It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[Silvanus]

There is no 'another' about it and the United Nations report itself does not come to any firm conclusions.

Anyway, I don't need to dispute it; it is contested. You have chosen to believe some people, like psychotic and discredited evangelical Christian Adrian Zenz [...]

Nope, stop right there; for the third time, nothing I have said relies on believing Adrian Zenz. I am believing detailed reports published by Amnesty and the United Nations; extensive testimony from survivors; and a trove of leaked documents verified by the ICIJ.

You, on the other hand, are dismissing them automatically, solely because they implicate a world hegemon you happen to sympathise with.

The Tibetan elites supported by the CIA were indeed housed and trained in India and even Colorado and presumably other parts of the United States before invading Tibet and slaughtering peasants, that is correct. And it is also correct that they acted on behalf of monied interests of a foreign government with expansionist projects, that of course being the United States. Not sure what you mean by "also" as they are the same people I was describing.

Arf, very funny. You know of course that I was referring to the invaders-- the PLA acting on behalf of central Chinese imperialist interests.

It's weird to be very exercised about the People's Liberation Army marching into a place the world recognized as China near the end of a civil war in China and then coming to an agreement with the local government to remain a part of China.

It would be, if that's what happened.

The "actual historical status" of many places that are incorporated into countries today were "as vassals". Like Wales to England. Or indeed Kent, Wessex, York, and so on. What do you think vassalage was? Such a weird premise to put forward. Hast thou even glanced at an overview of the political structures of medieval Europe? Or just played a Crusader Kings game? Good lord (a blasphemy because it is a contradiction).

Indeed I have, as a student of history. Such brutal expansions and subjugations were characteristic of the feudal and colonial systems throughout much of the world-- though most semi-ethical observers would agree that we shouldn't continue those practices, and do not consider the fact that something happened historically to be a justification for its perpetuation.

Of course, for many of these places, the deeply inequitable vassalage has been replaced by truer incorporation: equal treatment, suffrage, representation. Actual de facto and de jure incorporation into the larger polity, with the consent of the modern people there.

Not so with Tibet, as the Qing-Kuomintang-PRC continuity government continued instead the chauvinist traditions of vassalage.

The rest is the usual ahistorical imperialist waffle.

 

[Ezekiel]

You know what I don't understand about the elites? How can they want more and more when they still have to live in this world? What's the point of more tax cuts when you have more money than you will ever spend and the cities you have to live in and travel through are falling apart? Constantly taking detours to avoid seeing and smelling at all the homeless. Roads shaking your limousine. Public buildings run down and dirty. Air travel more dangerous because there are not enough traffic controllers. It makes no sense.

 

[tstorm823]

You know what I don't understand about the elites? How can they want more and more when they still have to live in this world? What's the point of more tax cuts when you have more money than you will ever spend and the cities you have to live in and travel through are falling apart? Constantly taking detours to avoid seeing and smelling at all the homeless. Roads shaking your limousine. Public buildings run down and dirty. Air travel more dangerous because there are not enough traffic controllers. It makes no sense.

Most of the elites in America support the political party that raises taxes.

 

[Agema]

Most of the elites in America support the political party that raises taxes.

You need to supply a clear definition of "the elites" before you can even start making that claim.

 

[tstorm823]

You need to supply a clear definition of "the elites" before you can even start making that claim.

People with several magnitude more societal power than an average person, typically by way of authority (political or academic), celebrity, or wealth.

To be clear, by academic authority I don't mean just "be a teacher", I mean a person whose stances make significant impact on academia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Nope, stop right there; for the third time, nothing I have said relies on believing Adrian Zenz.

You just keep using him as a source for apparently no reason at all.

Indeed I have, as a student of history. Such brutal expansions and subjugations were characteristic of the feudal and colonial systems throughout much of the world-- though most semi-ethical observers would agree that we shouldn't continue those practices, and do not consider the fact that something happened historically to be a justification for its perpetuation.

You literally live in a state that is an amalgamation of feudal holdings, perpetuating that brutal subjugation every day. Are you sounding off for East Anglian, Cornish, and Lancastrian independence? Or do you have a more nuanced view when it comes to England? You also support the continued existence and funding of the military of a state that is *ENTIRELY* settler colonial in character. There is not a single piece of the United States that is not stolen, and the people it was stolen from, though certainly diminished in number, still exist. Oh, but it's mostly inhabited by white people now-- knock me over with a feather!

