The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[huskeR32]

China's economic competitiveness is due in large part to worker exploitation, slave labor, human rights violations, oppression, environmental irresponsibility and more. These don't exist in a vacuum,they amplify China's economic power. Yes China is very competitive but the ends don't justify the means.

Couldn't agree more. So why are you eliminating heaps of context from your posts? Yes, China is home to some regrettable labor practices. But does their current state still represent an improvement for the average Chinese citizen? Has the growth of the economy overall provided any benefits that help the majority of the people in ways that can't be captured simply by looking at their low wages or poor factory conditions?

It doesn't seem to me that you've considered any questions like that at all. You just want to take a snapshot of the current moment, make a binary good/bad judgment, and move on.

Isn't it possible that where China is at currently is better than where it was at 50 years ago? 20? Things exist on a spectrum, and they don't change overnight. If open trade with nations like the US is one of the things currently moving China in a better direction, shouldn't we want that to continue?

China is a much bigger global threat than NK.

That's irrelevant to my point.

 

[Sander 001]

Couldn't agree more. So why are you eliminating heaps of context from your posts? Yes, China is home to some regrettable labor practices. But does their current state still represent an improvement for the average Chinese citizen? Has the growth of the economy overall provided any benefits that help the majority of the people in ways that can't be captured simply by looking at their low wages or poor factory conditions?

It doesn't seem to me that you've considered any questions like that at all. You just want to take a snapshot of the current moment, make a binary good/bad judgment, and move on.

Isn't it possible that where China is at currently is better than where it was at 50 years ago? 20? Things exist on a spectrum, and they don't change overnight. If open trade with nations like the US is one of the things currently moving China in a better direction, shouldn't we want that to continue?



That's irrelevant to my point.

These are the talking points raised generations ago. How to deal with China.
That our capitalism would work the magic and bring enlightenment to China through prosperity. They would surely see the light!

Here we are 50yrs on and China is winning. China is beating us. People right here in this thread are praising and defending China.

China is now so powerful
and bold that it exports its ideology, censorship, punishment eventhrough American companies. HK is under siege, so is the South China Sea. And:



Are Chinese citizens better off? Here's a better question: How much more powerful does the Chinese Communist Party become until it's no longer holding its own people hostage? Until you reject this coercion?

 

[BobK]

You saw that on Twitter so it must be true, amIrite?

 

[huskeR32]

Here we are 50yrs on and China is winning. China is beating us.

At what?

Are Chinese citizens better off?

Yes, that's what I asked. And you didn't answer. If your view on all of this was as completely established truth as you clearly think it is, why not just answer questions and allow us to all then arrive at the same conclusion?

Instead, in a manner very reminiscent to what's been happening in the Islam thread, you run around accusing people of taking stances they haven't taken, of "defending" things they haven't defended, and acting incredulous that anybody would dare to have a different point of view than you.

 

[Northstar]

At what?

Ping Pong.

 

[Famine]

People right here in this thread are praising and defending China.

Where?

 

[Danoff]

China's economic competitiveness is due in large part to worker exploitation, slave labor, human rights violations, oppression, environmental irresponsibility and more. These don't exist in a vacuum,they amplify China's economic power. Yes China is very competitive but the ends don't justify the means.
China is a much bigger global threat than NK.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't boycott China. Or Apple, or whatever company or nation you want to influence the practices of. But guess what, that boycott only happens if trade is open with the country and their economy is intermingled with ours. Your ability to tug at them economically comes directly from having the ability to trade. Do you think that they would treat the Uyghurs better if we couldn't trade with them? The only reason that Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs gets any traction at all is because other nations are paying attention, pointing it out, populations are boycotting products, and very specific economic messages are sent. That doesn't happen if we cut trade. What happens if we cut trade is that nobody cares about the treatment of the Uyghurs, and there is nothing short of military action that you can do to influence that treatment.

Trade with China is good for the Chinese people, and for us, and it is probably the main mechanism for peace between China and most of the rest of the world.

 

[Sander 001]

You saw that on Twitter so it must be true, amIrite?

