Jump to content

The State of Global Politics Today


Shoblongoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

I have to ask: What kind of conciliation would you arrive at when you have cold, hard facts such as the ones Shob and Dr Tarrasque have been kind enough to present staring you in the face? 

That you have to make concessions in the face of the systematic fucking of people strikes me as absurd, to say the very least.

Excuse me, you're the person who said this earlier aren't you?

21 hours ago, Karimlan said:

He unfortunately is, for all the macho posturing he's doing. Too bad most of the people who voted for him are dumbfucks who bought into his stock. But it's I suppose a microcosm for what's happening everywhere else.

You see I don't think you understand. When you treat a significant group of people (most of who you have never met) like they are your mental inferiors, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. You've put yourself in a position of superiority and arrogance which is not helping to bring about a peaceful end to the situation and you are ignoring the underlying reasons for why people believe what they believe. 

Do you automatically assume that since you believe you're right and these people seem to you to be wrong that it is a battle of good and evil? I want you to visualize your own passion and then superimpose it on one of those nameless members of the groups you disagree with. That's how a lot of them feel. They think they're good and you're evil. There are reasons they feel this way. So how does this situation end? Hatred? Suppression? Civil war? Politics are merely a vehicle for hatred in this instance.

Yes, there are groups who can't logically be conceded to. I'd say just about any group that already uses terror/violence to their ends should be punished, and not compromised with. But there are also many, many others I feel are only radical because they see the other side as radical. People who won't concede because they (rightly so) think you think you're better than them. All human interactions should be tempered by the fact that most people aren't evil for the heck of it. People are evil because of the evil that has been done to them and the environment they've been exposed to. In short, these people are still people. Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step to causing another Holocaust-like tragedy. And I feel like when we dismiss our enemies as being "unworthy of consideration or respect" we are little better than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Excuse me, you're the person who said this earlier aren't you?

You see I don't think you understand. When you treat a significant group of people (most of who you have never met) like they are your mental inferiors, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. You've put yourself in a position of superiority and arrogance which is not helping to bring about a peaceful end to the situation and you are ignoring the underlying reasons for why people believe what they believe. 

Do you automatically assume that since you believe you're right and these people seem to you to be wrong that it is a battle of good and evil? I want you to visualize your own passion and then superimpose it on one of those nameless members of the groups you disagree with. That's how a lot of them feel. They think they're good and you're evil. There are reasons they feel this way. So how does this situation end? Hatred? Suppression? Civil war? Politics are merely a vehicle for hatred in this instance.

Yes, there are groups who can't logically be conceded to. I'd say just about any group that already uses terror/violence to their ends should be punished, and not compromised with. But there are also many, many others I feel are only radical because they see the other side as radical. People who won't concede because they (rightly so) think you think you're better than them. All human interactions should be tempered by the fact that most people aren't evil for the heck of it. People are evil because of the evil that has been done to them and the environment they've been exposed to. In short, these people are still people. Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step to causing another Holocaust-like tragedy. And I feel like when we dismiss our enemies as being "unworthy of consideration or respect" we are little better than they are.

I agree with this thinking. No matter how bad, or even downright evil someone is, they think the way they do for a reason. Might not be good reasons, but there are reasons, that needs to be acknowledged and understood. Even the most seemingly radical people deserve the respect to actually be listened to and understood. How else can you even tell they're as radical as you imagine them to be?

This is a particularly inspiring story about understanding the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...It would be a proclamation that half of Taiwan wouldn't even agree with, and would find deeply offensive.

...and even the portion of the country that agrees with the substance of the proclamation would likely recoil at the implications of another country presuming to make it for them, rather than letting Taiwan itself work out the issue in their own due time through their own policymaking and elections.   

There are still a handful of nations that recognize Taiwan. We do not have to say we recognize Taiwanese independence, we can just say we recognize them as the true legitimate government of China. We threw the Taiwanese government under the bus when we switched our recognition of legitimacy to the mainland government, it is only proper we undo that mistake.

I will concede that it would be best to let Taiwan decide whether they want us to recognize them or not.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...It would be seen as a highly inappropriate intrusion into their own internal debates and political processes by a foreign government.    

