Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

[Kae]

-I don't know why you're throwing in Australia and South Africa. These aren't imperialist powers. Not in any real sense, in that Australia has no real ability to project power beyond its own borders, and South Africa even less so.

-Of course imperialism's bad, that isn't the question.

Addressed above, they're using their colonial wealth to engage in Economic Imperialism.

-I agree that the US and China are both imperialist powers who've caused harm to the world. If you think I'm arguing against that, you're misread me.

-I don't believe I've 'sanitized' the US, but even if I have, that's again irrelevant. The question is who's worse? China, or the US? That isn't the most pressing question in the world, but I've presented my case as to why I believe the former is.

You have, quite clearly, you have claimed that Vietnam wasn't being invaded exclusively by the USA strongly implying that somehow made it less bad, you mentioned problems with both the Vietnam and Cuba which had no relevancy to my condemnation of Economic Imperialism strongly suggesting that somehow justified their invasion in some way, you may not be saying it directly and if I'm being charitable possibly not on purpose, but you are providing excuses and justifications for the horrible practices of the USA.

-I didn't move the goalpost to just last year, that's a gross misreading of what I said. I'm not literally focusing on the year 2021, I'm making the case that what's going on in the present is more important than what's gone on in the past. It's why, if we're listing the 'sins' of both countries, I've focused on more contemporary events than ones centuries, or even millennia prior. It's why, for instance, when people try to excuse China's treatment of Ughyrs to the US treatment of Amerindians is frankly appalling. You're comparing a past genocide to a present one, and the present overtakes the past. Otherwise, we can play this game, go through all of human history, and therefore not have to worry about genocide ever again because there's barely a place on Earth that hasn't experienced it.

Can it really be considered the past when they not only have concentration camps for my people, horribly oppressive behaviour towards Islamic minorities, people in Vietnam are still suffering the effects of agent orange, people are still suffering the aftermath of their wars in the middle east as they prepare to wage another campaign in the middle East and try to provoke armed conflict in Venezuela so they can also invade there?

-Your friends have my sympathies. However, if we're going by the friends angle, I also have a close friend whose family had to flee China during the Great Leap Forward (and who had to flee Indonesia as well, but that's another matter). But if you want to press the case that the detention centres are the border are on the same moral level as China's mass detention centres, then I disagree. Both are bad, one is worse.

See, this sort of stupidity is exactly what I'm referring to, these things can't be quantified, by quantifying you're doing a disservice and disrespecting the people suffering, by claiming one is worse you're claiming that it's worth it for my people to suffer at the hands of the USA as long as the USA stops China, that's exactly what your wording implies, it's just that you're too much of a coward to say it directly.

To address these points:

-Australia hasn't subjugated anyone. I mean, yes, there's the indigenous Australians, but Mexico belongs in the same club (technically most countries do, but semantics).

I've already explained both of these things, see above.

-Yes, the West has backed dictators. I never denied that. However, the Eastern bloc has done the same with dictators. Heck, China's still doing it. I can, and have, criticize(d) both. People outside both blocs are doing likewise.

That tracks exactly with what I've said I just made it clear that I condemn all of them and see them all as bad, while you have the need to sanitize and claim that some are less bad than others, to add insult to your clear refusal to understand my point it's also the one that happens to subjugate my people.

-"Destroying the world" is hyperbole, no matter who you apply it to (same reason why I wouldn't say China is destroying the world), and to attribute all of it to economic exploitation is extremely naieve and dishonest. Probably in some cases (see the DRC), but hardly all. Furthermore, this conversation has focused on the US and China, but plenty of other powers are similarly involved in projecting power - some in the West (e.g. France), some elsewhere (Turkey, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

It has focused on the US because they are the ones that I have been oppressed by and therefore the empire that I understand the best, in addition to that you also keep defending them by claiming they are less bad than the others, in any case the destruction of the world due to unchecked economic exploitation is a reality and in no way hyperbole, if you believe that it is, I was right on the money when I said that you live in a snowglobe and have been rendered incapable to understand the world, let me be clear, México cannot afford to continue to provide vegetables and energy at the rate we are doing, every year more communities get locked out of access to water in order to focus it on producing commodities, and rather than slow down since the demand increases every year production increases more and more causing the process to accelerate more and more, this is a fact, anyone with eyes can see this, and México isn't the only country in which this is happening it's in the majority of the world, I shouldn't have to explain why this is a bad thing, look I know you only read it on the news and that capitalist imperialist pigs obfuscate it but I assure you, it's not an exaggeration and if you don't feel it's urgent it's far, far worse than anything you are imagining, I have witnessed the devastation of small communities myself, and currently the entire state of Baja California was in danger of having water scarcity due to one new Beer brewery, this isn't a fucking joke, that's the kind of damage one single brewery can do, fortunately we managed to stop it through protests but it was fucking close, you people need to get with the program and understand the gravity of the situation, that was just last year just look up Constellation Brands brewery Mexicali cancelled, maybe that'll help you understand the scope of the situation, BTW I no longer live in that city but I still live in that state, small rural communities are already having problems due to the water scarcity, this would've made the problem so big it would have affected cities too, I trust you can understand why that would be absolutely terrible.

