China

[Hlafordlaes]

The main argument in favor of China's status quo is that prosperity and harmony are the maximum values to pursue in social policy. Overseas, one only hears of local situations involving public corruption or some such, and on the odd ocassion, of suicides by the overworked and gulags for Uyghers. On the ecology front, there are reports of large tree plantations to fight climate change, and then there are the undeniable photos of extreme pollution. China has a definite Potemkin feel, of major issues going unreported with a few scandals breaking through, as one might expect from any nation that size and with that population issuing so little major bad news. Nevertheless, as long as growth is on offer, it seems to be the same solution to all problems it is in the West, or anywhere. Revolutions and social upheaval require wars or scarcity, or coin wins, always.

So, biz as usual? Yes. In today's mercantile world of captive consumers, absolutely. Look how popular Dubai is with the poor man's jet set, slavery just a back alley away notwithstanding. What is a democratic revolutionary to do, but sit on ink-stained thumb and whine?

And why not? It's not like the Taiwan Strait is the Maginot Line, which if crossed in force triggers world war, given geopolitical conditions...() "Nah," say the Left, model gazing at whatever nonsensical utopia is in fashion. "No way", says Europe, with Germany cozily exporting and counting coin. "Part of Chinese national territory," say French and Spaniards, leery of ever giving a breath of air to self-determination, wary of their own break-away regions. "Besides, the Chinese and Russians can take the Americans now, leading in hypersonic cruise missile technology," whisper others, so "why get your butt kicked again following Americans into a quagmire they are sure to leave you in."

Which is why, it would have been so nice, all these years, to realize that it was important to walk the talk,

• to show that the values of free enterprise, practiced with due diligence, and the harnessing of distributed decision-making yielded demonstrably better results over time, with honesty and integrity counting for something (accountability)
• that if the first principles underlying democracy are to be universal, nation-states must be based on communities of percieved shared interest, allowing more leeway for self-determination
• that if self-determination and sovereignty are not to be an escape route back into tyranny, that the rule of law must be based on the same first principles that underlie democracy and human rights
• that it would be nice if, say, originalists and fanboys of legalese would never confuse the deep errors in logic of the past with sacred precedent

But no, we got a vast increase in income disparity, an entire generation of useless war, thousands of returned troops who no longer have access to the only gravy train they've ever known and whose reasoning skills are hilarious, and political "discourse" fit for stone axe savages ("No masks!"). No wonder there is a Chinese hand comfortably placed in the US IP pocket, draining it to the last drop. Oops! Somebody just let their leaders third-world them like chumps, starting with Reagan (Mr. "I lost the US trade surplus for good"). ETA: So, can the US argue cogently for Taiwanese independence, with any credibility on the world stage? Some, say, for Japan and SK, but for most of the world, no way.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

After 4 years of Trump and the rise of fascism and white supremacism in this country

Oh please. If you don't hang out on Twitter, the country is much the same after Trump as it was before Trump.

Quote:

That doesn't mean I would rather live in China, since I feel I have an obligation to continue serving my country, as stupid as that feeling is.

It's funny that you don't seem to care about China's, shall we say, not so progressive attitudes towards gender and gender nonconformity. As for racism, yeah, China is far more racist than the US. They aren't white supremacist, obviously, but they are very much Han supremacist.

You're a hypocrite.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...but they are very much Han supremacist.

That's a point that often gets completely overlooked.

They're completely racist, but muddy the water by being racist against people who can't be distinguished by sight.

[The Atheist]

Meanwhile, expect more shenanigans to break out on the China-India border as talks fail to find a settlement suitable to both sides.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...ensions-ladakh

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh please. If you don't hang out on Twitter, the country is much the same after Trump as it was before Trump.

Only if you live in a bubble with no contact with the rest of the country.

Quote:

It's funny that you don't seem to care about China's, shall we say, not so progressive attitudes towards gender and gender nonconformity. As for racism, yeah, China is far more racist than the US. They aren't white supremacist, obviously, but they are very much Han supremacist.

You're a hypocrite.

You are right that Chinese society tends to be very conservative, ethnocentric, and even xenophobic at times. And I absolutely criticize them on these fronts. But these are traits of Chinese society in general, it has little to do with what government is in charge.