That is bullshit now. They tried to influence our 2018 elections, but they did not succeed, so if they are going to throw our privacy out the window, we have no excuse not to intervene in Taiwan and help our ally with more direct methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

There are still a handful of nations that recognize Taiwan. We do not have to say we recognize Taiwanese independence, we can just say we recognize them as the true legitimate government of China. We threw the Taiwanese government under the bus when we switched our recognition of legitimacy to the mainland government, it is only proper we undo that mistake.

I will concede that it would be best to let Taiwan decide whether they want us to recognize them or not.

That is bullshit now. They tried to influence our 2018 elections, but they did not succeed, so if they are going to throw our privacy out the window, we have no excuse not to intervene in Taiwan and help our ally with more direct methods.

The excuse for not intervening in the Taiwan situation is that everything there is stable and peaceful now. America involving themselves in a situation they have nothing to do with would start a war where up to millions of people would die. Taiwan's situation is not ideal, I'd prefer it if everyone involved just acknowledged the way things actually are, but largely its sovereignty is a moot point. They are independent, they function independently and despite most of the world not acknowledging their legitimacy, the world still trades and interacts with them. I've been to China and I've been to Taiwan and I've asked the citizens of both countries how they feel about the situation and they largely don't care. They can freely travel from one country to the other and even work and trade. The reason not to intervene is because everything is good there. I'd even go so far as to say it's great. Despite Taiwan's unacknowledged status as a country, it's one of the more prosperous countries in the world. There's tonnes more unacknowledged states that are in way worse positions than Taiwan.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

The excuse for not intervening in the Taiwan situation is that everything there is stable and peaceful now.

Now is fine. The problem is not now, but the future. China does not give two fucks about people's right to self determination. The only reason they have not swallowed Taiwan up like how Russia swallowed up Crimea is because China does not have the means to guarantee that it will succeed and they cannot get away with it without dragging in the United States and our allies.

If we show any weakness and they can get away with it, they will swoop in and take Taiwan by force without hesitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

You see I don't think you understand. When you treat a significant group of people (most of who you have never met) like they are your mental inferiors, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. You've put yourself in a position of superiority and arrogance which is not helping to bring about a peaceful end to the situation and you are ignoring the underlying reasons for why people believe what they believe. 

Do you automatically assume that since you believe you're right and these people seem to you to be wrong that it is a battle of good and evil? I want you to visualize your own passion and then superimpose it on one of those nameless members of the groups you disagree with. That's how a lot of them feel. They think they're good and you're evil. There are reasons they feel this way. So how does this situation end? Hatred? Suppression? Civil war? Politics are merely a vehicle for hatred in this instance.

Slow your roll. 

I acknowledge the fact that they (those people) exist, and I don't disabuse them of their beliefs or opinions. I just question their rationale for doing so, and if you think that by my dismissing these people or deriding them that it's a degrading thing, then you're in over your head.

Before you talk of conciliation from two opposing sides, you oughta recognize why either side is crying foul. And, with the certain inequities are being perpetrated in most of the "problem areas" in the world, no recognition seems to be taking place. I ain't seeing it in my neck of the woods, and it doesn't seem like you're seeing it in yours, either.

For instance, in my country, there's a motion (that has been passed by the Lower House of Representatives IIRC) for the minimum age of criminal responsibility (or, the age where a minor can be committed to a rehabilitative or correctional facility) to be reduced to nine years. If you have been reading the news coming out of the Philippines even haphazardly, you'd get the impression that these young ones are being cut loose—literally. And the idiots doing this have graft charges out the ass, but get away scot-free because of the power and influence they have.

You wanna see how patronage politics fucks everything up, look at the Philippines, where we have no two parties, just a bunch of frogs hopping from one side of the pond to another, depending on who's in power and holding the purse strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

we can just say we recognize them as the true legitimate government of China.

Why???

What does that achieve besides making Beijing go "Oh. Well fuck you too then." 

Why even poke the hornet's nest--what problem is that solving???
 

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 Despite Taiwan's unacknowledged status as a country, it's one of the more prosperous countries in the world. 

