Which country do you consider the greatest long term threats to your PERSONAL way of life? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which country do you consider the greatest long term threats to your PERSONAL way of life?

USA
20
47%
Russia
3
7%
China
15
35%
EU
1
2%
Iran
1
2%
Lybia/Syria
No votes
0%
SA
No votes
0%
NK
No votes
0%
UK
2
5%
Other Country
1
2%
#15164995
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, again, the question is what socio-economic conditions lead to this?


You have not provided a single argument that American Liberal Republicanism is a greater threat to the world than Chinese Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Nor have you provided a single argument that Biden's foreign policy in the year 2021 is threatening countries in a worse way than China is threatening EU countries, Australia, the people of Hong Kong, Tibet & East Turkestan.

You would have to show that the US is treating parts of its own population in the year 2021 in the same way China is treating the Uyghurs, Cantonese and Tibetans. Forced exile, internment without trial, forced ethnic re-education, forced sterilisation against its own citizens en mass.

You would then have to show that the US is treating foreign countries in the year 2021, the same way China is treating Australia, Sweden and others for the same reasons. Anyone who criticises the Chinese government is sanctioned. Countries and people are free to criticise the US government. The important part is not the sanctions on individuals themselves(that is just posturing with no effect on anyone beyond those specific individuals) but the reasons for them.

The US slaps them for human rights violations, warmongering and nuclear threats, China for plain criticism. Explain how China's reasoning poses a lesser threat to people around the world than America's reasoning.
#15165835
I'd bet every dollar in my wallet and bank that if/when America falls, it will be because of internal forces, not external.

To me, the answer to the question is USA by a country mile. China and Russia are distant second and third.

China and Russia have vested interest in American chaos. They both try. They've both tried for decades. Overall, the effect has been minimal.

Compare that to corporate-led and media-led American lies, with their current poster boy being a lifelong criminal who died while high on multiple drugs, and while being arrested for current committing crime at the time of death. There have been other people that were better to hitch an equality wagon to (Philando Castile being one), but the left did it to a career thug whose death could only be considered an overall benefit to the nation by way of a removed burden of federal prison money alloted to pieces of shit like him.

The American left is through the looking glass, riled up into a lather by a deceitful force at the top of the hierarchy. America is doomed.
#15166116
wat0n wrote:Or you can just ask testimony from people who live under their rule. Again, we have posters who do.

Even @Fasces will not be willing to claim that dissenting from the positions of the Chinese State will not lead you to anything else but disaster. He has also acknowledged that China is fairly oppressive against those who don't toe to the line culturally, even if it's something that can be explained by its recent history. He's free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Within China, and only when organizing anti-state action - China doesn't give two fucks what most people believe or discuss in a private conversation, or when they vent among their friends. They especially don't really care what foreigners think, unless they do business with Chinese consumers.

noemon wrote:You have not provided a single argument that American Liberal Republicanism is a greater threat to the world than Chinese Totalitarian Dictatorship.


The "world" isn't the American-led liberal world order. Americans are a far greater threat to most Africans, Arabs, South Americans, Chinese, Indians, and others in the Global South than China.
#15166119
Fasces wrote:The "world" isn't the American-led liberal world order. Americans are a far greater threat to most Africans, Arabs, South Americans, Chinese, Indians, and others in the Global South than China.

I'm sure if China was the global hegemon over the last 30 years it would have been far kindler, gentler, and less self-serving. :lol:
#15166121
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm sure if China was the global hegemon over the last 30 years it would have been far kindler, gentler, and less self-serving. :lol:


Do you generally indict people for crimes they haven't committed because you feel they would have, if they had a chance?

I want to know how deep this irrationality extends. Do you cross the street when a black man approaches because "they're the type who would mug you given half the chance"?
#15166123
Fasces wrote:Do you generally indict people for crimes they haven't committed because you feel they would have, if they had a chance?

I want to know how deep this irrationality extends. Do you cross the street when a black man approaches because "they're the type who would mug you given half the chance"?

If that specific man had committed all sorts of heinous acts then yes I would cross the street.

And yes, generally it's fairly predictable to know how self-serving a-holes would act if given tremendous power, especially those with zero oversight or accountability to hold them back, unlike in a democracy.

Go call Joe Biden a baby-raping a-hole to his face on national television and see what would happen, then do the same to Xi Jinping. You can't even compare the man to Winnie the Pooh!
#15166125
Fasces wrote:Within China, and only when organizing anti-state action - China doesn't give two fucks what most people believe or discuss in a private conversation, or when they vent among their friends. They especially don't really care what foreigners think, unless they do business with Chinese consumers.


Thanks for the clarification, so as long as dissent is kept private they don't care? Can one rat someone else for dissenting?