PragerU said it was all fake news and you believe them
am i right



https://thehill.com/policy/national...a-amplified-disinformation-about-coronavirusn

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...port-on-chinese-disinformation-about-covid-19

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-interference-idUSKCN2550Q2n

Nobody is saying you shouldn't boycott China. Or Apple, or whatever company or nation you want to influence the practices of. But guess what, that boycott only happens if trade is open with the country and their economy is intermingled with ours. Your ability to tug at them economically comes directly from having the ability to trade. Do you think that they would treat the Uyghurs better if we couldn't trade with them? The only reason that Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs gets any traction at all is because other nations are paying attention, pointing it out, populations are boycotting products, and very specific economic messages are sent. That doesn't happen if we cut trade. What happens if we cut trade is that nobody cares about the treatment of the Uyghurs, and there is nothing short of military action that you can do to influence that treatment.

Trade with China is good for the Chinese people, and for us, and it is probably the main mechanism for peace between China and most of the rest of the world.

You have rationalized capitulation to coercion. The Communist Party of China grows stronger. And here's the fatal flaw in your argument: The Communist Party of China is also growing more aggressive.
Tiananmen Square was 30yrs ago and that was one or two demonstrations. Now they've gone up to genocide.
The Uighur persecution campaign began less than 20yrs ago and it's grown so much now they've constructed a network of concentration camps, reeducation centers and large internal security forces.
UK's hold on Hong Kong ended in 1997 and only now is the Chinese government coming in.

And then all the aggressive acts linked in my previous post. SCS too.

If you tell me that China has become less aggressive, link a good source because I will never ever take your word for it.

 

[Spacegoat]

Obviously a typo but given the headline it gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Liquid]

 

[UKMikey]

Does that include democratic socialist countries?

 

[BobK]

PragerU said it was all fake news and you believe them
am i right

Of course not.

I notice you (as usual) ducked the question though.

 

[Famine]

China has become less aggressive

"China has become less aggressive" - Sander 001.

 

[Sander 001]

Of course not.

I notice you (as usual) ducked the question though.

I didn't duck the question, I provided you 4 links to show how dumb your question was.

 

[Adamgp]

 

[Lain]

View attachment 968016

Is “free” what we’re calling capitalist? People throw around “free” like it’s a propaganda buzzword...

 

[Famine]

Is “free” what we’re calling capitalist? People throw around “free” like it’s a propaganda buzzword...

By design, communism requires wide ranging, to total, control of both fiscal and social matters. That means far fewer financial freedoms (and thus the fiscal opposite of capitalism) but also far fewer social freedoms too.

In fact a high level of fiscal control, with the people (and thus government) seizing the means of production, is doomed to failure without also controlling consumption - which means behaviour must be controlled by restricting social freedoms. That's why communism is ideologically consistent in a way that socialism isn't.

 

[Danoff]

You have rationalized capitulation to coercion.

Then you misunderstood.

The Communist Party of China grows stronger. And here's the fatal flaw in your argument: The Communist Party of China is also growing more aggressive.

Ooohhhkaaayyyy. But the underlying assumption here is that you think that trade with china makes the communist party grow stronger. Which is flawed.

Tiananmen Square was 30yrs ago and that was one or two demonstrations. Now they've gone up to genocide.
The Uighur persecution campaign began less than 20yrs ago and it's grown so much now they've constructed a network of concentration camps, reeducation centers and large internal security forces.

...and this is because of trade with the US?

UK's hold on Hong Kong ended in 1997 and only now is the Chinese government coming in.

....and this is because of trade with the US?

And then all the aggressive acts linked in my previous post. SCS too.

If you tell me that China has become less aggressive, link a good source because I will never ever take your word for it.

I think... tell me if I'm wrong... that your thesis here is that we should bar trade with China so that they have less resources and the controlling parties will be less controlling. That's basically the opposite of the way every country works. Just take a look around. North Korea is not exactly starving for political "power" or "aggression". When countries isolate, they do not trend toward freedom of prosperity. An isolated China would be more dangerous and more destructive to its people, not less. Show me a country that refuses to trade or strongly isolates that doesn't oppress its people.

 

[Sander 001]

Then you misunderstood.



Ooohhhkaaayyyy. But the underlying assumption here is that you think that trade with china makes the communist party grow stronger. Which is flawed.



...and this is because of trade with the US?



....and this is because of trade with the US?



