Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter [...] subReddits You appear to be arguing that no-one has ever been kicked off Facebook or Twitter, and that no subreddits have ever been banned. Is that your position?
So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB? Such a privileged and weak notion of silencing. China will send people to camps and the police will break down a memorial museum - that's silencing. Getting kicked from FB/Twitter because for being a twat doesn't mean your group is persecuted.
Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
491–500 of 538 posts
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB? Such a privileged and weak notion of silencing. China will send people to camps and the police will break down a memorial museum - that's silencing. Getting kicked from FB/Twitter because for being a twat doesn't mean your group is persecuted.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relativ...
That's not "moving the goal posts".
The ACTUAL complaint is that people demand an AUDIENCE - they want to be able to broadcast their views to the largest number of people possible.
Nobody in the US is being "quashed" - you can run your own website, print your own newsletter, and nobody is going to kick down your door or send you to a re-education camp. Like I said, Nazis run their own websites, and the Taliban is on Twitter. Nobody here is being "silenced" because they can't grab the microphone - nobody's owed a microphone in the first place.
It's not even "relative privation" - nobody has a God given right to...Facebook. People serious about their causes run their own websites - they don't immediately start whinging because they've been booted from Reddit.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
I predict: 1) China won't attack Taiwan until it can be assured a swift victory. 2) China will reach that state within our lifetimes. WWII was won, in part, by US manufacturing prowess. China has that advantage. It's military is currently behind in equipment, but if it chose to, it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. It also has the political ability to engage in major projects lik…
I either agree or think your predictions make sense, but I think your premises that lead to them are a little bit suspect. China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply En…
"The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be."
I doubt that. I am an American and wouldn't support war with China over Taiwan. I don't know a single person who has ever said anything suggesting they think we should commit the country to war to protect Taiwan.
Coming off the failed Afghanistan war I expect war would be extremely unpopular. Especially with an enemy so much more capable than assorted Afghan militia.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China. Where is your evidence? I have friends live and working in HK. Certainly the silent majority doesn't care much. Like any normal people, they prefer better life and rewarding career, than being full time protester. The 2016 US election already showed that the silent majority rarely aligned with the mainstream rhetoric. Please be mindful about the reality.
> > The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China. The pro-democracy camp, who overwhemingly supported the anti-extradition (anti-CCP) protests in 2019, had a landslide victory during the District Council Election in 2019 [1]. CCP, realizing that fair elections could threaten its rule in Hong Kong, later imposed the National Security Law and arrested lots of opposition members [2]. And then many HKers v…
You are mixing different things together.
[1] is for local district election. It's ridiculous to say that these elected personels are pro democracy, as if pro democracy is conflicting with CCP. CCP sanctions the democracy state of HK. That's part of deal of the treaty. This is one thing.
Additional, these elected officials are for local executive branches. They actually have no say in how the fundamental political structure ought to do or what to do in the place.
In the typical NYT fashion, they link two groups of people together without formal evidences.
[2] And the national security law. As a common practice all over the world, the law does not change anything in how the HK political system working. I am not sure why any patriotic citizens in HK would find national security law impairs their activity to uphold the democracy in HK. I mean the law literally has nothing to say about how power structure should be. It only states that no one share impair China's sovereignty over HK.
Lastly, stop painting the HK protests as some grandiose ideology fight. It's just young people are not getting the opportunity for flourishing. It's no different than "occupying wall street" it was just that China happen to be the favorite punching bag of disfunctional government to offset their incompetence.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't defending their action. Just pointing out that is the context they operate from. Whether it is fact or indoctrination isn't really important. Their action is 100% consistent with that belief. Every country is lying/cheating/stealing... Is there an honest operator out there?
Well, yes - if Apple or Samsung violate IP laws, there is recourse. If China steals all the Arm Holdings IP and infrastructure in China, there is no recourse. If I scam someone on EBay or Amazon almost anywhere in the Western world, they can take me to court given sufficient evidence and magnitude of the scam. If a Chinese seller on Alibaba or Amazon scams me, there is zero recourse. The Western world has a surprisin…
I was referring to state actors.
“The western world” is the minority in the world… like 20 or so countries. And typically they benefited from colonialism. I know it’s fun to ignore history, but it’s dishonest.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#496The Chinese Government is speeding up their efforts to swallow Hong Kong and Macau into the Mainland. Closing the media outlets, museums, websites that speak against them. And a few key people get abducted here and there to scare more people and force them to accept the Beijing Regime. But... The people from Hong Kong still demonstrates and tries to fight for their lost rights.
The only reason Hong Kong has had this period of independence is a side effect of western power subjugating the Chinese mainland. As the Chinese mainland grows in global power and the west decays into internal squabbles there should be no expectation that the pretenses of western power will remain intact.
I think I'm being downvoted out of some sense of political duty to Hong Kong from westerners, but really there has been nothing holding the mainland back other than the threat of western power. If there is no threat, there is nothing that will hold them back, whether we find it tasteful or not.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
I either agree or think your predictions make sense, but I think your premises that lead to them are a little bit suspect. China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply En…
"The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be." I doubt that. I am an American and wouldn't support war with China over Taiwan. I don't know a single person who has ever said anything suggesting they think we should commit the country to war to protect Taiwan. Coming off the failed Afghanistan war I expect war would be extremely unpopular. Especially with an enemy so much more capable th…
I really don't want another war. At the same time, I don't want the world that would result from China taking Taiwan, either.
What's wrong with that world? 1) We didn't keep our promises. 2) Another 23 million people oppressed by force against their will. Even if it isn't our job to defend them, it still doesn't sit well to see it happen. 3) We can't get chips (much less important than the other two).
Where does that leave me? Not wanting war, but not wanting the alternative? There are a fair number of people with that perspective. If it comes to it, what will we decide? I don't know, even for myself.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, they do. They still have the domestic capacity to expand internal production to cover most of those 10 million barrels. I didn't say they produce everything they need in sufficient quantities, just that they produce it. It would cause short term trouble and rationing but long term the impact is mitigated.
Looking at the most recent numbers, they produced just under 4 million barrels a day domestically. Oil production isn't something where you can just triple the output over a few months. China has been working to expand their internal production for a while, and it takes billions of dollars and years to do so: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2019/06/06/china-is-bett...
They don't need to triple it in months. Increasing domestic supply by 50%, increasing Russian oil imports from 1.7 mbd to 3mbd.
Meanwhile, China has reserves for 100 days of imports.
In the long term domestic and Russian production will catch up fully.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. It would seem a treaty acknowledging Taiwan as an independent sovereign would be an ideal outcome, but it's weird to see nations express wounded pride, imo
That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings or the British. It might be true, but what is the point exactly? Like it or not but Might Is Right and in less than 20 years Might equals PRC above all else (including the US, yes).
> That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings[...]
That's not quite right. The government of Taiwan consists (consisted?) at least partially of the literal former government of the country now commonly known as China before the "cultural revolution" that murdered tens of million of people and put the CCP into power.
The closest analogy that you can get is the idea that the US belongs to the British (as they were our former government) - which you can make a decent case for, although I would still argue that the vastly different natures of the Revolutionary War and the Cultural Revolution still make them distinct.
Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might does not make right in questions of rule of law. Unless it's barbarism then. At that point I'm pretty sure the biggest functional nuclear stockpile wins though.
>Might does not make right in questions of rule of law Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true). History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citi…
Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed.
After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.