Fasces wrote:The "world" isn't the American-led liberal world order. Americans are a far greater threat to most Africans, Arabs, South Americans, Chinese, Indians, and others in the Global South than China.


Oddly enough, plenty of China's neighbors would disagree.
#15166134
Fasces wrote:The "world" isn't the American-led liberal world order. Americans are a far greater threat to most Africans, Arabs, South Americans, Chinese, Indians, and others in the Global South than China.


I did not say that the "world is the American-led liberal order". I said that you need to provide evidence that Chinese Totalitarian Dictatorship is less of a threat to the world than American Liberalism. You either did not read properly or you intentionally misinterpreted what I wrote.

The Guardian wrote:
China launches hotline to report ‘illegal’ comments about Communist party

Public encouraged to report internet users who cast doubt on party’s version of history ahead of its 100th anniversary

China’s cyber regulator has launched a hotline to report online criticism of the ruling Communist party and its history, vowing to crack down on “historical nihilists” ahead of the party’s 100th anniversary in July.

The tip line allows people to report fellow internet users who “distort” the party’s history, attack its leadership and policies, defame national heroes and “deny the excellence of advanced socialist culture” online, said a notice posted by an arm of the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) on Friday.

“Some with ulterior motives ... have been spreading historical nihilistic misrepresentations online, maliciously distorting, denigrating and negating the history of the party,” said the notice.

“We hope that the majority of internet users will actively play their part in supervising society ... and enthusiastically report harmful information,” it said.

“Historical nihilism” is a phrase used in China to describe public doubt and scepticism over the Chinese Communist party’s description of past events.

China’s internet is tightly censored and most foreign social media networks, search engines and news outlets are banned in the country.

Internet authorities often increase censorship and online supervision ahead of major events including historical anniversaries, political meetings and sports events.

The notice did not specify what punishments would be handed to those who are reported through the hotline, but netizens in China already face jail time and other legal punishments for posting content that is critical of the county’s leadership, policies and history.

Legal amendments released earlier this year stipulate that people who “insult, slander of infringe upon” the memory of China’s national heroes and martyrs face jail time of up to three years.

Last week, authorities in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu detained a 19-year-old man accused of making “insulting” comments online about Japan’s 1937 occupation of Nanjing.

Chinese social media sites that fail to censor critical content also face financial sanctions as well as temporary suspensions of service under current law.
#15166160
wat0n wrote:Thanks for the clarification, so as long as dissent is kept private they don't care? Can one rat someone else for dissenting?


Yeah, in my experience. I've met plenty of Chinese who have no shortage of gripes with the government, and little fear in expressing it in informal settings. There's also a lot more democracy than most in the West would expect at the local level. There's no shortage of dissent - hell, just last Thursday I got a knock on my door from the local tenant organization. They're building a new office block, and local residents are worried it'll block the sun from the apartment community. They wanted us to join them in a demonstration at the next city planning meeting and vote down the approval for the building.



Oddly enough, plenty of China's neighbors would disagree.


Absolutely - border disputes are like that. However, I don't think China has any pretensions beyond its current borders, so for most of the world this is hardly a problem. I don't believe China winning every border dispute it has, claiming Taiwan, and so on mean they have pretensions on borders beyond that. Not in the immediate future, at any rate, but navel-gazing about the 2100s is... unfalsifiable? Is that fair? Should I oppose China because they might turn into an America in 100 years? It's well beyond the scope of the question "Which country do you consider the greatest long term threat to your personal way of life" at any rate.
Last edited by Fasces on 12 Apr 2021 15:50, edited 3 times in total.
#15166162
noemon wrote:I did not say that the "world is the American-led liberal order". I said that you need to provide evidence that Chinese Totalitarian Dictatorship is less of a threat to the world than American Liberalism.


Your evidence that they're a threat to the world is an internal rule? Chinese foreign policy has been clearly non-interventionist (outside of its border disputes). So in terms of 'threat to the world, the reality of Chinese insuralism and self-focus is a plus. They don't have the crusader mentality of the Western order. They fundamentally don't care what you do within your borders - including negatives like state-sponsored genocide or killing protestors by the hundreds, if you need me to explicitly state the obvious.
#15166199
Fasces wrote:Your evidence that they're a threat to the world is an internal rule? Chinese foreign policy has been clearly non-interventionist (outside of its border disputes). So in terms of 'threat to the world, the reality of Chinese insuralism and self-focus is a plus. They don't have the crusader mentality of the Western order. They fundamentally don't care what you do within your borders - including negatives like state-sponsored genocide or killing protestors by the hundreds, if you need me to explicitly state the obvious.


Chinese foreign policy in the past has been that of a weak third-world nation.