These are also traits that many of their neighbors also have. Japanese society is not that different.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Only if you live in a bubble with no contact with the rest of the country.

Twitter isn't the rest of the country.

Quote:

You are right that Chinese society tends to be very conservative, ethnocentric, and even xenophobic at times. And I absolutely criticize them on these fronts. But these are traits of Chinese society in general, it has little to do with what government is in charge.

The CCP is playing into existing cultural norms, but they absolutely have a role here in further encouraging it. For example:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/10336...icial-morality

[Boudicca90]

I am certainly worried about this, and hope it doesn't lead to more bigotry against the LGBTQ+ in China.

I don't agree with them on this at all, but it's their culture and their country.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I am certainly worried about this, and hope it doesn't lead to more bigotry against the LGBTQ+ in China.

I don't agree with them on this at all, but it's their culture and their country.

That's a copout. I think the truth is that you think your criticism of China won't do anything, but you think your criticism of the US might do something.

But the net effect of that asymmetry perversely favors the worst actors. As Orwell said regarding pacifists during WW2:

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.

We aren't in military conflict with China (and again, I don't want to be), but we are in conflict with them.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's a copout. I think the truth is that you think your criticism of China won't do anything, but you think your criticism of the US might do something.

Both, actually. They have a different culture than we do and it's not my place to get involved, but also I have no say in China while I do here in my own country.

Quote:

But the net effect of that asymmetry perversely favors the worst actors. As Orwell said regarding pacifists during WW2:

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.

We aren't in military conflict with China (and again, I don't want to be), but we are in conflict with them.

Again, you say you don't want war, but all your speech does so far is push us towards that direction.

I'm certainly not a pacifist (I admit I used to be, but enlisting during wartime has a way of changing that), but Orwell was wrong here. The true pro-fascist tactic is appeasement.

Conservatives and liberals enable fascism by letting it flourish. By allowing fascist ideas to spread in the first place. But China isn't a fascist country, so I don't see your point here. They are certainly state capitalist, which is why I'm hopeful for Xi's reforms when it comes to the economy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Both, actually. They have a different culture than we do and it's not my place to get involved

Criticizing them here is not really "getting involved".

Quote:

Again, you say you don't want war, but all your speech does so far is push us towards that direction.

You seem to think this forum is rather more important than it actually is.

But what exactly do you think I've even advocated here? So far, supporting Taiwan is the only real policy recommendation I've made. But as we've seen, that support hasn't led to war even over decades. It has likely prevented war.

Quote:

I'm certainly not a pacifist (I admit I used to be, but enlisting during wartime has a way of changing that), but Orwell was wrong here. The true pro-fascist tactic is appeasement.

You want to appease China.

Quote:

Conservatives and liberals enable fascism by letting it flourish. By allowing fascist ideas to spread in the first place. But China isn't a fascist country, so I don't see your point here. They are certainly state capitalist, which is why I'm hopeful for Xi's reforms when it comes to the economy.

It's not fascism if it's not from the Fascia region of Italy? Whatever distinction you're trying to draw between China's oppressive dictatorship and whatever you think "true fascism" is don't actually matter.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Again, you say you don't want war, but all your speech does so far is push us towards that direction.

You understand that a deterrent has to be credible in order to be effective, right? Nobody has ever deterred war by convincing their opponent that they didn't want war. On the other hand, wars have often been prevented by convincing one's opponent that one is absolutely willing to deliver more war than anybody would ever ask for, if their opponent keeps pushing.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You understand that a deterrent has to be credible in order to be effective, right? Nobody has ever deterred war by convincing their opponent that they didn't want war. On the other hand, wars have often been prevented by convincing one's opponent that one is absolutely willing to deliver more war than anybody would ever ask for, if their opponent keeps pushing.

Wars or conflicts shouldn't be threatened or even suggested unless there is a valid reason to. And there currently isn't a valid reason right now.

China certainly likes to push buttons, and I can see conflicts arising from that. But we should see China as a potential ally and not as a threat. Especially since we need their cooperation on important matters like reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Wars or conflicts shouldn't be threatened or even suggested unless there is a valid reason to. And there currently isn't a valid reason right now.