-And even if you followed the train of logic that all conflict in the world is due to economic exploitation, what's China doing in Africa? What's its fishing fleet doing in the oceans? What's it debt traps doing? To come back to Australia, Australia is China's economic *****, and it knows it. Our leaders know it, the people know it, the media knows it, and thankfully, the government backed down when China told it to, because like it or not, our economy is dependent on China buying raw materials. So to claim that Australia is on the level of China, a country that practices literal enslavement, and backs regimes that do (North Korea), yet is also counted among the Global South...really?

(It's part of why I think "Global South/North" are terms that need to be retired, but that's another discussion.)

The same thing everyone else is doing in Africa, it sucks but it's no different than what the USA is doing, it is pretty funny though you're disdain for China's economic dominance and the fear your country will be subjugated by it means that on some level you do understand what I'm talking about, but you keep approaching it from the wrong angle, in any case that thing you're afraid China is going to do to you is what the USA is already doing to my country and many, many others.

 

[Kae]

I don't deny that I'm almost certainly more priviliged than you, and have had the fortune to grow up in the country I have. However, if you're talking about your personal experiences, those begin, and end, in Mexico (I assume). I don't need to live in China, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or any number of countries to accept that they're carrying out appalling actions, nor do I have to live in the US to know that its democracy is corrupt, its gun culture is insane, the level of inequality is unacceptable, and a myriad of other problems. None of us live in China, yet we're still accepting its crimes actually exist.

And again, I contest the idea that all suffering in the world is down to economic exploitation. Especially since, by any measure you care to use, the state of human existence is getting better on a global scale. Feel free to argue that it's not getting as better as it should, as quickly as it should (I agree on both counts), but again, the trends themselves remain. Even Mexico itself - over the course of the 20th century, infant mortality has plummeted, life expectancy has risen, PPP has risen overall (but fell in recent years, don't know why), literacy rate has risen (again, fell recently, but by a fraction - again, don't know why) etc. You're obviously in a better position to tell me about stuff on the ground, but the overall trend is clear. As it is for most countries.

Finally, I'm going to interject that this has gotten way off topic - this started off as "China vs. US, which is more evil," now it's gone...well, places. How/if you respond is up to you.

...
...........

You need to work in your reading comprehension skills because you have clearly not paid attention to what my argument has been from the beginning, it has always been that trying to define which is worse is counter-productive as it creates a narrative that whichever country is the least bad is more acceptable and helps sanitize their image, therefore aiding them in their efforts of imperialism because people will choose "The lesser of two evils" rather than decide to stand against both, this has been my very clear unambiguous position from the beginning, I wasn't participating in China VS USA I was saying we shouldn't do that and at every turn you tried to make excuses for the USA rather than engage with that argument, which is what got us as you say "off topic".

Also my exact words were "Honestly I often wonder if you overprivileged suburbanites from the "1st World" even have the capacity to understand all the deaths and suffering economic subjugation actually causes", so I don't get where you're getting this weird idea that I'm claiming that all the suffering in the world is down to economic exploitation, I have only claimed that it does cause death and suffering, how it does it and that you don't understand that form of suffering, so I have no idea how to respond to that argument because I don't really believe that is the case, like yeah obviously not all suffering is caused by economic exploitation.

Regarding your statistics, the current government for México under Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the Morena party fancies itself to be Democratic Socialist, so they have made efforts to improve the availability of those services, however as I already explained economically it's not really sustainable and we're facing an impending economic and environmental disaster, regarding literacy some efforts have been made to expand public schooling but the academic program has been changed and higher level education has drastically diminished in quality, there's little support for the arts and sciences too and it's focused on trying to make the populace more interested in rural life particularly farming, so while literacy is up education is actually being discouraged and the quality has declined, so it's not quite so simple, basically it's all smoke and mirrors and why I say that viewing the world through statistics isn't an effective way to analyse it and will lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of what's actually happening because even though those numbers are based on reality they don't actually mean what the census is claiming they mean.