^^^
This.
 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, XRay said:

Now is fine. The problem is not now, but the future. China does not give two fucks about people's right to self determination. The only reason they have not swallowed Taiwan up like how Russia swallowed up Crimea is because China does not have the means to guarantee that it will succeed and they cannot get away with it without dragging in the United States and our allies.

If we show any weakness and they can get away with it, they will swoop in and take Taiwan by force without hesitation.

And how do you know the intents and desires of the government of China? Strange as it might seem, the government of China is run by human beings who largely don't desire violence and upheaval in the world. Like every nation, they're protecting their own interests and their own people. The situation has three probable outcomes.

1. China and Taiwan continually to cooperate on a peaceful basis and one day Taiwan is allowed back into the UN as a fully independent nation after they renounce their claim over mainland China and vice versa.

2. China invades Taiwan and kills a lot of people.

3. America intervenes, China invades Taiwan and kills  lot of people.

America leaves Taiwan alone and possibility 1 or 2 happens with the current political climate leaning towards possibility 1. America involving themselves WILL lead to possibility 3 and possibility 3 is way worse than possibility 2 as it could lead to a war between China and America. Which is a conflict that could escalate into NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON. The situation of Taiwan is a situation of pure semantics. On paper it's not a country, in practical reality it is. Putting the lives of its entire population at risk just to fix what they can freely be called on paper is not worth it.

From your location I see that you're from California. There's a minor movement that seeks for California to break away from the union and become an independent country. Imagine that movement increased in steam and California declared themselves an independent nation. The USA, seeking to discourage other states from following suit, decide not to acknowledge the referendum, but they don't actively stop California from governing themselves and ignoring federal law. Now imagine if Russia decided to support this newly formed California. Citing the American Civil War as an example of American autocracy that actively rejects the idea of self governance. Russia pledges that they will give military support to the government of California. In response, the American military starts heavily reinforcing California, building more military bases and filling the state with soldiers, all in preparation for a Russian invasion that has the purpose of "liberating" California. Would you appreciate the actions of the Russians bringing war to your doorstep? Because that's what the USA involving themselves with Taiwan would be like. They would be ignoring the will and the peace of two separate countries and then forcing those two countries to go to war with each other.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

What does that achieve besides making Beijing go "Oh. Well fuck you too then." 

They have already fucked us economically, and I see they have no reason to stop at just our economy until they break us militarily and politically to become the dominant superpower.

8 minutes ago, Jotari said:

1. China and Taiwan continually to cooperate on a peaceful basis and one day Taiwan is allowed back into the UN as a fully independent nation after they renounce their claim over mainland China and vice versa.

Never going to happen. The Chinese government does not see Taiwan as an equal but a renegade province. Just as we took back the South by force during the American Civil War, China will take Taiwan back by force if the balance of power tips in their favor.

A China that recognizes Taiwanese independence is a China that has gone democratic. A democratic China means there is no point in Taiwanese independence in the first place since the main purpose of being independent is to preserve democracy.

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

2. China invades Taiwan and kills a lot of people.

I see that as the inevitable scenario if America slips to second place.

25 minutes ago, Jotari said:

3. America intervenes, China invades Taiwan and kills  lot of people.

America leaves Taiwan alone and possibility 1 or 2 happens with the current political climate leaning towards. America involving themselves WILL lead to possibility 3 and possibility 3 is way worse than possibility 2 as it could lead to a war between China and America. Which is a conflict that could escalate into NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON. The situation of Taiwan is a situation of pure semantics. On paper it's not a country, in practical reality it is. Putting the lives of its entire population at risk just to fix what they can freely be called on paper is not worth it.

Direct American military intervention would not happen unless China moves first militarily. We have a duty to our allies and democracies in general to safeguard them from harm.

I concede that we should let Taiwan decide our level of recognition and intervention, but we have a duty to intervene if their survival as a democracy is at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, XRay said:

Never going to happen. The Chinese government does not see Taiwan as an equal but a renegade province. Just as we took back the South by force during the American Civil War, China will take Taiwan back by force if the balance of power tips in their favor.

