Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws during medical/health crisis take away your freedoms, and provide governments with powers and levers to remedy the situation.
Yes but we need a functioning press without censorship to have faith that laws made in these times are legitimate.
Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
161–170 of 182 posts
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play a bit of devil’s advocate, “beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia” requires ensuring China’s influence in the world is minimized or contained. It’s hard to beat them if they take over, in other words. (Note that this also requires defeating the same kinds of forces domestically.)
If that containment involves forcing other countries to do your bidding, all you're doing is beating china at being a repressive dystopia
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't find that clear reference at all.
For a mid-20th-century audience with a passing familiarity with contemporary communist politics, it would have been much clearer than to an arbitrary person today. Contemporary reviewers were very convinced, and also thought that the written passages from Goldstein's in-universe book were call-outs and/or parodies of specific passages in Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", I don't know enough about that book to comm…
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, clearly it's not undeniable, because I deny it. What precisely scares you so much about vaccination status being somewhat public? There's precisely zero threat to any real liberties there. And it's laughable to call this "hard totalitarianism". As an aside, this didn't even happen, of course; we didn't "grant the play store our vaccination status". Never happened.
What "never happened" lol? My state of NY has the Excelsior Pass as an app for download on the play store, which has my vaccination status. You are literally denying objective reality. Google nor any other private non-health corporation has any right to that information.
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, clearly it's not undeniable, because I deny it. What precisely scares you so much about vaccination status being somewhat public? There's precisely zero threat to any real liberties there. And it's laughable to call this "hard totalitarianism". As an aside, this didn't even happen, of course; we didn't "grant the play store our vaccination status". Never happened.
Because it's practically being used to restrict travel, employment and access to many things. What if you've already developed immunity through infection? Why should you be forced into it? This received emergency authorisation when public debate on the matter was heavily censored through government and big tech partnerships and complicit centralized media outlets. If treatments with drugs like invermectin were given…
To the extent that restrictions are being put in place, that is happening to save lives. I for one am glad of that.
Ivermectin, btw, which you misspelled, is not a good or even average treatment for covid-19.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's practically being used to restrict travel, employment and access to many things. What if you've already developed immunity through infection? Why should you be forced into it? This received emergency authorisation when public debate on the matter was heavily censored through government and big tech partnerships and complicit centralized media outlets. If treatments with drugs like invermectin were given…
One obvious reason is that immunity via infection is significantly inferior to that granted by vaccination. Also, please don't exaggerate; nobody is being "forced into" vaccination. To the extent that restrictions are being put in place, that is happening to save lives. I for one am glad of that. Ivermectin, btw, which you misspelled, is not a good or even average treatment for covid-19. https://www.fda.gov/consumers…
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't even need to be philosophical. Has China gotten more repressive over time, or less repressive? The first step in a discussion about "beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia" would be determining which way China is trending , and if there was evidence that will continue or reverse (whether that means more or less repressive). The other half is which we "we" (whoever we are, there's an international…
Little about this line of conversation strikes me as a coherent point about China's emergence as a repressive dystopian global power. Starting from a dismissive point that China's dystopianism is somehow absurd, two goalpost-moving comments later we've arrived at the uninsightful point that the future is uncertain and we should ask questions. Assuming charitably that you perhaps just didn't read some comments fully,…
Not meant to be dismissive, not what I said, and not what I was trying to convey. I'll say it again and very clearly: first prove that China is or is moving towards a repressive dystopia.
> has fairly obvious answers involving "Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall" that didn't exist before and that you've not addressed at all.
Stating things that exist is not an examination of whether they they were better or worse than previously, or how periods of time compare.
- Uighurs. They're being oppressed. Are the the first group China has oppressed? If not, then does their oppression seem more or less heavy handed and extreme than those examples that came previously? I don't know enough to compare them, but there has been opression of Tibetans in China for decades, possibly since the inception of the communist party there.
- Hong Kong - This is China exerting control in a way similar to what it does for the rest of its country over an island they believe is part of their country. Is this China becoming more repressive, or just applying the same standards its known for to a populace that was not previously subject to it. It sucks, but is it necessarily an example of China becoming more oppressive? I'm not so sure. Any capitulation at all on China's part, even if a far cry from what people in Hong Kong want, might be a net lessening of repression in China if allowed in other locales of their country.