Let's be clear about what we're talking about: China's borders are a result of Imperial China, its conquests and agreements as well as its being taken over by others like the Mongols or Manchurians. Yuan Dynasty China included Tibet by agreement. England's borders are a result of brutal conquests by various Lords and Kings, as well as being taken over by others like the Normans or even a German royal family. Scotland's borders as well. And those of Wales. The borders of the United Kingdom are a result of imperial conquest and brutal subjugation. If you had a Warlord Era of your own in England in the 20th or 21st century, especially one exacerbated by an ultimately repelled foreign invasion, it would not be weird for that era coming to an end to involve a reunification of part or all of what now constitutes the UK-- possibly even the Northern Irish part depending on the particulars. In the same way, it is not weird for a region that had been governed by China for centuries to be considered either part of China or a responsibility China's by both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong after a situation in which China had been divided into various local factions.

It would be, if that's what happened.

It is what happened. The Seventeen Point agreement was reached and then the People's Liberation Army marched into Lhasa. Much of the ruling class that oppressed Tibet fled, and the CIA funded them (as well as trained them at Camp Hale in Colorado among other places) to try to weaken communist China. Shortly after that, the practice of slavery and serfdom was finally abolished in Tibet and serfs burned their leases in celebration. The 'Tibetan resistance' within Tibet seemed to die out when the CIA cut them loose in the 1970s. Use and discard: it is the American way.

Of course, for many of these places, the deeply inequitable vassalage has been replaced by truer incorporation: equal treatment, suffrage, representation. Actual de facto and de jure incorporation into the larger polity, with the consent of the modern people there.

Not so with Tibet, as the Qing-Kuomintang-PRC continuity government continued instead the chauvinist traditions of vassalage.

It's weird to portray a polity that broke the chains and freed the serfs as one continuing the chauvinist traditions of vassalage. Tibet has more equal representation and participation in government by its people than it ever had during the period of de facto independence its monastic and aristocratic elites enjoyed for themselves. And the "Free Tibet" movement sought to reverse those gains. Greater autonomy for Tibet might (would probably) be nice, but it is complicated by the meddling of the CIA; the government of China has a responsibility to be vigilant against a reemergence of US meddling and attempts to destabilize. You know at least some of what the US has done elsewhere; tell me with a straight face that China is without basis to be on its guard: give me a good laugh.

 

[Silvanus]

You just keep using him as a source for apparently no reason at all.

He isn't the source of any information provided, as has been explained to you three times now.

You literally live in a state that is an amalgamation of feudal holdings, perpetuating that brutal subjugation every day. Are you sounding off for East Anglian, Cornish, and Lancastrian independence? Or do you have a more nuanced view when it comes to England? You also support the continued existence and funding of the military of a state that is *ENTIRELY* settler colonial in character. There is not a single piece of the United States that is not stolen, and the people it was stolen from, though certainly diminished in number, still exist. Oh, but it's mostly inhabited by white people now-- knock me over with a feather!

I'm trying to figure out exactly what point you think you're making here. British and American territory was claimed through colonialism and theft, so therefore... what? Therefore nobody who lives in Britain or America can criticise modern colonialism and theft, if its perpetrated by certain powers?

It is what happened. The Seventeen Point agreement was reached and then the People's Liberation Army marched into Lhasa. Much of the ruling class that oppressed Tibet fled, and the CIA funded them (as well as trained them at Camp Hale in Colorado among other places) to try to weaken communist China. Shortly after that, the practice of slavery and serfdom was finally abolished in Tibet and serfs burned their leases in celebration. The 'Tibetan resistance' within Tibet seemed to die out when the CIA cut them loose in the 1970s. Use and discard: it is the American way.

Ah, the gloriously straightforward narrative of good and evil, straight from the state schoolbooks.

The Seventeen Point Agreement was reached under duress, without negotiation or communication with their own government being allowed, and even then the Chinese government reneged on its contents concerning devolved governance and freedom of religion. The PLA marched into Lhasa, and continued to brutalise protesters for the following decade, leading to tens of thousands of casualties-- mostly the poorer native population. The ruling class that oppressed Tibet fled, and was replaced with another ruling class that oppressed Tibet. Slavery and serfdom were officially abolished, and continue instead off-the-books, in the form of China's expansive slave-labour and 'reeducation' camps.

It's weird to portray a polity that broke the chains and freed the serfs [...]

You really do swallow whatever they tell you.

