Tough shit. China will just have to grow up.
> He added that “the ability for people in China to use this tech is more important than your ability to generate satire.”
No, it isn't.
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.
That was also a stupid idea.
Why would that be relevant? "Apt for survival" does not imply "with good principles".
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.
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.
For that matter, in the era of nearlight communication around the planet, how important even are things like "island" anymore, and how is "tribe" defined?
Isn't that the point? The problem is that the customs of others is infringing on the customs of others. If some places insist on a policy for their people, that is fine for their people. But what we have here is an insistence that those people can control how other people outside of their place and people can see and access technology.
Second, this isn't laws of the land. It's the internet, the unplace where different places can meet & connect. Your suggestion proposes that it's the pro-speech folk forcing themselves upon the world. Not so. What's actually happening in this story is the small authoritarian lowest-common-denominators of the world are imposing their views on all interconnectivity, on everyone else. They are constraining everyone else.
And tech bosses keep letting it happen, keep letting ourselves be bullied. And the governments of open societies are not stepping up to illuminate & push these issues as the threats to open society that they are.
Two absurd inconsistencies. Human rights are amazing. The suppression of humanity is dreadful. That's the "tribe" you are defending.
Open society is far more than the US. 43% of the nations of the world are democratic according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_regime_ty....
And it continues the filter of seeing this as open society being an imposition. If you have a closed society & the open society of the internet doesn't fit your society, you shouldnt be on the internet. Your closed society doesn't want to participate, then fine, if it must: go elsewhere.
"if you have a closed society... you shouldn't be on the internet"
Again, according to you. what lengths would you be willing to go to impose this on other people?
In a more closed society, more choice is taken away from you.
If a society wants to be closed though, your society has the onus of responsibility to enforce closing. Your society can't impose that position on everyone. Hence me saying the society probably shouldnt be on the most open connected free connectivity on the planet, one created by open society & which enables open social values.
> You've decided...
It looks like you have decided here friend. I never openly said that, although heck the words I use build a pretty lopsided case. I think everyone should decide for themselves though, and come to their conclusions. To me the choice seems obvious & it's hard to see what is to respect about closed, but I'm open. I'm open to learning.
Perhaps people should get a say and the governments should take a turn being forced to serve the people instead.
This is only if you assume all people are not created equal.
Countries always seek to extend their influence. The USA and China play the same game, just with different tactics. There will never be "enough".
I guess it's just too bad that Hong Kongers don't get a say in what happens in Hong Kong.
And made better through centuries of hard work and sacrifice. It's what it takes.
edit: If we're comparing china, i'm not sure you want to use length of time the society was built as a metric demonstrating chinese inferiority lol
You contradict yourself but convince yourself you're being rational.
That's the problem with being an unprincipled apologist. You end up compromised.
It may not be wise to categorically dismiss the shared philosophy and cultural experience of billions of people. We Westerners have a philosophical concept inherited from our ancestors that describes that attitude: "hubris."
Yes, and China ended up very far behind.
China's progress has come through Westernization. China needs more of it.
> It may not be wise to categorically dismiss the shared philosophy and cultural experience of billions of people.
Billions more know better.
China's got a better rail network than the US, more industrial capacity, and produces the world's electronics now. The gap in tech is measured in decades at most, and by that metric the world was behind England (until it wasn't) because England had the accident of thirst for coal and the use for automated, sustained drainage and pumping that allowed them the critical mass of tech and need to build and refine the steam engine.
In terms of world history, the era of European / American tech ascendancy is a blip on the radar.
It's hilarious that the very first example you pick is the quintessential example of Western industrialization and infrastructure.
Good old Westernization proceeds apace. You admit China needs more of it.
True. America's failure to maintain and update its rail infrastructure relative to other countries is downright absurd.
The US may have had rail first, but you wouldn't know it to look at them.
Maybe you should have put your thinking on rails.
... now, China's running with the generation of ideas America pioneered and refined, and America's mostly playing catchup because they're off the rails (tragically literally, if you live in East Palestine, OH).
I do. The Western model is superior. Your Chinese model is inferior.
You can live under the boot of an authoritarian regime if you lack the self respect to stand up for yourself. Liberal democracy and the rule of law do take work, and you do sound lazy.
Maybe you do need to be told what to do.
> tragically literally, if you live in East Palestine, OH
Like trains don't derail in China:
https://apnews.com/article/china-guangzhou-accidents-c179ac1...
China likes covering them up too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/25/chinese-rail-c...
Now you're just being foolish.
History suggests previous attempts at democracies were unstable. Maybe the alchemy was right this go around. But I'm watching this one allow itself to be spun up into division and polarization that has resulted in a civil war in the past, so we'll see how it goes. The house has a tendency to win, especially when the house is time herself.
Yes, but don't worry. I do.
> I would consider it lazy to write off the political structure coordinating over a billion people
You're not considering anything. You're only desperately trying to hold on to a losing proposition you've arrived at through a lack of principle, a profound laziness, and a basic nihilism.
> I'll let America get a couple more hundred under its belt before I conclude this Democratic experiment is working.
Such sloppy thinking. You really do need to broaden your horizons.
The CCP has no continuity with the previous imperial government. They love to make that claim when it's convenient but it's bullshit. It would be like the US claiming they have a national continuity with Britain going back millennia.
Half of jurisprudence is grounded not in writings that came after the Revolution, but English Common Law. We lean on the First Amendment for issues of free speech, but we lean on the Magna Carta for questions of whether you've produced the right magic slip of paper to prove you own the land your outhouse sits on.
... hell, many of the states have a right to grant exclusive ownership of that land that's fundamentally rooted in a king having granted them that right.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You can't ignore that we're mostly speaking English for some reason...
It isn't. Learn your history.
With respect, between the work of a Cornell professor and an internet rando, I'm going to defer to the professor on the topic the professor wrote on.
EG Danish cartooons of religious figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...
a place with 1/3rd of the population has a hard on for one specific theoretical form of expression that they don't even use that much? easy ignore.
Midjourney also retrains from all prompts free or paid, making it easier to get better results from simpler prompts. Access to that population of human nodes is definitely more important than placating some ideological position of a smaller group.
Pretty funny reading the differences between this thread and the one from yesterday where Canada fined Google for not censoring information. In that one, people were all "Tough shit, Google has to follow the laws of countries they serve in! Not everyone is American, stupid Americans!"
Turns out, countries will have laws you disapprove of too!
> Have you never seen people post "Vote early, vote often"? It's the same as that.
If you are aware of an instance of someone being convicted by a jury of their peers of Conspiracy Against Rights for sharing "vote early, vote often," be sure to let us know.