China regularly and openly threatens war. Go bitch to them, not us.

Quote:

China certainly likes to push buttons, and I can see conflicts arising from that. But we should see China as a potential ally and not as a threat.

That is bloody ******* stupid. China is not a potential ally. You can compromise with an enemy, but you cannot turn an enemy into a friend unless you can remove the conflict of interests. But that is impossible with China. The interests of the CCP are in direct conflict with our interests. The differences are not reconcilable.

Quote:

Especially since we need their cooperation on important matters like reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy.

Bwahahahahaha!

Yeah, no. It isn't in the CCP's interest to reduce their carbon emissions. So they aren't going to.

[Boudicca90]

You can consider China an enemy all you want. I don't and never have.

Luckily we have a President now who doesn't see things your way.

And it is in everyone's interest, since the economic effects of doing nothing will be far more expensive than trying to reduce our global impact on the climate now.

[The Great Zaganza]

China has PTSD from the time of European colonialism, and it is kept alive by a narrative that is helpful to The Party.
Chinese belligerence should be seen as the delayed reaction to the Opium wars, second world war with Japan etc.
It's the reaction of a victim that feels the need to become an oppressor to rid itself of a past feeling of helplessness.
US policy in the region needs to focus on supporting allies, not on confronting China directly until Beijing gets its mental **** together.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

You can consider China an enemy all you want. I don't and never have.

Luckily we have a President now who doesn't see things your way.

And it is in everyone's interest, since the economic effects of doing nothing will be far more expensive than trying to reduce our global impact on the climate now.

Wake up. China isn’t going to reduce its global impact. They have no interest in doing so. And we cannot get it to either.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

China has PTSD from the time of European colonialism, and it is kept alive by a narrative that is helpful to The Party.
Chinese belligerence should be seen as the delayed reaction to the Opium wars, second world war with Japan etc.
It's the reaction of a victim that feels the need to become an oppressor to rid itself of a past feeling of helplessness.
US policy in the region needs to focus on supporting allies, not on confronting China directly until Beijing gets its mental **** together.

Of course. The Chinese government isn't comprised of human beings with intelligence and agency. It's all just a cell culture grown on a hundred year old substrate. How dare we antagonize the mindless shoggoth of East Asia?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

China has PTSD from the time of European colonialism, and it is kept alive by a narrative that is helpful to The Party.
Chinese belligerence should be seen as the delayed reaction to the Opium wars, second world war with Japan etc.
It's the reaction of a victim that feels the need to become an oppressor to rid itself of a past feeling of helplessness.
US policy in the region needs to focus on supporting allies, not on confronting China directly until Beijing gets its mental **** together.

The CCP will never get its mental **** together. That’s something dictatorships are incapable of. This is the country that banned Winnie the Pooh. Sanity won’t return to government until the CCP is gone. Which likely won’t be in my lifetime, I’m sad to say.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course. The Chinese government isn't comprised of human beings with intelligence and agency. It's all just a cell culture grown on a hundred year old substrate. How dare we antagonize the mindless shoggoth of East Asia?

I don’t know, mindless shoggoths seems like a fairly apt description of communists.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wake up. China isn’t going to reduce its global impact. They have no interest in doing so. And we cannot get it to either.

You should have at least Googled before saying anything like that.

For example: in China "in 2019, renewable sources provided 26% of its electricity generation[8]—compared to 17% in the U.S.A.[9]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene...nergy_in_China

And

China aims to plant trees across an area larger than Belgium each year to increase its forests.
The mass planting is part of the country's strategy to bring carbon emissions to net zero by 2060.
By the end of 2025, 24.1 per cent of China's land will be covered by forest, according to officials.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-...ests/100395780

[The Great Zaganza]

China right now is at war with its financial oligarchy, not the West. It's bellicosity is meant to scare off outsiders so they can deal with their internal problems.
But I think that they are dealing with the symptoms, not the causes of why some have become insanely rich in China. The 2nd wave of the Chinese ultra-rich will find ways to shield themselves from the CCP.
The Party might have seen the mistakes Yeltsin made, but corruption is part of China to a level that the CCP never will be.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wake up. China isn’t going to reduce its global impact. They have no interest in doing so. And we cannot get it to either.