 

[Hawki]

First of all you're probably monolingual so you don't understand that if I google a thing in Spanish I get results in Spanish, which is my native language, that's actually how the algorithm works, second universities are generally not left wing, they tend to be liberal which is to say rather liberal and very much do tend to favour Capitalism particularly in the economic sector, it's really only arts and social sciences that have a tendency towards the left, c'mon dude I'm a high school dropout and even I know that, third most of Latin America is economically liberal which is to say institutionally in favour of Capitalism even if among the generally populace Socialism is more accepted than in the "Global North", and finally everything is biased, there's no such thing as unbiased data, the biases of the person making the study directly inform the methodology and goal of the study, that's the way it works, the reason why the bias of Latin American studies show a much less charitable depiction of imperialism and economic interference is because Latin Americans living under the heel of those systems tend to not only be more aware of those systems so therefore they are more likely to study them, since you know they directly influence our daily lives, it makes that you don't give a shit, it doesn't affect you.

We must have gone to different universities.

In the US, the universities are overwhelmingly left wing. There's actually the stats to prove it. In the 1960s, liberals outnumbered conservatives 5:1. Nowadays, it's about 20:1.

I don't know the stats for Australia, but it's generally accepted that universities are left wing here. I didn't do economics or social sciences (I did environmental management), and though the topic of politics rarely came up, the professors were generally left (to cite a personal experience, I kind of had to stare in amazement when a professor claimed how awesome China's Internet security was, praising the "Great Firewall of China"). I can only recall one talk that I ever went to that could be considered right wing.

And actually, I do give a shit. If the question was "which power is going to affect my life directly," then the answer is none of them. Doesn't mean I don't care about what's going on in the world.

It was a joke, pretty sure I stated as much, but if you want to take it seriously, yes México and basically all of Latin America is founded genocide, imperialism and slavery too, there is a key difference though, the Spanish were less focused in annihilating the natives than the English settlers in Australia or North America, as a result a lot of natives survived and the majority of the population, myself included are mixed race, as a result our cultures actually tend to be more sympathetic towards the natives and even if there is governmental oppression of the natives (Which there very much still is in México), the vast majority of the population at least here in México identify more as native than European, you'll hear a lot more people brag about being of Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, etc descent than people bragging over Spanish or otherwise European descent, which makes the regular populace very different to what a culture like yours or the Americans is, now I will not claim there isn't racism because there is but it's very different and the culture doesn't worship colonialism like your people do, since despite the majority of the population being mixed they consider the Spanish the bad guys and general consensus is that their arrival is bad, this is despite school textbooks painting a very different story as they are more favourable towards colonialism.

I thought about how to respond to this post. However, I'm going to maintain that Australia and the United States really don't belong in the same category here. Yes, English settlers came in both cases, but the United States did its own thing separate from the British Empire, whereas Australia only federated in 1901, and generally didn't see the levels of violence that the US did. Australia's better placed in the same category as Canada and New Zealand. I can't speak for Canada so much, but New Zealand didn't have a policy of extermination (New Zealand is very much bicultural), and the bloodshed in Australia was largely frontier battles. You wouldn't get an Australian equivalent of the Continental Army or Spanish conquistadors overthrowing the Aztecs in some grand battle.

If you're going to claim that Mexicans identify as being more native than European, I'll have to take your word for it. However, in my experience, very few people here identify as being "of European decent." Even if you're reducing that to specific countries, a lot of people will simply call themselves Australian, regardless of actual heritage. On the flipside, outside the UK, there's a lot of emphasis placed on country of origin - recently, one of the councils I work for celebrated the anniversary of Greek independence. This extends to non-Euro groups (e.g. Chinese New Year is very big here, to use a recent example). I don't know what Mexico's approach to multiculturalism is, but going by that, to borrow a phrase, Mexico seems to be more melting pot, while Australia has adopted a salad bowel approach for the last half century.

By extension, lots of people brag about indigenous ancestry here. And no-one "worships colonialism." There is reverance to the First Fleet and whatnot, I'll give you that, but few people these days is that comfortable about it. If you want to make the argument that Mexico's overall culture is more hemogenous (as in, most Mexicans claiming native ancestry), while Australia's is more hetrogeneous (multiple groups identifying themselves separately), then that seems to be true, but it's something that's actively encouraged on all levels.

because of this practice of economic imperialism, which is what has lead us to the current global situation of Eurocentrism, and part of the reason why China is being made out to be the hugest evil that has ever existed it's because China defies the standard of Eurocentrism, while also having a different economic system, though nowadays it resembles Capitalism way too much to really be considered different.