 

[Agema]

People with several magnitude more societal power than an average person, typically by way of authority (political or academic), celebrity, or wealth.

To be clear, by academic authority I don't mean just "be a teacher", I mean a person whose stances make significant impact on academia.

Okay. So do you mean the top 10%? The top 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

Wealth / income, that's nice and straightforward, easily measurable.

Status, influence or authority, okay. But you also need to define this somehow (and many overlap). For instance, why academics (apart from that they are typically characterised as left)? A typical academic is "an average person". Why an academic, but not a researcher for the Heritage Foundation or Brookings Institution, or countless other people in public and private roles with enormous power over, let's call it "knowledge" domain? Why a teacher, but not a cop or an iPhone designer?

And how are we comparing these? I'm trying to think of really eminent academics that have huge public influence. Contextually, you can be president of the most eminent University in the USA and arguably world, and yet 99% of the USA have no idea who you are, anything you've done, and you can be effortlessly run out of town if some politicians take a dislike to you. Anyway, Noam Chomsky, maybe? Surely he's got to be right up there as publicly notable. But where's Chomsky compared to Steve Bannon or Elon Musk in relative power when we consider what's elite? I figure he doesn't compare well.

Celebrity is interesting because we probably think Hollywood (like academia, typically characterised as left), but is actually also TV, radio, and these days the internet: so influencers. Arguably it's also all the power-brokers who own and produce media.

 

[Chimpzy]

Apple calls for changes to anti-monopoly laws and says it may stop shipping to the EU

The iPhone-maker criticises Brussels’ Digital Markets Act and says delayed features are leading to a worse experience for users

www.theguardian.com

Sure Jan. Seems like an extremely easy and obvious choice to me.

 

[Gordon_4]

Apple calls for changes to anti-monopoly laws and says it may stop shipping to the EU

The iPhone-maker criticises Brussels’ Digital Markets Act and says delayed features are leading to a worse experience for users

www.theguardian.com

Sure Jan. Seems like an extremely easy and obvious choice to me.

And most of the EU be like "Don't threaten us with a good time, Apple"

 

[Seanchaidh]

He isn't the source of any information provided, as has been explained to you three times now.

He is credited for both doing the analysis and providing the leaked information in the source you provided about the police files. Could you at least check these things before you spout them? A PrOJeCt of the VicTUmZ of ComMuNIsM MemORiaL FoUNDaTioN, such a reliable source.

The Seventeen Point Agreement was reached under duress

This was explicitly denied by the negotiator on the Tibetan side. But let's assume that's true: it is not entirely clear why you, I, or anyone else should care whether the interests and wishes of an oppressive remnant of the Qing Dynasty bureaucracy were respected. It is not as if they were elected by the peasants and serfs or anything like that.

Slavery and serfdom were officially abolished, and continue instead off-the-books, in the form of China's expansive slave-labour and 'reeducation' camps.

Ahem:

You really do swallow whatever they tell you.

Anyway, what do you think is implausible about serfs celebrating the end of their servitude? The history is way more complicated than you give it credit; you have people like Tashi Tsering that lived through the Chinese takeover of Tibet and later spent years in a Chinese prison on unfounded suspicion of espionage, who afterward still believed that the PRC's interest in Tibet facilitated a vast improvement. Maybe he was biased; he still bore scars from being whipped while a member of the Dalai Lama's dance troupe many decades earlier when he died in 2014. So you can see how he might be unreasonable about the bucolic nature of Tibet before 1950.

 

[Agema]

And most of the EU be like "Don't threaten us with a good time, Apple"

So, long but interesting read:

The Week America Woke Up to Oligarchy

Fights over power are bitter because the right has an ancient vision of liberty, and the left has not joined the debate. Plus a new Google trial, a bailout of Argentina and a big change in H-1b visas.

www.thebignewsletter.com

Much of it is really how having found Google guilty of anti-monopolistic practices, the judge in that case applied a remedy sufficiently trivial that Google may as well have won. As indicated by Google promptly pushing it's AI into Chrome, giving Google a massive advantage in the AI market off the back of its Chrome market.

Key point for here:

But on a deeper level, in sanctifying Google’s market power, Mehta expressed a certain vision of the American system, a philosophy in which big companies can arbitrarily coerce Americans, and do so legally. Indeed, in a little noted part of his decision, Mehta refused to put into his remedy an anti-retaliation provision, which means Google can take revenge on those who testified at trial. Mehta is expressing humility, not to the law, but to a monopolist granted power by some sort of divine or metaphysical force, which he ascribes in modern parlance to technology or the market. Judges, he thinks must be humble before God, which is to say, Google.

