cecinestpasunbot @ cecinestpasunbot @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

444

Joined

2 yr. ago

Okay and as far as the Taiwanese people are concerned they apparently see that choice as a lose lose situation. Why then does it matter if they prefer the ambiguity of the status quo? Why is it so urgent that they make a choice they clearly don’t want to make?

He’s not saying it will have to be taken by force. Where did you read that? He’s implying that China is willing to use force but he’s not asserting that the use of force is necessary if that makes sense.

If you want to understand the situation you have to understand that Taiwanese only remained politically independent thanks to US intervention in the Chinese civil war. When the nationalists fled to Taiwan the US stationed a fleet between the island and the mainland. That prevented the communists from finishing the fight against Chiang Kai-shek’s fascist KMT. The US then supported the KMT as the legitimate government of China right up until Kissinger realized the US could ally with the CPC against the USSR.

Given their long victimhood at the hands of colonialist and imperialist nations, the CPC is worried about what allowing Taiwanese independence would mean for their national security. They see foreign support for Taiwanese independence as the continued meddling of outside powers in Chinese affairs. That said I imagine they would be more amicable with maintaining Taiwanese political independence under the umbrella of an economic union if the US agreed to stop funding pro independence groups in Taiwan.

Taiwanese people don’t want the island to be recognized as its own nation though. They benefit from close economic relations with the mainland and so are happy to maintain the status quo. The majority voted against pro independence candidates in recent elections, something this article fails to mention. That of course doesn’t mean Taiwanese people trust the mainland nor do they want to be politically integrated into it. However the situation is more nuanced than many western media outlets would have you believe.

Yes and no. Deng was definitely a strong advocate for market reforms. However, if you ask any Chinese economist from that era they would say reform was inevitable.

Also the strategies Deng advocated for were similar to the failed shock therapy programs that Eastern European countries underwent following the collapse of the USSR. In doing so he risked the stability of the Chinese economy.

That said, he also helped keep political control out of capitalist hands. That allowed China to course correct when some of their reforms induced economic instability.

It’s for all of the journalists, aid workers, and their families.

The die was cast long before that when the US decided to fund the mujahideen to fight the Soviets. That destroyed the possibility of a secular Afghani state. The US later found that the easiest way to pacify the country was to simply bribe Taliban aligned warlords. Once the money spigot was turned off, a Taliban resurgence was inevitable. Every administration from Reagan to Biden shares some blame in what is happening today.

I don’t think China is in such a bind. That’s not to say they don’t face any challenges. However, their interests just aren’t as contradictory as this article suggests.

China can undermine US power and attract US investors by continuing its rapid economic growth. That of course is not easy. They need to transition away from an economy based on large scale infrastructure development towards growth sectors such as green energy and high tech. They also need to develop better trade relationships with their international suppliers. As of right now it’s clear they’re trying to do both of those things and there are early signs of success.

That said, the US is aware that a more economically powerful China threatens the unique advantages US investors currently enjoy on the international stage. That’s why the US is specifically trying to undermine China’s trade relationships and sanction its high growth sectors.

Honestly though, I think the US is taking a huge risk here that could easily backfire. While sanctioning Chinese high tech might slow China’s growth in the short term, China developing its own independent supply chains may allow it to come back with a vengeance. Additionally, trying to cut China out of international trade deals may cause China to pursue more advantageous relationships that cut out the US entirely.

Exactly how is a slow genocide any better than a quick one?

In all likelihood, Biden is starting to pay lip service to the call for a ceasefire as the people around him realize his support for Israel’s genocide may hurt his chances of reelection. I’m not holding my breath for him to actually do anything about it. Words are cheap.

Biden gave material support to Israel’s genocidal campaign which has killed over 30,000 people. You’re delusional if you think paying lip service to a ceasefire while still actively supporting the genocide is going to satisfy anyone.

You’re incredibly gullible then. You literally think that a billionaire donating to a foundation that he still controls and operates counts as giving his money away.

The Gated foundation is a PR and lobbying machine that’s clearly done its job in your case.

Is there a difference between someone like Jeff bezos and Bill Gates though?

Yes, Bill Gates has better PR. That’s literally it. He’s not actually trying to do good at this stage in his life. It’s a testament to the power of his wealth that you think otherwise.

I would say not all millionaires are bad because not all of them gain their wealth through exploitive practices. Plenty of them are just retirees that have worked all their lives and shouldn’t have to work anymore anyways.

On the other hand, it’s literally impossible to become a billionaire without exploiting a truly absurd number of people. It’s that scale of exploitation that makes billionaires categorically a plague on society. If you can’t see that then you’re certainly not left leaning in any sense.

The funny thing is that even the Gates Foundation is actively causing harm on a massive scale. It’s funding charter schools as a way to kill public education, pushing for circumcision in Africa without a meaningful scientific basis for such a program, or lobbying against vaccine patent waivers. People forget about that because it also is the PR arm of the Gates empire.

No no, I think they mean the Bill gates that lobbied heavily to keep RNA vaccine technology private despite the fact that it was developed using public money and could save millions of lives.

Which by all indications was something he didn’t actually want to do in the first place. It’s just the west wasn’t ready to give up exploiting the people of the former USSR. If Putin allowed that to continue he would have likely lost his power just as Yeltsin had.

Sure but it’s always like one small step forward and two large steps back. Abortion was made illegal in many states. US domestic surveillance of its own citizens has increased dramatically and gone unchallenged. Housing and healthcare costs have continued to outpace wage growth. Inequality has increased unabated. Green energy remains woefully underfunded. I could go on.

Well that’s exactly the problem. If people use AI generated images for commercial purposes they may accidentally infringe on someone else’s copyright. Since AI models are a black box there isn’t really a good way to avoid this.

That’s not really true if you account for the purchasing power of the dollar within the US. While Americans might benefit from cheap imported consumer goods, their housing, food, and healthcare costs are incredibly high when compared to other countries.