It has neither relevance nor weight on how Chinese foreign policy is right now nor how it is going to be in the future.

China is an extremely aggressive nation that is also a totalitarian dictatorship. Totalitarian dictatorships are very dangerous for the world as a whole.

China is sanctioning any and all countries criticising her. Showing us how she is already treating friends and allies with an opinion.

Any European nations that offended China, in particular by meeting the Dalai Lama at senior level, were punished with a freeze in political relations and threats of economic consequences. Norway, which hosted the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for the incarcerated human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, was picked out for six years of denunciation.

Emboldened by growing strength and accustomed to Western division, China under Xi Jinping has doubled down on confronting criticism with an emphatic response, even if that means being rude and aggressive in tone. The last Chinese ambassador to Sweden embodied an approach of being quicker to take offence and sharper in retaliation, informing that peaceful country that “we treat our friends with fine wine but for our enemies we have shotguns”. Australia has been particularly singled out for commercial as well as verbal bullying, with many exports to China suspended.

China’s response last week to the limited sanctions imposed by the US, UK, EU and Canada on four officials involved in the repression of the Uyghurs was true to the “wolf warrior” playbook of diplomacy. Scorning any notion of a proportionate “tit for tat”, China decided to place individual sanctions on dozens of people who have criticised the treatment of the Uyghurs. Somewhat stunned by this, MEPs in Brussels have now turned against ratifying the investment treaty the EU signed with China in January. In this country, universities have become alarmed at the threat of Chinese behaviour to academic freedom.
#15166223
Fasces wrote:Your evidence that they're a threat to the world is an internal rule? Chinese foreign policy has been clearly non-interventionist (outside of its border disputes). So in terms of 'threat to the world, the reality of Chinese insuralism and self-focus is a plus. They don't have the crusader mentality of the Western order. They fundamentally don't care what you do within your borders - including negatives like state-sponsored genocide or killing protestors by the hundreds, if you need me to explicitly state the obvious.

Militarily the CCP is not very interventionist (yet). Economically and politically their foreign policy is aggressive. They steal IP from all over the world, are aggressive in foreign espionage, bribe foreign officials and elites, and have established foreign colonies via migration.

They don't care what other countries do to their citizens within their borders because they are sociopaths. They only care when it affects their interests.
#15166304
Godstud wrote:A lot of claims against China are completely fabricated.

A lot of claims about anything political are fabricated. That doesn't mean the main narrative isn't true. What's Amnesty International's evil plot here against China?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... inorities/
#15166314
Amnesty International is company with a huge pro-Western bias.

This includes non-Western governments claiming Amnesty is ideologically biased against them, such as those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[3] the People's Republic of China,[4] Vietnam,[5] and Russia[6] who have criticized Amnesty International for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments—and of other governments critical of Amnesty International—have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International
#15166318
Godstud wrote:Amnesty International is company with a huge pro-Western bias.

This includes non-Western governments claiming Amnesty is ideologically biased against them, such as those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[3] the People's Republic of China,[4] Vietnam,[5] and Russia[6] who have criticized Amnesty International for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments—and of other governments critical of Amnesty International—have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

That's ridiculous. Yes crappy regimes with crappy human rights records will always complain. Also it's not a company it's a non-profit org.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/guantanamo-bay-human-rights
https://www.amnestyusa.org/the-real-sto ... bu-ghraib/
#15166339
China has donated 1m Sinopharm jabs to Cambodia and has also delivered 1.5m doses of Sinovac to date. Meanwhile the US continues to ban the export not only of vaccines but also the ingredients needed to produce them. So I'd like to update my initial post;

AFAIK wrote:USA;

1- Grooming the public for aggressive confrontation with China.
2- Trump retarded domestic and international efforts to confront climate change.
3- Willfully negligent response to Covid risks allowing the disease to mutate and nullify any vaccines we develop.
4- Blocking the export of vaccines and vaccine ingredients during a pandemic.
#15167060
AFAIK wrote:China has donated 1m Sinopharm jabs to Cambodia and has also delivered 1.5m doses of Sinovac to date. Meanwhile the US continues to ban the export not only of vaccines but also the ingredients needed to produce them. So I'd like to update my initial post;


How can there be a vaccine export ban if Johnson & Johnson ships its vaccine to the EU and elsewhere? I really wish people would provide evidence for that shit for a change.

Also Johnson & Johnson will supply the African Union with 400 million doses beginning in the third quarter.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-heal ... SKBN2BL1V4
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Please this is ridiculous. If they did... yo[…]

If the Dems increase the size of the court to 13 […]

"I have six locks on my door all in a row. Wh[…]

Now reading

Asimov is a terrible writer, as far as I can tell[…]