I haven't responded to your description of conditions in Mexico, because I can't claim to be as familiar with it. I can point out however that as far as depleting natural resources go, there's a similar situation here. However, I can't blame "economic imperialism" on that, and it's why I'm generally wary of blaming it for much. For instance, Indonesia is cutting down its rainforests to export palm oil, but no-one is forcing it to do so. The question there is who has responsibility - the buyer, or the seller. Here, responsibility of course lies with the seller (no-one is forcing us to export coal), any more than people are forcing Qatar to export oil, even in the knowedge that both are killing the planet. So how much of that is down to "economic imperialism" versus personal responsibility?

As for China, no doubt a lot of animus towards China is that it's challenging the current global order. If that was the only reason to be wary of China, I wouldn't even be bothering here (I'd argue that lots of countries are challenging the former US hegemony that's lasted since the end of the Cold War). However, China's behaviour is cause for concern. And I've already specified that China isn't the "hugest evil," that was never my claim, even if people seem intent on interpreting my words that way.

 

[Hawki]

Addressed above, they're using their colonial wealth to engage in Economic Imperialism.

Um, no, you used the US as an example. You haven't given examples of Australia or South Africa.

You have, quite clearly, you have claimed that Vietnam wasn't being invaded exclusively by the USA strongly implying that somehow made it less bad, you mentioned problems with both the Vietnam and Cuba which had no relevancy to my condemnation of Economic Imperialism strongly suggesting that somehow justified their invasion in some way, you may not be saying it directly and if I'm being charitable possibly not on purpose, but you are providing excuses and justifications for the horrible practices of the USA.

Intentional or otherwise, you're misinterpreting my point.

As I've stated, I don't believe anyone can claim the moral high ground in Vietnam. My assertion that the US is "less bad" than China isn't continent on Vietnam, it's contingent on what's happening now.

Can it really be considered the past when they not only have concentration camps for my people, horribly oppressive behaviour towards Islamic minorities, people in Vietnam are still suffering the effects of agent orange, people are still suffering the aftermath of their wars in the middle east as they prepare to wage another campaign in the middle East and try to provoke armed conflict in Venezuela so they can also invade there?

I'm going to reiterate this (again) via way of metaphor.

"Bob and Bill are bad."

"Bob is worse than Bill."

Those two statements aren't contradictory. Because I consider Bill worse than Bob, it doesn't stop Bob from also being bad.

So, to address those specific points:

-I'm sorry, but I don't see the camps you're describing as internment camps. By all means, I think the conditions are inhumane. However, this started as to which was worse, so yes, I consider China's mass internment worse for a variety of reasons. The former is arresting people who cross into a country illegally. The other is mass arbitrary detention of one's own citizens.

-I feel you have an even weaker case on Islamic minorities. Will Muslims suffer prejudice inside the US? Yes, absolutely. However, that simply cannot be equated to China's clampdown on religion. I'm not talking about just the Ughyrs, I'm talking about religious groups in general, including Buddhists (in the case of Tibet), and Christians in general.

-Yes, Vietnam is suffering the effects of Agent Orange. I won't dispute that.

-Another campaign in the Middle East? That's news to me. The US is barely hanging on in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the major power players in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia.

-Similar to Venezuela. There was a period under Trump when intervention in Venezuela seemed possible, but Venezuela's collapse is down to Venezuela itself, primarily Maduro's absolute economic incompetence (and to a lesser extent, Chavez).

See, this sort of stupidity is exactly what I'm referring to, these things can't be quantified, by quantifying you're doing a disservice and disrespecting the people suffering, by claiming one is worse you're claiming that it's worth it for my people to suffer at the hands of the USA as long as the USA stops China, that's exactly what your wording implies, it's just that you're too much of a coward to say it directly.

Actually, I think you're the one doing a disservice. Because if you're claiming that all suffering is equal, then that's a morally bankrupt view of the world.

Not all suffering is equal. That may sound cold-hearted, but it's simply a fact of life, because there's only so much time and resources that can be dedicated to alleviate suffering. My dad suffered a lot earlier this week when he had a heart attack, but it would be obscene to compare his suffering to someone in a refugee camp for instance. Or, to use a more general example, a homeless person in Australia may be suffering, but they aren't suffering nearly as much as the people of Myanmar. It's why, for instance, when I donate to UNHCR, I always choose that the donation be sent to "where it's needed most." Because the people running the show are far better qualified to determine where money is needed more.