Mehta’s vision of liberty and law is one in which the powerful demand obedience from all of us, as long as they offer succor, aka “consumer welfare.” In Google’s case, Mehta argues that Google gave us remarkable technology. We are free to search for things however Google chooses to allow it, and Google allows a lot of consumer choice. Therefore, in Mehta’s view, consumers are quite free. Even though Google may restrain us at any moment, and often restrains rivals and publishers, as long as it offers something useful to consumers, we are free, and the law cannot apply to protect us from fear of coercion.

What’s important on a political level, before going to the assertive use of power by President Trump, is that Mehta is a Democrat. And his vision, that liberty means freedom from restraint as opposed to freedom from dependence on arbitrary power, is what the Democratic establishment believes. It is the basis of the consumer rights movement and most economists, who see no problem in coercion, only in the bad effects that coercion produces. An extractive elite class is, to them, not a problem.

This seems to be the same idea Apple is stating: Apple's right to serve and protect its customers should transcend other considerations of law.

 

[Silvanus]

He is credited for both doing the analysis and providing the leaked information in the source you provided about the police files.

He did not "provide the leaked information". It was shared with him. I have already given you an alternative database from the ICIJ.

This was explicitly denied by the negotiator on the Tibetan side. But let's assume that's true: it is not entirely clear why you, I, or anyone else should care whether the interests and wishes of an oppressive remnant of the Qing Dynasty bureaucracy were respected. It is not as if they were elected by the peasants and serfs or anything like that.

You and I both know there were multiple differing statements from the Tibetan side about the conditions under which the agreement was made. It was denied early on, for reasons that should be obvious; they had been denied the ability to even speak to their own government.

You can characterise the government of Tibet however you like to deligitimise their right to negotiate on behalf of their country. Yet you're doing so to empower another oppressive, unelected power to seize their land, so it all rings hollow.

Ahem:

Hmm. Yet the slavery and "re-education" (vomit) camps are attested by the UN, Amnesty, the ICIJ, and an enormous amount of survivor testimony. Whereas you appear to just be parroting a state narrative.

Anyway, what do you think is implausible about serfs celebrating the end of their servitude?

Nothing at all. And i also know that invaders the world over have tried to sell the world dogshit narratives of how the locals all welcomed invasion. We heard the same thing from European colonialists, Italian and German fascists, etc etc. Its the same damn playbook-- you just fall for it hook, line and sinker when the perpetrator waves the right colour flag.

 

[Ezekiel]

Doomed. I didn't even remember the title of the video when I typed that, lol.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yet the slavery and "re-education" (vomit) camps are attested by the UN

The UN has said "may have", just like they have done with other allegations such as rape used systematically as a weapon of war during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. "May have" is not an attestation.

 

[Silvanus]

The UN has said "may have", just like they have done with other allegations such as rape used systematically as a weapon of war during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. "May have" is not an attestation.

This merely indicates that you haven't looked at the report for more than a scant few seconds.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This merely indicates that you haven't looked at the report for more than a scant few seconds.

Didn't you do this whole song and dance with the Pramila Patten report as well?

 

[Silvanus]

Didn't you do this whole song and dance with the Pramila Patten report as well?

Cute attempt to deflect to another subject, but no.

Tweets make up about 90% of your contributions these days, and here you are smugly shaking your head about a detailed UN report because a few of its statements use qualifying language. What an absolute joke.

 

[Chimpzy]

A World Cup preying on Fomo: Fifa’s 2026 ticket scheme is a late-capitalist hellscape

NFTs, dynamic pricing and double resale fees have turned the 2026 World Cup into a fintech carnival where fandom meets late-capitalist absurdity

www.theguardian.com

 

[Agema]

Tweets make up about 90% of your contributions these days, and here you are smugly shaking your head about a detailed UN report because a few of its statements use qualifying language. What an absolute joke.

Isn't this the point though?

As Trump himself demonstrates, politics these days is not really about ideas and strategies and plans. It's about snappy tweets and witticisms and vibes - for the left as much as the right. Scoring some top lols on FKA Twitter or passing them on is hitting the big time.

I mean, fuck trying to think about how the world works and change it - that shit's hard. Why not just accept the misery of the real world instead, and try to get some quick likes and lighten the mood with some superficial jibes? Feel like you're achieving something.