on-can...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#Criti... Some prominent skeptics cite the example of El Salvador. In the early 1990s, they removed all quantitative barriers to imports and also cut tariffs. However, the country's economic growth remained weak. On the other hand, Vietnam which only began reforming its economy in the late 1980s, saw a great deal of success by deciding to follow the China's economic model and liberalizing slowly along with implementing safeguards for domestic commerce. Vietnam has largely succeeded in accelerating economic growth and reducing poverty without immediately removing substantial trade barriers. [..] Economist Ha-Joon Chang himself argues that there is a "paradox" in neo-liberal beliefs regarding free trade, because the economic growth of developing countries was higher in the 1960-1980 period compared to the 1980-2000 period even though its trade policies are now far more liberal than before.
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/anti-g8-protes...
Did it? Maybe some particular group of people deemphasized anti-globalism when it was picked up by the right wing more. Maybe the others are still around.
Or, maybe some particular group of people is "reality based" as they say, and updated their opinions due to evidence, as one does.
Or, maybe some people feel that relative priorities have changed due to what the opposition is doing.
And I gave plenty of examples - feel free to point out which someone that's "reality based" would consider no longer relevant, or debunked by evidence. Maybe the environmental crisis is over? Have consumer rights triumphed over DRM? Has corporate transparency become so well-established that we can afford to criminalize revealing trade secrets without fear of stifling whistleblowers? Did the food industry become so conscientious that we can loosen labeling requirements?
The purpose of my examples was to show I can imagine the opposition not fading away, but people selectively ignoring it. So, if you feel confident in making the characterization that anti-globalization has been de-emphasized in a coordinated way, please explain how you know it's gone.
Society is not monolithic and it’s a subset of society that cancelling “controversial” opinions. Actually, a pretty small subset.