So, no, intentionally or not, you've misinterpreted my stance. If X is worse than Y, that doesn't mean I don't care about Y. Nothing that China does excuses what the US does, I've never claimed that. The question was which is worse.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on that front, because I agree, that isn't the most producive question in the world, but it's how the thread's developed.

That tracks exactly with what I've said I just made it clear that I condemn all of them and see them all as bad, while you have the need to sanitize and claim that some are less bad than others, to add insult to your clear refusal to understand my point it's also the one that happens to subjugate my people.

We seem to be going in circles at this point.

Again, if X is worse than Y, it doesn't stop X from being bad.

Or, to be specific:

-China and the US are bad.

-China is worse than the US.

Those statements aren't contradictory. You may disagree with them, but that's another matter.

 

[Hawki]

It has focused on the US because they are the ones that I have been oppressed by and therefore the empire that I understand the best, in addition to that you also keep defending them by claiming they are less bad than the others, in any case the destruction of the world due to unchecked economic exploitation is a reality and in no way hyperbole, if you believe that it is, I was right on the money when I said that you live in a snowglobe and have been rendered incapable to understand the world, let me be clear, México cannot afford to continue to provide vegetables and energy at the rate we are doing, every year more communities get locked out of access to water in order to focus it on producing commodities, and rather than slow down since the demand increases every year production increases more and more causing the process to accelerate more and more, this is a fact, anyone with eyes can see this, and México isn't the only country in which this is happening it's in the majority of the world, I shouldn't have to explain why this is a bad thing, look I know you only read it on the news and that capitalist imperialist pigs obfuscate it but I assure you, it's not an exaggeration and if you don't feel it's urgent it's far, far worse than anything you are imagining, I have witnessed the devastation of small communities myself, and currently the entire state of Baja California was in danger of having water scarcity due to one new Beer brewery, this isn't a fucking joke, that's the kind of damage one single brewery can do, fortunately we managed to stop it through protests but it was fucking close, you people need to get with the program and understand the gravity of the situation, that was just last year just look up Constellation Brands brewery Mexicali cancelled, maybe that'll help you understand the scope of the situation, BTW I no longer live in that city but I still live in that state, small rural communities are already having problems due to the water scarcity, this would've made the problem so big it would have affected cities too, I trust you can understand why that would be absolutely terrible.

We seem to be approaching this from very different angles. You're focusing on the local, I'm focusing on the global.

Again, let's say every issue in Mexico is down to the US. Assuming that's the case, then yes, of course the US is at fault. It deserves full condemnation. You seem to be operating under the assumption that because I consider one evil greater than another, it excuses the lesser evil entirely. And as I've already stated (twice, at least), I don't consider China or the US to be the greatest evils in the world. But the question came up as to which was worse. I've explained my reasoning, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that because I consider one worse than the other, the less worse one is excused.

If you want an example of what I consider a greater evil than either of them, then there's North Korea. Latest reports have the figure of slaves (as in, literal slaves) as over 2 million. That, in addition to political prisoners and every other horror it's unleashed. If anyone argued that China was worse than North Korea for instance, I'd have to stare in amazement, because nothing China is doing compares to what's going on in NK for instance. So yes, I believe that some evils can be ranked as being more evil than others (part of why no-one will ever convince me that communism was worse than Nazism, even if that argument refuses to die in some circles), but this conversation didn't start about NK, hence why I haven't brought it up much.

The same thing everyone else is doing in Africa, it sucks but it's no different than what the USA is doing, it is pretty funny though you're disdain for China's economic dominance and the fear your country will be subjugated by it means that on some level you do understand what I'm talking about, but you keep approaching it from the wrong angle, in any case that thing you're afraid China is going to do to you is what the USA is already doing to my country and many, many others.

Again, you seem to have misinterpreted me.

I don't actually fear that Australia will be subjugated, for a variety of reasons. I'm wary of the level of influence that China has over the country, but a lot of that has to do with the Australian government itself. Again, to be clear, China is doing horrible things RIGHT NOW. It could do even more horrible things. Those horrible things won't affect me directly, but it takes a very selfish mind to operate under the premise of "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care?"

My level of self-interest in China is primarily on climate change, because what it does will be crucial as to how the coming century pans out. Apart from that, no, China could invade Taiwan tomorrow for instance, and keep engaging in all the shit it does, and I'd still care. Same reason I care about what the US is doing (which also extends to self-interest as well, since the US is also crucial on climate change.

 

[Silvanus]

So it sounds like the US prison system, then.

Except for the scale, and the universal targeting of an entire ethnic group.

And yet they still have a prison population that is lower than the United States per capita. Why is that? Is it because the United States has deliberately made policy choices that tend to cause crime? Or define harmless behavior as crime? Where is this supposed moral high ground again?