Never is a long time. I don't expect it to happen within the next ten years, or even fifty years. Within the next hundred years? Probably not either, but maybe. But centuries from now? Yeah, I can see that happening if things continue the course of peace that they have now. China invading Taiwan is no more inevitable than anything else and it's arrogant to declare it so. America and China (and Russia) must remain on cordial terms. War involving two of these countries must be averted beyond everything else. Risking a war like that for the sake of pride is insanity.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

it's arrogant to declare it so.

It is not an arrogant declaration when they have taken territory by force in broad daylight and have no qualms doing so when they can get away with it. Ten years ago, I would not believe Russia would take Crimea by force and I would not believe China will take islands in the South China Sea by force either. The fact that they have tells me that China will do the same with Taiwan when they have the means to do so and can afford the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

It is not an arrogant declaration when they have taken territory by force in broad daylight and have no qualms doing so when they can get away with it. Ten years ago, I would not believe Russia would take Crimea by force and I would not believe China will take islands in the South China Sea by force either. The fact that they have tells me that China will do the same with Taiwan when they have the means to do so and can afford the consequences.

And what makes it inevitable that they will ever get the means to do so while affording the consequences? Like every other country in the world, China will act in China's interests, that is the only thing that's certain. Just consider how certain everyone was that the Russians were going to invade and vice versa during the Cold War. There was a lot more hard evidence for that scenario. But thank the heavens everyone on both sides was able to keep a level head and not act on rash emotion based on what they thought the enemy would do. You are not an oracle. You can't predict the future with certainty. Risking the lives of every human on the planet by escalating hostility between the USA and China based on your own independent expectations is arrogance at its highest.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

America and China (and Russia) must remain on cordial terms.

Fuck being courteous if they are being dicks and continue to be dicks.

25 minutes ago, Jotari said:

War involving two of these countries must be averted beyond everything else. Risking a war like that for the sake of pride is insanity.

I agree that direct conflict between two superpowers with nuclear weapons should be avoided, but avoiding conflicts at all costs is not the solution either.

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And what makes it inevitable that they will ever get the means to do so while affording the consequences?

China is 4 times the size of our population. Once their economy matures, their economy would vastly eclipse ours, and with a bigger economy comes bigger military, more political clout, and everything else with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XRay said:

China is 4 times the size of our population. Once their economy matures, their economy would vastly eclipse ours, and with a bigger economy comes bigger military, more political clout, and everything else with it.

Andddddd you want to make a point out of antagonizing them--why exactly???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

Andddddd you want to make a point out of antagonizing them--why exactly???

To tell them to back the fuck off of our democratic allies. If we have the balls to say that we are the champions of democracy, we better own up to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, XRay said:

To tell them to back the fuck off of our democratic allies. If we have the balls to say that we are the champions of democracy, we better own up to it.

...or what??? We're not going to war with China.  

Like--this is where you actually have to use tact, diplomacy, and discretion.

Biggest guy at the gym hollers at your girl; you're not gonna go up to him, flex on him, and say "back the fuck off, or we're throwing hands." 

Going up to a country 4 times your size that you never have any intention of actually fighting and pissing in their cornflakes isn't "championing democracy"--its reckless disregard for the limits of your own influence. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Going up to a country 4 times your size that you never have any intention of actually fighting and pissing in their cornflakes isn't "championing democracy"--its reckless disregard for the limits of your own influence. 

Quadruple the population doesn't matter so much when you can rain nukes. And raining nukes is precisely why it isn't really possible to have the US and China go to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...or what??? We're not going to war with China.  

2 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And raining nukes

I draw the line on Taiwanese self determination. If China threatens the survival of Taiwanese democracy, that is when intervention would be appropriate and necessary. If we do not back Taiwan up, our standing would crash. Unlike Ukraine that is not under American protection or Philippines where its leader allowed Chinese encroachment, Taiwan is under our protection and has no desire to be under an authoritarian government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The biggest threat to democracy is ignorance. 

Perhaps. But I would consider ignorance rather hard to define and additionally hard to correct. Even if you took everyone's emotions out of the equation, people would still arrive at a plethora of opposing viewpoints. There isn't a perfect solution to everything, even in ideal circumstances. I think that's just how things are naturally.

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Democracy only works when the electorate is educated enough to vote their own interests.

