[Rancid]

Fair enough. In fact I don't think China poses a threat to the West because the people in the West want to be more like it. Most likely Western elites will be co-opted. Technocrats or populists, you name it. As long as they can rule undisturbed.

I agree. A common theme/thread I raise is that ultimately, the west is doing all of this to itself more than anything else.

[Fasces]

I agree. A common theme/thread I raise is that ultimately, the west is doing all of this to itself more than anything else.

This is inevitable - its the "inherent contradiction" at the end of the cycle.

[AFAIK]

I respect people's right to self determination. If the Vietnamese wish to live in a one party state that executes corrupt bankers and are determined enough to defeat the French and the Americans in order to achieve this then it's my place to support them, not criticise them.

[B0ycey]

@Rugoz



I don't know that's not what I have been hearing from republican voters and politicians. I take them at their word. They act and talk about wanting a dictatorship that is ruled by rich white folks. Their actions demonstrate they are serious about destroying democracy given they are engaging in passing voter suppression laws. Let's not delude or kid ourselves about the nature of the threat that today's republican party presents to the American constitution with it's current actions and rhetoric. Their actions demonstrate it by acting as accomplices to Trump trying to steal power and by passing voter suppression laws. Democracies have in the past turned into tyrannies which is what Greek philosophers have always been wary of in regards to democracy. Don't take democracy for granted ever. It can be destroyed.

What happened in places that had democracies and then were turned into tyrannies can happen anywhere. It can happen here in the U.S. I see people like Tucker Carlson praising that Hungarian autocrat and many republicans look to dictatorships and tyrannies today and admire them. So, no, I don't buy that. Today's republicans have demonstrated through their actions and words that they are threat to the U.S. constitution and our democracy. They need to change course and start fighting for our constitution and our democracy. Otherwise, there is going to be some big problems. I don't give the republicans a free pass.

PO, it was I who wrote the post you replied to. You live in America so perhaps have a better insite than me. But what I read from Trumpist on social media is not a belief that Democracy should be replaced with Tyranny but a belief that the election was stolen. That alone is an issue but it isn't an issue of values but an issue of trust.

[Rancid]

I respect people's right to self determination. If the Vietnamese wish to live in a one party state that executes corrupt bankers and are determined enough to defeat the French and the Americans in order to achieve this then it's my place to support them, not criticise them.

This is kind of a bullshit thing to say and is overly simplistic. You are avoiding what you really want to say, which is that you are ok with humans beung brutal to each other and forcing their will at gun point to various populations. This is hardly self-determination when it's done at gun point. Be it a foreign invasion or factions fighting a civil war. Someone is forcing something on someone. There's no self-determination in these scenarios.

You say this statement as though these are things the subjected populations get to choose for themselves without fear or consequence or coercion.

So yea, this is mostly a garbage/trash statement. Not very thoughtful at all.

[AFAIK]

Why didn't the Viets allow the French and Americans to walk all over them? Why did the Cubans defend their gov't rather than allow the Americans to liberate them? If American ideology is so pure that no one can question it then why is the Taliban facing no resistance in Afghanistan?

you are ok with humans beung brutal to each other and forcing their will at gun point to various populations.

Quite the opposite. I supported democratic movements in Egypt whilst Hillary stood behind their unpopular dictator. I oppose coups and death squads across the Americas whilst Obama nonchalantly admits, "we tortured some folks".

I live in a country that celebrates being invaded by it's neighbour. I suppose you'll tell me that 7th January is a national holiday here because the Vietnamese have a gun to our PM's head.

[Rancid]

Why didn't the Viets allow the French and Americans to walk all over them? Why did the Cubans defend their gov't rather than allow the Americans to liberate them? If American ideology is so pure that no one can question it then why is the Taliban facing no resistance in Afghanistan?

Quite the opposite. I supported democratic movements in Egypt whilst Hillary stood behind their unpopular dictator. I oppose coups and death squads across the Americas whilst Obama nonchalantly admits, "we tortured some folks".

I live in a country that celebrates being invaded by it's neighbour. I suppose you'll tell me that 7th January is a national holiday here because the Vietnamese have a gun to our PM's head.

Your assumption is this is all "self-determination" though. It's simply not.