Uhrm, there is no "moral high ground" for the US; nobody is arguing that here. "Not committing genocide right now" doesn't make them the good guy. They have incentivised large prison populations through private prisons; criminalised harmless behaviours; and fed a reactionary, violent police force and penal system. They US prison system is a fucking disgrace.

Yet the assumption that no nation on the planet could be acting any worse is leading you to downplay what's happening elsewhere.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In the US, the universities are overwhelmingly left wing.

No.

Uhrm, there is no "moral high ground" for the US; nobody is arguing that here.

?

In this, I feel the US has the moral high ground.

 

[Hawki]

No.

Research confirms that professors lean left, but questions assumptions about what this means for conservatives

DeVos accusation that faculty members seek to tell students what to think renews debate, on which research is plentiful. Studies say professors lean left but challenge idea that this results in indoctrination or harms conservatives.

www.insidehighered.com

A Conversation with Jonathan Haidt — Minding The Campus

On January 11, John Leo, editor of “Minding the Campus,” interviewed social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, one of the editors of the five-month-old site, “Heterodox Academy,” and perhaps the most prominent academic pushing hard for more intellectual diversity on our campuses. Haidt, 52, who...

www.mindingthecampus.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/the-dramatic-shift-among-college-professors-thats-hurting-students-education/

The third one is behind a paywall, but states that 60% of faculty identify as liberal.

Like, I don't even know why this is surprising. Universities are left wing in general, period. Same way the business sector is overwhelmingly right wing for instance. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, in that different careers tend to attract different people, but I'm not sure how one could argue the negative.

Uhrm, there is no "moral high ground" for the US; nobody is arguing that here. "Not committing genocide right now" doesn't make them the good guy. They have incentivised large prison populations through private prisons; criminalised harmless behaviours; and fed a reactionary, violent police force and penal system. They US prison system is a fucking disgrace.

Yet the assumption that no nation on the planet could be acting any worse is leading you to downplay what's happening elsewhere.

This is more a response to Sean, but yes, I've argued that the US has the moral high ground in that it's less shit than China.

I don't know which particular post Sean is quoting of mine, but as I've had to say again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, is that because just because one party is worse than the other, it doesn't stop the less worse party from being bad.

And frankly, it's kind of disturbing. For instance, I'd argue that Australia has the moral high ground over the US in its prison system, and a country like Finland has the moral high ground over Australia in its prison system. If there's no moral high ground, that all imprisonment everywhere is equal to each other, then that's a pretty nightmarish view on society.

It doesn't even have to be on prison. Take any issue anywhere, and some countries will do better than others. If all are equal, then a country like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Belarus, is of equal need of condemnation as Iceland, Denmark, or Finland. I...no. Just no. It's frankly obscene to adopt the position of "well, everyone does bad stuff, so therefore everyone's equally guilty."

 

[Revnak]

Um, no, you used the US as an example. You haven't given examples of Australia or South Africa.

OR SOUTH AFRICA?!? YOU NEED AN EXAMPLE OF SOUTH AFRICA BEING IMPERIALISM?!?

 

[Hawki]

OR SOUTH AFRICA?!? YOU NEED AN EXAMPLE OF SOUTH AFRICA BEING IMPERIALISM?!?

In the sense of extending political and/or military power beyond its own borders, yes.

 

[Revnak]

In the sense of extending political and/or military power beyond its own borders, yes.

Firstly, South Africa was founded as an extension of military power beyond the borders of the British empire. Secondly, how about all the South African mercs that crushed local socialist movements throughout Africa? Oh yeah, ALSO THAT TIME THEY ILLEGALLY DETONATED A NUKE THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE I IMAGINE THAT SHOULD COUNT.

Edit: god, this is in a fucking Metal Gear game! This isn’t hard to know!

 

[Hawki]

Firstly, South Africa was founded as an extension of military power beyond the borders of the British empire.

Which is British imperialism, not South African imperialism.

If your definition of imperialism is "a country/region was part of an empire," then practically every country on Earth is imperialist.

Secondly, how about all the South African mercs that crushed local socialist movements throughout Africa?

I'd need more details on that. I looked around, there's plenty of mentions of South African mercenaries, but I couldn't find anything really beyond their existence or government sponsership, and they appear to fit the definition of mercenaries - soldiers for hire, used by foreign governments.

Oh yeah, ALSO THAT TIME THEY ILLEGALLY DETONATED A NUKE THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE I IMAGINE THAT SHOULD COUNT.