The system fails when large swaths of the electorate don't understand how law and public policy works, and can be made to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a populist demagogue.  

But the thing here is even educated people disagree. My brother-in-law went to Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard, graduating close to the top of his class in each. He's currently a high-ranking law clerk on path to eventually becoming a district judge. And he would disagree with you (who if I recall is also a well-educated lawyer) on a ton of political matters. He hasn't been sheltered from opposing viewpoints and he doesn't have strong emotional reasons tying him down. In fact, when he entered Princeton, he was an atheist socialist. He actually became a Christian conservative as a by-product of his higher education. 

My point here is, what kind of education are you suggesting would get people to see your point of view? The highest educational institutions in the land produce people on both extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

I draw the line on Taiwanese self determination. If China threatens the survival of Taiwanese democracy, that is when intervention would be appropriate and necessary. 

Yeah--we're not going to do that.

So there's no point in threatening to do it.

And issuing the threat + making it a pissing contest just gives them a reason to whip it out and prove that their's is longer--saavy???

Again:  tact and discretion.

Don't go making messes you can't clean up.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeah--we're not going to do that.

So there's no point in threatening to do it.

And issuing the threat + making it a pissing contest just gives them a reason to whip it out and prove that there's is longer--saavy???

Again:  tact and discretion.

Don't go making messes you can't clean up.

We should. I have already conceded that we should not do what Taiwan does not want us to do, but if their survival is at stake, I do not support throwing them under the bus and just let China take them.

Tact and discretion means shit if the other side does not give a fuck about you. As long as China does not intervene militarily, we would hold our end of the bargain and not intervene militarily either. If they do take Taiwan by force, we must intervene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, XRay said:

We should. I have already conceded that we should not do what Taiwan does not want us to do, but if their survival is at stake, I do not support throwing them under the bus and just let China take them.

kk.
 
What if Taiwan decides it wants to move closer to China, and cut off the United States?

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

kk.
 
What if Taiwan decides it doesn't want to move closer to China, and cut off the United States?

I guess that would be an acceptable situation where we can back off, but if they are being threatened militarily, I do not think they would want us to stay away and not help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, XRay said:

I guess that would be an acceptable situation where we can back off, but if they are being threatened militarily, I do not think they would want us to stay away and not help them.

Well I can just tell you right now from my trips to Taiwan and conversations with my wife and her family--people in Taiwan don't want us butting in right now.

Not even the staunch Taiwanese nationalists.

They're happy with where they're at.  They JUST in 2016 got to a point where they ended the military draft and switched over to an all volunteer fighting force, because they're confident that they're in a stable period of long-term peace + don't need to be on a perpetual war footing. 

Trump is a joke to them--literally. Coverage of his 'presidency' is relegated to the blooper reel, and airs to goofy sound effects + cartoon graphics when the news needs to present comedic-relief pieces between serious segments. 

Related image


Their own government has been doing a bang-up job juggling peace and prosperity, and foreign affairs.

Their biggest fear isn't Russia or China or North Korea--its America doing something stupid with Trump at the helm and throwing the entire region into chaos. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Perhaps. But I would consider ignorance rather hard to define and additionally hard to correct. Even if you took everyone's emotions out of the equation, people would still arrive at a plethora of opposing viewpoints. There isn't a perfect solution to everything, even in ideal circumstances. I think that's just how things are naturally.

But the thing here is even educated people disagree. My brother-in-law went to Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard, graduating close to the top of his class in each. He's currently a high-ranking law clerk on path to eventually becoming a district judge. And he would disagree with you (who if I recall is also a well-educated lawyer) on a ton of political matters. He hasn't been sheltered from opposing viewpoints and he doesn't have strong emotional reasons tying him down. In fact, when he entered Princeton, he was an atheist socialist. He actually became a Christian conservative as a by-product of his higher education. 

My point here is, what kind of education are you suggesting would get people to see your point of view? The highest educational institutions in the land produce people on both extremes.

I don't think people having different opinions is the problem. It's great that people have different opinions. It's what makes us a wonderfully diverse and interesting species. Trouble arises when people get extremist about those opinions by refusing to listen to any other opinions and refusing to conceive the possibility that they could potentially be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...