They already are, we just have to help them get there.

Comparative Assessment of China and U.S. Policies to Meet Climate Change Targets

China's problem is they are a coal-producing country first and foremost, so the rapid rise in industrialization and modernization over the last 20 years has led to a huge amount of pollution.

But they are already making progress through government mandates which are far stronger than anything we have been doing here, instead of relying on the private sector to save us. Which it won't, not without government action backing it up.

[The Great Zaganza]

Because China became the industrial center of the world, it also became the industrial waste center of the world. It has a very personal reason to go green.

[Boudicca90]

When Beijing or Shanghai is covered in so much pollution that you couldn't see a mile in any direction, it really looks bad for the Chinese government. And they know this.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

China has PTSD from the time of European colonialism, and it is kept alive by a narrative that is helpful to The Party.
Chinese belligerence should be seen as the delayed reaction to the Opium wars, second world war with Japan etc.
It's the reaction of a victim that feels the need to become an oppressor to rid itself of a past feeling of helplessness.
US policy in the region needs to focus on supporting allies, not on confronting China directly until Beijing gets its mental **** together.

I don't think that's the psychology. I think it comes down to the Chinese seeing themselves as the heirs to the world's greatest empire, and it's only truly civilized people, and it's just a blip that it was eclipsed by the west for a few centuries, but their time is coming back again.

Just my personal impression, though.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I don't think that's the psychology. I think it comes down to the Chinese seeing themselves as the heirs to the world's greatest empire, and it's only truly civilized people, and it's just a blip that it was eclipsed by the west for a few centuries, but their time is coming back again.

Just my personal impression, though.

exactly.
now pair that with the memory of the Barbarians putting themselves in charge of the Middle Kingdom.
The Insult! The Insolence!
It's almost a repeat of the Mongol conquest, only they had the grace to let themselves get properly "civilized".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The 2nd wave of the Chinese ultra-rich will find ways to shield themselves from the CCP.

More likely, the 2nd wave will be the CCP.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Because China became the industrial center of the world, it also became the industrial waste center of the world. It has a very personal reason to go green.

Only within their borders. They don’t care about the world in general. Just look how their fishing fleets are trashing delicate marine ecologies.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Only within their borders. They don’t care about the world in general. Just look how their fishing fleets are trashing delicate marine ecologies.

Yes?
And the rest of the world cared about anything outside their borders when they moved the most polluting industries to China and India?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there is no real difference between China and the rest of the world there. And at least China tries to keep the pretense of following international agreements about pollution rather than ripping them up unilaterally to score some political points at home.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Yes?
And the rest of the world cared about anything outside their borders when they moved the most polluting industries to China and India?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there is no real difference between China and the rest of the world there. And at least China tries to keep the pretense of following international agreements about pollution rather than ripping them up unilaterally to score some political points at home.

China still has a long way to go, and we need to put pressure on their irresponsibility, but they are no worse than anyone else in the world.

In fact, that've been making improvements at a rate that's much faster than ours, and they didn't throw a poop-throwing baboon into Presidential office to stifle themselves like we did to ourselves for the past 4 years.

They care about climate change because they have just as much to lose as anyone else. Shanghai is the third most populous city in the world and it's right on the coastline.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

And at least China tries to keep the pretense of following international agreements about pollution rather than ripping them up unilaterally to score some political points at home.

That doesn't make any sense. Why is lying better than honesty? You're really stretching here.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

China still has a long way to go, and we need to put pressure on their irresponsibility, but they are no worse than anyone else in the world.

In fact, that've been making improvements at a rate that's much faster than ours

Improvements in what? Seriously, what metrics are you even using here?

Quote:

and they didn't throw a poop-throwing baboon into Presidential office to stifle themselves like we did to ourselves for the past 4 years.

Of course. It's always Trump, all the time.

If you would honestly take Xi over Trump, then you're one of those fools who would continue to praise Stalin even as you were being taken away for execution, convinced that there was some mistake that would get sorted out.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Improvements in what? Seriously, what metrics are you even using here?

Orphia Nay and I have already provided sources with metrics.