Are you referring to the Vela incident? Because that's the only example I could find of a possible example of SA testing a nuke beyond its own borders. And no-one knows who detonated the nuke, or even if it was a nuke.

 

[Revnak]

Which is British imperialism, not South African imperialism.

If your definition of imperialism is "a country/region was part of an empire," then practically every country on Earth is imperialist.



I'd need more details on that. I looked around, there's plenty of mentions of South African mercenaries, but I couldn't find anything really beyond their existence or government sponsership, and they appear to fit the definition of mercenaries - soldiers for hire, used by foreign governments.



Are you referring to the Vela incident? Because that's the only example I could find of a possible example of SA testing a nuke beyond its own borders. And no-one knows who detonated the nuke, or even if it was a nuke.

Oh god. I assumed you just had no knowledge of South Africa but you’re actually gonna double down. So like, are you a white nationalist, or just a stickler for definitions? Also, everyone accepts it was a South African nuke these days. It was not known “at the time” because the US refused to investigate it since the US still supported apartheid at that point.

Other South African crimes include but are not limited to...
... trying to poison the native population’s water supply to kill them all, then to render them infertile, then to render them too high to participate in politics. This would result in the creation of around half of the world’s supply of MDMA.
... chemical weapon development and trade related to the former.
... blood diamond harvesting and trade.
... several direct genocides of native tribes.
... apartheid.

 

[Hawki]

Oh god. I assumed you just had no knowledge of South Africa but you’re actually gonna double down. So like, are you a white nationalist, or just a stickler for definitions? Also, everyone accepts it was a South African nuke these days. It was not known “at the time” because the US refused to investigate it since the US still supported apartheid at that point.

Other South African crimes include but are not limited to...
... trying to poison the native population’s water supply to kill them all, then to render them infertile, then to render them too high to participate in politics. This would result in the creation of around half of the world’s supply of MDMA.
... chemical weapon development and trade related to the former.
... blood diamond harvesting and trade.
... several direct genocides of native tribes.
... apartheid.

To your points:

-Of the two, I suppose stickler. I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable for words to mean what they're meant to mean, but maybe that's just me.

And no, I am not a white nationalist. Fuck that noise.

-I don't know about "everyone." From what I've read, there's multiple possible parties, and if we're talking about US allies, Israel seems more likely.

-Everything you listed about SA is true, or I assume is true. None of them however, I'd ascribe to imperialism. Maybe the direct genocide, but how much of that is due to SA vs. the British Empire for instance? Or, if attempted genocide was done by SA itself, then of course it's grotesque, and despicable, and worthy of condemnation, but not imperialist.

Like, for example, while there's no shortage of horrible things in the world, I'm going to choose Saudi Arabia as an example. Is Saudi Arabia imperialist? I'd argue yes, because it exerts military and political influence in the Middle East, Yemen being the most egregious, but by no means only example. However, if Saudi Arabia didn't do this, and was instead just terrible to its own people (which it is), then no, it isn't imperialist.

Same with North Korea. Perhaps the most repressive regime in the world right now, but is it imperialist? Not really. It doesn't have the military or political clout to be imperialist. Same with Eritrea, which utilizes child soldiers and child labour. Horrible, yes, but not imperialist.

It seems that your definition of imperialism is "a country does bad things." Back to where this conversation started, yes, China is imperialist, but if China's only human rights violations were the Ughyrs and political dissidents, then no, that wouldn't be imperialist, because everything it's doing was to its own people.

And look, don't think for a moment I'm defending any of these actions in any of these countries. However, I'd rather have words be used in their intended context, otherwise, they lose all meaning.

Edit: To be absolutely clear, here's a definition of imperialism:

"A form of governance that involves the extension of power or dominion of a powerful country by gaining control of areas beyond its borders. The extension of power usually involves the exertion of power in many forms such as military ones."

So, again, if we look at Nazi Germany (God, it's depressing how many examples there are in the world) was content to stay within its own borders, it would be fascist, yes, but not imperialist. The lack of the latter doesn't make the former any less terrible, but it's still the absence of the latter in this hypothetical scenario.

 

[Revnak]

To your points:

-Of the two, I suppose stickler. I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable for words to mean what they're meant to mean, but maybe that's just me.

And no, I am not a white nationalist. Fuck that noise.

-I don't know about "everyone." From what I've read, there's multiple possible parties, and if we're talking about US allies, Israel seems more likely.

-Everything you listed about SA is true, or I assume is true. None of them however, I'd ascribe to imperialism. Maybe the direct genocide, but how much of that is due to SA vs. the British Empire for instance? Or, if attempted genocide was done by SA itself, then of course it's grotesque, and despicable, and worthy of condemnation, but not imperialist.