No, you statement is largely bullshit. It's who has the guns and the will. That's it. Be it the US or anyone else. Aside from that you have lots of people stuck in the middle figuring out how to get on with whatever the circumstances happen to be. For some, it works, for others it doesn't and that's just kind of it. Dressing it up with words is just largely a bunch of crap to fit whatever it is you to be true. Most people are not warriors or freedom fighters or whatever dumb stupid shit you want to believe. Most people, end up getting swept up in these conflagrations. To survive, they just keep their head down for the sake of themselves and their families.

You are assuming way too much.

[AFAIK]

Did you think I was referring to individuals? When I said people I meant the population at large. Society, communities, nations.

Vietnam had a massive army at it's height. The society wasn't coerced by one lunatic with a gun. You can't control a society just be waving a gun around anyway. That's an oversimplification. How do you think Ho Chi Minh convinced millions of people to aim their guns at the same target?

[Rancid]

Did you think I was referring to individuals? When I said people I meant the population at large. Society, communities, nations.

Vietnam had a massive army at it's height. The society wasn't coerced by one lunatic with a gun. You can't control a society just be waving a gun around anyway. That's an oversimplification. How do you think Ho Chi Minh convinced millions of people to aim their guns at the same target?

Would be nice if you could quote or mention me if you want to keep chatting with me about this.

Society and communities are made of individual people. You can't decouple individuals and communities and talk about them as though these are mutually exclusive things.

Anyway, most individuals just get swept up by things that are larger than themselves. Be it wars or political/religious/ideological/etc. movements. When this happens, most people simply try to figure out how they can eek out their personal existence and well being. This should not be equated to consent/agreement/support with the particular war/movement they just happened to get swept up into (this is what I'm calling bullshit on with "self-determination"). Given this truth, all it takes, is a relatively smaller group of people with enough guns, will, and propaganda (guns may not always be required) to get what they want. The rest, are just along for the ride for better or worse, doesn't necessarily mean they are in support of the war/revolution/movement/whatever. That should not be assumed, and anyway, the victors always write history no? Of course every current regime in existence is going to say and claim that they can rule because they have consent from the entire population. Reality is, lots of people kind of don't give a shit. It's why staging a coup isn't too hard of a thing to do and is common around the globe. You don't have to fight/convince entire populations to take over a government; they just kind of go with the flow most of the time. Sure there is anxiety/worry/etc, but they do not tend to intervene, and that should not be taken as consent.

[Patrickov]

We are seeing that the reaction to this in the west is basically Trumpism. There is a push in the US to become more like Russia/China (more like Russia really though). I think in a few decades the US will be just like Russia in the way it operates. Which, funny enough, is probably going to be bad for Russia (and the rest of the world too of course).

Whatever the outcome, they eat what they sow (or more precisely, they eat what is grown from what they sow)

As I mentioned many times, nations which don't respect their own people (not foreigners, as often happen in the West) do not deserve stability or security, to say at least.

P. S. You are probably the only anti-Trump PoFo'er who manages to view Trumpism in the objective way as it should be viewed.

[AFAIK]

Would be nice if you could quote or mention me if you want to keep chatting with me about this.

Ok. I usually just sort by new.

I agree that most people aren't actively involved in politics but disagree that they're opinions don't matter. A protest/ revolution/ rebellion cannot sustain itself without public support. It's also much easier for the powers that be to crush them if they have little to no public support. We've also moved beyond resolving disputes by pointing guns at each other. Voting was developed as a proxy for fighting. If 60% of a group supports a motion there's no need for the other 40% to be defeated in battle when they can be defeated at the ballot box. We've expanded suffrage and still complain about the tyranny of the majority and strive for greater plurality.

If you want to discuss individual consent;- how many Americans consented to the invasion of Iraq? How many provided informed consent despite Bush and Blair's lies?

The UNSC didn't consent.

This is why I'll always defend China in these threads. They're a pragmatic people with a pragmatic foreign policy. There's no need for an antagonistic containment policy just because their version of state capitalism differs from the US's.

[Rugoz]

Did you think I was referring to individuals? When I said people I meant the population at large. Society, communities, nations.

Vietnam had a massive army at it's height. The society wasn't coerced by one lunatic with a gun. You can't control a society just be waving a gun around anyway. That's an oversimplification. How do you think Ho Chi Minh convinced millions of people to aim their guns at the same target?

AFAIK Ho Chi Minh fought the French with far less soldiers. Of course once you have established a state, it's easy to recruit a large army.