Their carbon emissions per capita are still WAY under ours and they still haven't come remotely close to the amount of pollution we have contributed to the planet.

We also benefit from a lot of our products being made in China, which also contributes to the carbon they generate. China is still industrializing and is still more of a producer than a consumer nation like we are.

Fact check: Is China the main climate change culprit?

Conclusion: We are still mostly to blame.

Quote:

Of course. It's always Trump, all the time.

If you would honestly take Xi over Trump, then you're one of those fools who would continue to praise Stalin even as you were being taken away for execution, convinced that there was some mistake that would get sorted out.

I would choose neither, since I don't want authoritarians of any stripe running this country again. But if I had a gun to my head and had to choose, then Xi. As least he's not a moron.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That doesn't make any sense. Why is lying better than honesty? You're really stretching here.

Because to keep up the pretense you actually have to DO something, and as has been pointed out to you, China is at least acting.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Because to keep up the pretense you actually have to DO something, and as has been pointed out to you, China is at least acting.

We are too. You don't have to sign up to a treaty you won't even abide by in order to do something.

And what exactly do you think China is doing, anyways? They aren't phasing out coal. And to the extent that they're doing anything (ie, adding more power generation capability besides coal, lowering pollution levels), it's stuff they would have to do anyways.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Orphia Nay and I have already provided sources with metrics.

Their carbon emissions per capita are still WAY under ours

Yes. Because they're poor. But it's rising, and will continue to rise.

Quote:

and they still haven't come remotely close to the amount of pollution we have contributed to the planet.

By what metric? CO2? That's not really pollution.

If you measure stuff which IS pollution, for example the amount of plastic dumped into the ocean, they're actually far ahead of us.

Quote:

We also benefit from a lot of our products being made in China, which also contributes to the carbon they generate.

Sure. But also somewhat irrelevant. Either it's OK to manufacture stuff, in which case "blame" doesn't even make sense, or it's not, in which case everyone is to blame be they the producer or the consumer.

Quote:

I would choose neither, since I don't want authoritarians of any stripe running this country again. But if I had a gun to my head and had to choose, then Xi. As least he's not a moron.

The irony is that Xi is the one who would be holding the gun.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Because China became the industrial center of the world,...

That's a point I like to press a lot.

All of these anti-China people who see China as an enemy buy goods made, or partly made, in China.

If they put their money where their mouths are and stopped supporting China financially I'd have some respect for their position.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

In fact, that've been making improvements at a rate that's much faster than ours

A clapped out Lada going from ten to twenty MPH is accelerating a lot faster than the Tesla cruising at 90 MPH.

---

A couple years ago, China landed a jet on an aircraft carrier for the first time. It's an impressive feat, and it's doubly impressive how quickly they've gotten into jet fighter carrier operations. No doubt they'll be landing UCAVs on carriers pretty soon, too. That will bring them about up to date with the current state of the art as practiced by the USN. By comparison, the USN has taken a lot longer to get to this point, from when it first got started. But it's doubtful that China will be able to continue that same pace of innovation into the future. Most of their rate of improvement has been them playing catch-up with well-established and mature technologies and processes. It's not like they're genius innovators eating everyone else's lunch with their visionary advances.

Their two greatest advantages, cheap labor and a totalitarian government, are about as primitive as it gets.

I suppose we probably don't need to talk about the role that corporate and military espionage has played in China's rate of improvement. Or or about how their military-industrial baseline was stuff the Soviets had already figured out and shared with them (or that they stole from the Soviets).

The Chinese rate of improvement is impressive, but not impressive enough to carry the rhetorical weight that's being loaded on it here.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's a point I like to press a lot.

All of these anti-China people who see China as an enemy buy goods made, or partly made, in China.

If they put their money where their mouths are and stopped supporting China financially I'd have some respect for their position.

Let me know when Australia builds out an industrial plant that can compete on price and quality, and I'll happily shift my buying power over to our antipodean comrades.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Let me know when Australia builds out an industrial plant that can compete on price and quality, and I'll happily shift my buying power over to our antipodean comrades.

Australia has nothing to do with it. I don't believe there's a single thing you can't already buy that has zero Chinese input.