Like, for example, while there's no shortage of horrible things in the world, I'm going to choose Saudi Arabia as an example. Is Saudi Arabia imperialist? I'd argue yes, because it exerts military and political influence in the Middle East, Yemen being the most egregious, but by no means only example. However, if Saudi Arabia didn't do this, and was instead just terrible to its own people (which it is), then no, it isn't imperialist.

Same with North Korea. Perhaps the most repressive regime in the world right now, but is it imperialist? Not really. It doesn't have the military or political clout to be imperialist. Same with Eritrea, which utilizes child soldiers and child labour. Horrible, yes, but not imperialist.

It seems that your definition of imperialism is "a country does bad things." Back to where this conversation started, yes, China is imperialist, but if China's only human rights violations were the Ughyrs and political dissidents, then no, that wouldn't be imperialist, because everything it's doing was to its own people.

And look, don't think for a moment I'm defending any of these actions in any of these countries. However, I'd rather have words be used in their intended context, otherwise, they lose all meaning.

Edit: To be absolutely clear, here's a definition of imperialism:

"A form of governance that involves the extension of power or dominion of a powerful country by gaining control of areas beyond its borders. The extension of power usually involves the exertion of power in many forms such as military ones."

So, again, if we look at Nazi Germany (God, it's depressing how many examples there are in the world) was content to stay within its own borders, it would be fascist, yes, but not imperialist. The lack of the latter doesn't make the former any less terrible, but it's still the absence of the latter in this hypothetical scenario.

If your definition of imperialism is such that you can commit genocide without it being imperialism it’s a bad definition and you should change it.

Edit: also, the reason you’re seeing people say that of US allies it was probably Israel is because it’s primarily Nazis who still try to defend apartheid SA, and of course they also hate Israel.

 

[Hawki]

If your definition of imperialism is such that you can commit genocide without it being imperialism it’s a bad definition and you should change it.

Well, frankly, I disagree. Genocide is horrible enough regardless as to whether it's imperialistic or not.

Fine. You use your definition, I'll use mine (or rather, not mine, but rather the definitions that are used by various bodies, but whatever).

Also:

Edit: god, this is in a fucking Metal Gear game! This isn’t hard to know!

Well first, I haven't played Metal Gear since MGS3. Second, it explains it as a collaberation between SA and a man named "Skull Face," so you'll forgive me for not using Metal Gear as a frame of reference for world history. Unless you want to argue that, among other things, Gulf War Syndrome was due to the injection of "soldier genes," among other things.

 

[Revnak]

Well, frankly, I disagree. Genocide is horrible enough regardless as to whether it's imperialistic or not.

Fine. You use your definition, I'll use mine (or rather, not mine, but rather the definitions that are used by various bodies, but whatever).

Sure

Also:



Well first, I haven't played Metal Gear since MGS3. Second, it explains it as a collaberation between SA and a man named "Skull Face," so you'll forgive me for not using Metal Gear as a frame of reference for world history. Unless you want to argue that, among other things, Gulf War Syndrome was due to the injection of "soldier genes," among other things.

Skull Face is an excellent villain and I will not accept your slander.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If your definition of imperialism is "a country/region was part of an empire," then practically every country on Earth is imperialist.

Except Tonga, perhaps. Unless you count the time that evil libertarians raised an island from the depths of the sea as a place to practice their wickedness, and the king of Tonga sailed out to drive them away.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The third one is behind a paywall, but states that 60% of faculty identify as liberal.

That's not "left wing", never mind overwhelmingly so.

Anyway, this is the way that the United States treats members of its own armed forces:

Soldier Says She Was Sexually Assaulted by 22 Troops at Oklahoma Base

“Brass is already calling this Fort Hood 2.0,” a military official said of the investigation now underway at Fort Sill. “It was a dark day at work today.”

theintercept.com

Defending the moral high ground involves lots of sacrifices, I guess.

 

[tstorm823]

Like, I don't even know why this is surprising. Universities are left wing in general, period.

You are correct, but you're talking to an avowed communist, who isn't going to agree to your terms. Communists are well known for calling "liberal" a "right-wing" position, because anything that opposes communism is right-wing to them.

Now, that's not going to help Seanchaidh much, because thinking universities are some classist right-wing institutions isn't a great look when that's where all the communists come from. Marx had a phd. Castro claimed to be "politically illiterate" before he started his university education. This thread is largely about China's human rights record, and the Cultural Revolution began with the university staff/students and ended with literal cannibalism.