[Patrickov]

This is why I'll always defend China in these threads. They're a pragmatic people with a pragmatic foreign policy. There's no need for an antagonistic containment policy just because their version of state capitalism differs from the US's.

The current Chinese "diplomacy" is far from pragmatic but more like a spoiled and domestically violent brat being childish and snowflaky, accusing others all the time when it is actually their fault when things messed up.

You are a disgrace compared to your avatar.

[Rugoz]

A protest/ revolution/ rebellion cannot sustain itself without public support.

There's obviously a correlation between public support and the success of revolution but let's not pretend it's equivalent to voting. A revolutionary ready to die for the cause is probably worth a 100 passive supporters.

[AFAIK]

@Rugoz Never claimed it to be equivalent. Just argued it was relevant when discussing a country practicing self determination without the threat of violence for choosing the wrong leaders.

You are a disgrace compared to your avatar.

[Rancid]

Ok. I usually just sort by new.

I agree that most people aren't actively involved in politics but disagree that they're opinions don't matter. A protest/ revolution/ rebellion cannot sustain itself without public support. It's also much easier for the powers that be to crush them if they have little to no public support. We've also moved beyond resolving disputes by pointing guns at each other. Voting was developed as a proxy for fighting. If 60% of a group supports a motion there's no need for the other 40% to be defeated in battle when they can be defeated at the ballot box. We've expanded suffrage and still complain about the tyranny of the majority and strive for greater plurality.

If you want to discuss individual consent;- how many Americans consented to the invasion of Iraq? How many provided informed consent despite Bush and Blair's lies?

The UNSC didn't consent.

This is why I'll always defend China in these threads. They're a pragmatic people with a pragmatic foreign policy. There's no need for an antagonistic containment policy just because their version of state capitalism differs from the US's.

ok

[Heisenberg]

This is kind of a bullshit thing to say and is overly simplistic. You are avoiding what you really want to say, which is that you are ok with humans beung brutal to each other and forcing their will at gun point to various populations.

How do you think the US got its independence? Or conquered an entire continent and wiped out almost the entire Native population? How did the North defeat the South in the US Civil War?

If you really want to play this game, the entire history of politics is essentially "humans being brutal to each other and forcing their will at gun point". The power dynamics, means and ideological ends - plus a hundred other factors - involved in these struggles determines how we assess them.

It did actually matter whether Ho Chi Minh or the French won in Indochina, just as it mattered in Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Cuba and a hundred other colonised countries. Trying to use this "you really want to say you're OK with violence" line as some kind of gotcha is unbelievably silly. Everyone but the most determined pacifist is OK with political violence at a certain point.

[wat0n]

The current Chinese "diplomacy" is far from pragmatic but more like a spoiled and domestically violent brat being childish and snowflaky, accusing others all the time when it is actually their fault when things messed up.

You are a disgrace compared to your avatar.

Do you mean the offensive tweets by Chinese diplomats, which they post because they know no one will push back? I don't see how is that pragmatic and anything but meant for domestic consumption. Or their stance towards Taiwan, including their threats to invade it sometime in the future.

China indeed does not engage in adventures. But that's not necessarily a pragmatic policy indeed. Instead, one could argue they don't engage in adventures because they are being deterred from doing so by the US and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

Its important to have patience and not lose hope. Its also important to rememmber that bad times never last forever and good times do eventually come again. Its easy to lose hope and patience in bad times. But by remembering that bad times never do last forever we can stay steadfast in being patient hopeful. Patience is eventually rewarded.

One of the things that make dictators or dictator wannabes like Trump dangerous is that to stay in power, once they have power, they might start a war to distract the population from his own failures. Scapegoating is also another common tatic of the tyrant. For example, scapegoating immigrants. Calling them rapists and murderers for example. Immigrants are the lifeblood of the US though and are needed and are important contributors to the economy.

If Trump ever gets back into power he will turn on the very republicans that enabled him and protected him. It never ends well in the long term to make deals with devil to benefit yourself in the short term. Trump's republican enablers are making some very unwise choices.

[Patrickov]

@Politics_Observer

Let's define "bad times" as "bad governance" first. In a scientific sense, "bad times" will last forever because of the nature of the evolution of the Universe -- eventually there will be nothing to sustain life anywhere.

Back to the topic, while "bad times" don't last forever, they can easily outlive individuals or even nations. By comparison, "good times" are like exceptions rather than the norm.