I think... tell me if I'm wrong... that your thesis here is that we should bar trade with China so that they have less resources and the controlling parties will be less controlling. That's basically the opposite of the way every country works. Just take a look around. North Korea is not exactly starving for political "power" or "aggression". When countries isolate, they do not trend toward freedom of prosperity. An isolated China would be more dangerous and more destructive to its people, not less. Show me a country that refuses to trade or strongly isolates that doesn't oppress its people.

Strawman argument.
Especially since the Communist Party of China is not like any other government.

 

[Danoff]

Strawman argument.
Especially since the Communist Party of China is not like any other government.

You're still not really understanding what a strawman is. It's technically true that the Chinese government is not "like" any other government if you interpret "like" to mean "identical". But if you interpret "like" more broadly, you could say that it is "like" every government. So there must be some reason for you to say this. The reason that you bring this up is that you think there is some key distinction here which makes it play unlike the oppressive and barbaric governments of the world that are isolationist.

So... what you're missing in this post is an explanation for why it is unlike other governments, specifically why should be something that distinguishes china as one that would respond differently (specifically in way that better cultivates human rights and personal liberties) to isolation.

I'll wait.

 

[Sander 001]

You're still not really understanding what a strawman is. It's technically true that the Chinese government is not "like" any other government if you interpret "like" to mean "identical". But if you interpret "like" more broadly, you could say that it is "like" every government. So there must be some reason for you to say this. The reason that you bring this up is that you think there is some key distinction here which makes it play unlike the oppressive and barbaric governments of the world that are isolationist.

So... what you're missing in this post is an explanation for why it is unlike other governments, specifically why should be something that distinguishes china as one that would respond differently (specifically in way that better cultivates human rights and personal liberties) to isolation.

I'll wait.

I'm not going to indulge in your strawman garbage.
If you can't defend your argument without bringing up false equivalences, then it's not worth responding to.

 

[Famine]

I'm not going to indulge in your strawman garbage.

Where's the strawman? @Danoff is addressing your points, not points you haven't made.

It's hilarious that you're trying to invoke logical fallacies (again without knowing what they are or mean), given that you're deliberately leaving out chunks of sentences to misrepresent his position so you can attack it.

You're not taking part in this discussion with any honesty whatsoever.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not going to indulge in your strawman garbage.
If you can't defend your argument without bringing up false equivalences, then it's not worth responding to.

Comeon man. Your argument is that china is somehow different (the exact opposite), and you can't explain why, and somehow this makes me the bad guy.

You really do need to learn what "strawman" means if you're going to keep using it so much.

Edit:

D'oh! Tree'd

 

[BobK]

I didn't duck the question, I provided you 4 links to show how dumb your question was.

The very first link you posted was yet another Twitter link.

 

[Sander 001]

Comeon man. Your argument is that china is somehow different (the exact opposite), and you can't explain why, and somehow this makes me the bad guy.

You really do need to learn what "strawman" means if you're going to keep using it so much.

Edit:

D'oh! Tree'd

You're the one who's trying to draw false comparison s with other countries so that's on you.
If you want argue that China and NK are similar enough, show me a convincing source.

 

[Danoff]

You're the one who's trying to draw false comparison s with other countries so that's on you.
If you want argue that China and NK are similar enough, show me a convincing source.

NK is merely a counter-example of your thesis - your thesis being that government strength (resulting in part from trade) results in oppression. NK is weak, doesn't trade (widely), and oppresses greatly. It's not specific to North Korea, it is ubiquitous. But to be clear, NK isn't proving a statement I'm making, it's a counter-example of a statement you're making.

Show me a country that refuses to trade or strongly isolates that doesn't oppress its people.

So... what you're missing in this post is an explanation for why it is unlike other governments, specifically why should be something that distinguishes china as one that would respond differently (specifically in way that better cultivates human rights and personal liberties) to isolation.

I'll wait.

 

[Sander 001]

The very first link you posted was yet another Twitter link.

Yes a link to a Newsweek article.
Whatever email chain, Facebook group or wherever you get your "news" sure must be threatened by Twitter.

Would love to see where you get your information from.

 

[Famine]

China and NK are similar enough

"China and NK are similar enough" - Sander001.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm pretty confident that Sander is a troll and laughing his ass off after every post.

 

[Famine]

I'm pretty confident that Sander is a troll and laughing his ass off after every post.

Giggling, perhaps. Hanlon's Razor applies, and it applies hard.