> Tough shit. China will just have to grow up.
Turns out that they grew up and they don't really care about the same values that we do.
Tough shit, indeed.
Turns out that they grew up and they don't really care about the same values that we do.
Tough shit, indeed.
The point is that because of economics we keep letting their conservative close minded views dictate what happens in the Western Democratic world. These conservative authoritarian approaches should have no quarter here, go against the values & rights the creators & owners of these sites arose from & should be supporting.
It's a sad development & China should be the one having to eat tough shit.
Economics is all that matters in this world. It feels even silly to have to spell it out when we are on a website funded by the pinnacle of capitalism, where money overrides principles day and night.
China will not have to eat any tough shit while the economics is on their side.
And before you object, I ask you to consider the device you are using to reply to me. I know where mine came from.
I doubt it, the sources of materials and stages of manufacturing for most advanced electronics are spread all over the world. I know my motherboard was made in Taiwan, my processor from Malaysia/Germany, but that's just the start.
It isn't. Ukraine is a current demonstration of that.
I'd also love to hear your unhinged explanation of what Russia's invasion of Ukraine has to do with economics.
I have no interest of arguing geopolitics with a moron that approaches this kind of discussion in bad faith.
Suffice to say I think Russia is in the wrong, but there are plenty of economic motivations both for Russia and the US behind all this.
I will not reply to you any further. Feel free to have the last word.
You don't appear to mean anything.
> I have no interest of arguing geopolitics with a moron that approaches this kind of discussion in bad faith.
Ha! So this is why you defend authoritarian regimes. Like them, you have no tolerance for valid criticism. Like them, you can't admit you're wrong. Like them, dishonesty is all you've got.
> but there are plenty of economic motivations
Like what? Don't sulk now. Let's hear it.
A) Money B) Bleeding Russia for as long as possible, which will allow it to more easily make... C) Money in the future
The economic elite that control the foreign policy of the modern powers do not decide to wage war for any other reason than money.
The poster did not seem to mean "grow taller".
Edit: now that was an ambiguous use of '«they»'. For <State>, hence "rule", one would have used 'it'. But 'they' suggests at least the possibility of plural, hence "the people". And that the people share the same view of the rule is not a given.
If they had a choice, the party would hang in rank and file from the street laternposts.
It's easy to comprehend that the Chinese people have such a warped understanding of the situation. It's a combination of both ignorance and a lack of self respect.
Let's have a look at the results of one of your surveys:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-sur...
It says, "In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either 'relatively satisfied' or 'highly satisfied' with Beijing."
But when we get to the level of local government, the level of government people have direct contact with day to day and can see up close, what are the results? The survey says, "At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were 'very satisfied.'"
And why the disparity? Because Chinese convince themselves that the efforts of the "good" central government is being thwarted by the evils of "bad" local government.
In reality it's all bad, top to bottom. All authoritarian regimes are. The fish does rot from the head.
Xi Jinping is so weak that he couldn't do two terms and quit. He's such a poor leader that he's convinced himself that he's the one special boy to lead China and he must stay in power.
That's the corrupting influence of authoritarianism.
That was also a stupid idea.
Why would that be relevant? "Apt for survival" does not imply "with good principles".