- Military expansion - Hardly an example of one thing over another. Military expansion is orthogonal to whether they are repressive or a dystopia. If the populace supports it (and all indications I've seen are that the Chinese people are experiencing a massive surge of nationalism as their country comes to prominence), then it hardly needs to be repressive.
- Great Firewall - Taken in context, this is much more ambiguous than presented I think. In 2008, only 22% of Chinese citizens had even used the internet.[1] It's only at about 71% as of 2021. When the Great Firewall was implemented in 1997, I see some indications that well under a million people even had access to it in China.[2] It's speculation on my part, but I have to think given China's goals that there would be a lot less people with access to any sort of internet if they didn't have some control mechanism in place. So is the Great Firewall an example of increasing repression, or slowly opening up to outside information and influences, but just not all at once? I imagine the average Chinese citizen has far more access to information from outside their country than they did in the past, even with the Great Firewall.
> that didn't exist before and that you've not addressed at all.
I didn't address them because throwing out names of things is not an argument. No argument was put forth, because if a coherent one was you would think they might examine these things as I have and acknowledge that they think they are evidence of increased oppression in spite of that. I would accept that as someone putting in the effort to understand what they were talking about, rather than just putting forth something without any real indication that it makes sense.
> One critical component of questioning things is that you look at available information and address questions to what we think we know, not dismiss available information and say we shouldn't trust everything we read. With that in mind, what questions do you have about available information about China's repressive dystopia?
I outlined them above. I'm not expecting you or anyone else to accept them as fact. I honestly don't know enough about China to know how the majority of those items stand up to scrutiny, but I've been hearing about China for enough decades now to realize the bad things I hear are all pretty much the same things rehashed or done over again, but there are other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising, so I think it's something that actually deserves some attention and a fair shake at being discussed, whether it turns out they seem to be getting worse or better.
And, to be clear, yet again, because this entire set of exchanges seems to be people thinking I'm defending China for no reason and think they're great or something, I have no real love for China. I think they do lots of horrible shit. I have never been there, I have no investments there, I have no relations or family involved with it in any way I'm aware of. But purely on a humanitarian level, I think there might just be cause to be optimistic on China's future outlook, because even though it's hard to get good useful information on it, to me it seems like it might just be trending in a good direction, even if it might take a long time to get to something we would consider acceptable. I would want to know if I'm wrong through, and I'm willing to accept arguments that I'm wrong, but if you look you'll see a dearth of argument provided here. I want to know if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to let people just yell "you're wrong!" at without evidence be what convinces me. And if people don't know enough to argue about those things (at least as little as I do which allows me to put them in some minimal context), what are they doing throwing them out as evidence?
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236963/penetration-rate-...
2: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Internet-Users-in-China-...
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that begging the question? Couldn't we just as easily say "beating China at not starting the zombie apocalypse" requires ensuring China doesn't invest in weird chemical experimentation with death and voodoo? We're taking as a given that China's end state is a repressive dystopia, just as we would have to take as a given that China would start a zombie apocalypse. The only difference in one is seen as patent…
Given that China has pretty much been a repressive dystopia forever, it's not weird to assume that that's their end state (though I'm confused about what "end" you're referring to).
You mean communist China, or the China that existed prior to that? The time when the British had influence (control?), or prior to that? How long does this "forever" go back, and what makes you think they prior periods where repressive dystopias?
> it's not weird to assume that that's their end state
We're talking about a country that went through a violent rebellion just over seventy years ago, changing the method of government and economic system entirely in the process. And in the last few decades, they've made sweeping changes to the economic model again to the point where in some places it's extremely capitalistic where it was entirely communism based.
> (though I'm confused about what "end" you're referring to).
I guess it's decided the same way you decide who "beat" the other in not being a repressive dystopia. You can't have a winner without an end, so however people thought that meant. I don't see why my response should have any other rules than the premise it's responding to.
Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#169Re: Microsoft president: Orwell’s 1984 could happen in 2024
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually a Noam Chimpsky quote
Not disputing it, just would like to hear the context.