391–400 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do others get to vote in US elections ?
They should. If not votes, then at least a couple of representatives in the Congress to complain loudly every time the US wants to do something to make life harder for other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same can be said about the victim hood mentality regarding native Americans and slavery here in the states.
Except the native americans never got their lands & resources back, & similarly blacks have never been given a chance at their own self rule. These other national examples are nation vs nation, where an outside oppressor came & then went. Missing from your anti-empathy sentiments is recognition that these peoples never were given their own sovereignty & resources to rebuild themselves. The most injurious piece may ha…
I vaguely say “other people” because this notion is what entices racial sentiments. It’s no different than changing the adjective for a different skin tone, and saying they too deserve their “own self rule”
This implies “blacks” don’t have self rule as it stands today, which I disagree with. In 2020, there exists no legislature that disfavors someone based on their skin color or ethnic background. We do however have the inverse, policies that give advantages to those who have specific skin color.
This predilection for a specific kind of racism, a one-way street attitude, is what fuels our current divide. I need not say more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure it is 1A issue to begin with. US prohibiting US companies to work with overseas entities is commercial problem. A lot of gambling websites were shut down by court order and a lot of domains seized by FBI. So there is a lot of precedents about restricting US citizens access to foreign parts of the internet.
Well isn't that convenient? Whenever it's a commercial problem it cannot be a speech problem, according to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well isn't that convenient? Whenever it's a commercial problem it cannot be a speech problem, according to you.
Not at all. But in this case they attack the apps not the speech on them. Otherwise gambling sites will be immune if they have IRC chat running.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't use wechat myself but my wife is chinese. From what she tells me, many of her mainland china childhood friends, (including those she considered progressive) strongly disagree with many ideas americans consider fundamentally correct. For example, it's pretty normal for Americans to bicker about politics and criticize the government, especially because of its highly polarized political landscape. Many mainland…
"government is truly representative of the people" - how can they say that when there are no elections in China.
The question is, why CCP won given that KMT is backed by the US (advanced weapons supply, money, and so on) while CCP was so weak in terms of army?
Because the vast majority of the people (most are farmers and industry workers) joined and helped CCP.
I think that's why.
All sovereign nations reserve the right to regulate foreign goods, vessels, diplomats, currency, and peoples distinctly from their native counterparts. Apps are truly no different.
What a sovereign nation, as an abstract entity, can do, is distinct from what its executive leader can do. The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The difference between TikTok and WeChat and FB/Google/Twitter is obvious: the former are to some degree controlled by China and the latter are private entities. How is for example Facebook better because it isn't somehow tied in to the US government? On the one hand the state still have access to all the data from Facebook it wants (NSA, warrants) but on the other they have a hard time protecting its users privacy…
The US government does things that aren't too good. But as far as having my data in Chinese or US intelligence's hands, I'll go with the country that won't put me in jail if one of my WeChats they monitor says something like "I don't like this country."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"government is truly representative of the people" - how can they say that when there are no elections in China.
Before 1949 China was dominated by KMT, and then KMT got kicked out to Taiwan by CCP. The question is, why CCP won given that KMT is backed by the US (advanced weapons supply, money, and so on) while CCP was so weak in terms of army? Because the vast majority of the people (most are farmers and industry workers) joined and helped CCP. I think that's why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before 1949 China was dominated by KMT, and then KMT got kicked out to Taiwan by CCP. The question is, why CCP won given that KMT is backed by the US (advanced weapons supply, money, and so on) while CCP was so weak in terms of army? Because the vast majority of the people (most are farmers and industry workers) joined and helped CCP. I think that's why.
If the govt is so confident they can have an election
I prefer a team of government which has proved it has a true vision, which has proved its ability to execute the vision, which has proved its ability to the lead the people to a better future, which has proved its ability to protect the people from imperialism such as what we're seeing in recent years, which is aiming at and actually eliminating poverty from the vast majority of people... rather than a government which is elected by big corps.
Edit 1: BTW, I myself believed in the so-called US-style democracy and election, until I saw what happened in those "taught by the US" democracy countries such as the Middle-east, Ukraine, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, several South American countries, and especially, in America itself, in the past decades, especially in recent years. Trust me, I believed it in my heart.
Edit 2: I just got to know the name of Andre Vltchek the independent journalist who got killed recently, I read several excerpts of his reports. I think he knows something about the international things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the native americans never got their lands & resources back, & similarly blacks have never been given a chance at their own self rule. These other national examples are nation vs nation, where an outside oppressor came & then went. Missing from your anti-empathy sentiments is recognition that these peoples never were given their own sovereignty & resources to rebuild themselves. The most injurious piece may ha…
If I’m reading between the lines accurately (and sans sarcasm, inform me if I’m mistaken), you presuppose any individual of color (a bit of a loaded term, but you get the idea) has a debt owed to them of land and wealth separate from other people. I vaguely say “other people” because this notion is what entices racial sentiments. It’s no different than changing the adjective for a different skin tone, and saying they…
In one case, the oppressors left & sovereignty was restored.
In the other case, the law decided it had to change to try to bring itself into alignment with some basic human rights & regards.
I do think the people living under now-more-just law still struggle, still face discrimination, and are victim to a system that was imposed on them & a system which does not favor them. I don't think it's unreasonable to identify this gap, and this "one way street" attitude seems, to me, restorative & to be what equity & justice demands. And at times, it feels like it's still not enough, that some people- some persistent negative forces- remain fixed & focused on exclusion & discrimination & their biases, in a way that makes me think perhaps these victim-folk do deserve entirely higher levels of freedom from these oppressive forces that they still face, beyond merely our ongoing & too-controversial attempts at rebalacing.