[East Asia] - Year of the Plague

1737476787983

Posts

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    yeah its a pretty sickening and terrifying turn in a situation I already felt long term had no solution. Its getting to the point where China can just do whatever it wants and it knows it

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    They also have concentration camps going.

    The world is silent. We're going to see nation's around the world bow to China more and more, and it sickens me

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    What did you expect anyone to do? It's like anything going on inside Russia or the US. Nobody has the ability to stop them.

    mrondeauFencingsaxCauldkimeLoisLaneEddyKana
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I don't expect us to stop them, but it would be nice if we didn't pretend it's not happening.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I don't expect us to stop them, but it would be nice if we didn't pretend it's not happening.

    Trump literally learned about it(probably again) this week, and has already forgotten it.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Eddy
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I don't expect us to stop them, but it would be nice if we didn't pretend it's not happening.

    If you acknowledge it too much, they get pissed off at you and now you gotta deal with that shit.

    There's a reason you don't see, like, Canada getting too nasty with the US about what it gets up too.

    mrondeau
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I mean I wouldn't equate China and the US in moral terms.

    I'd also say you're putting a price on human lives. Sure, what's a million people in camps and government funded gangs compared to cheap electronics?

    Canada has been pissing in China's Cheerios though, with the while Huawei thing.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I mean I wouldn't equate China and the US in moral terms.

    I'd also say you're putting a price on human lives. Sure, what's a million people in camps and government funded gangs compared to cheap electronics?

    Canada has been pissing in China's Cheerios though, with the while Huawei thing.

    We are not pissing in anyone's cheerios. We've been very reluctantly holding someone because the US asked us too and it has not been pleasant.

    KetBra
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    I'm willing to burn down the economy to sanction China on the Uyghur camps, but thats just me.

    Its a good lesson to learn that economic integration cannot come before human rights and freedoms, for the future.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Kayne Red RobeKadokenHonkGvzbgulZibblsnrtGiggles_Funsworth
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Also apparently Russia and China are now having joint exercises and buzzing their neighbors?

    So that's probably not making any of China's and Russia's neighbors nervous.

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • GeddoeGeddoe Registered User regular
    This heat in Japan is oppressive. I'm so glad I have late July and August off. It was 37 today in my city with some high humidity. Over 5000 people have been hospitalized in the last week with 11 deaths.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    Geddoe wrote: »
    This heat in Japan is oppressive. I'm so glad I have late July and August off. It was 37 today in my city with some high humidity. Over 5000 people have been hospitalized in the last week with 11 deaths.

    Japan had a significant heat wave last year as well, right?

  • GeddoeGeddoe Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Yeah. All the Japanese people I talk to say it isn't usually this hot.

    Geddoe on
  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Perfect time for the Olympics!

  • GeddoeGeddoe Registered User regular
    Last time the summer Olympic games were held in Japan, they held them in October to avoid the heat.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    So it looks like the Hong Kong protests continue to escalate. They apparently have protests scheduled through September. I am not well versed in Hong Kong culture, so do these protests seem more serious than the Umbrella protests a few years ago?

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    So it looks like the Hong Kong protests continue to escalate. They apparently have protests scheduled through September. I am not well versed in Hong Kong culture, so do these protests seem more serious than the Umbrella protests a few years ago?

    What is going on in Hong Kong is very close to a revolution. Not fully but real close. This is much bigger than the umbrella protests. There are almost nightly clashes with the police.

    I will post some more when I get some time but a few folks who are China watchers professionally have basically been screaming that folks should be watching these protests.

    03x29di.png
    QuidKanaKetBra
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    The umbrella protests didn't last anywhere near as long or manage as large a provocation from the government as the current ones. The previous protests were over the PRC picking who could be elected as head of the city, and there might have been some hope that someone like Carrie Lam wouldn't be a state puppet that helped mollify those protests.

    With Lam going full PRC there's probably very little reason for the local population to believe any promises of political freedom coming from the government.

    CptKemzikCouscousKetBraSkeith
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2019
    Yeah, this seems more serious and widespread, but I don't know a lot about Hong Kong.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    If the US had a competent government then maybe this issue could be used against China. As is I guess we just sit and watch.

    RchanenKayne Red RobeLoisLaneJephery
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    If the US had a competent government then maybe this issue could be used against China. As is I guess we just sit and watch.

    To be fair, the best thing to do would be to not get involved. It would change from a grassroots movement to foreign interference. Trump taking the Communist Party line is not helpful.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    RchanenKanaKetBra
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    If the US had a competent government then maybe this issue could be used against China. As is I guess we just sit and watch.

    To be fair, the best thing to do would be to not get involved. It would change from a grassroots movement to foreign interference. Trump taking the Communist Party line is not helpful.

    Trump thinks the problem with Tienaman square is they didn't start murdering people soon enough, so..

    RchanenLoisLane
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    I mean trump is actively unhelpful, but almost no other president would be doing anything either. It wouldn't help Hong Kong to publicly interfere, and would probably hurt the cause.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    RchanenKetBraFencingsaxCptKemzik
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The umbrella protests didn't last anywhere near as long or manage as large a provocation from the government as the current ones. The previous protests were over the PRC picking who could be elected as head of the city, and there might have been some hope that someone like Carrie Lam wouldn't be a state puppet that helped mollify those protests.

    With Lam going full PRC there's probably very little reason for the local population to believe any promises of political freedom coming from the government.

    Yeah I don't think people appreciate the extent to which these protests have been sustained for months now, at this point, and have been gradually escalating. Government bureaucrats have been actively engaged in government criticism and protest too recently, which is pretty wild.

    But yeah, there's not a whole lot the US can do which would be helpful in the long-run. We basically have to hope that the PRC blinks, which seems... unlikely, given their history.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Rchanen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    If the US had a competent government then maybe this issue could be used against China. As is I guess we just sit and watch.

    To be fair, the best thing to do would be to not get involved. It would change from a grassroots movement to foreign interference. Trump taking the Communist Party line is not helpful.

    There's ways to use this opportunity that don't involve trying to just materially back the protesters.

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited August 2019
    An ordinary administration would just reinforce and reiterate the United States being a beacon of democracy, and supporting all who seek democracy. They wouldn’t have to specifically mention Hong Kong or even the Russian protests. Whereas now we have a visible abdication from those values by the leader of the free world. Theyre not much more than platitudes but you still notice them when they’re gone. The silence is louder than the support would be if this were a usual president, but that means the support is still necessary, no matter how small and superficial

    Prohass on
    shrykeRchanenFencingsaxkimeQanamil
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2019
    There is also the implication that Trump would turn a blind eye if the PRC went Tiananmen Square on Hong Kong. He praised the massacre in the past as a sign of "strength."

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    shrykeProhassRchanenboogedybooFencingsaxkime
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Sure, but realistically a Democratic President wouldn't really do too much to the PRC even in the event of Tiananmen 2

    Maybe some targeted sanctions at best

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Kana
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2019
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    Rchanen
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    KetBra
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Like, if you want to say something like 'under a democratic President we would have an American-led TPP and somewhat different political circumstances in the region (ie. less likely to have an escalating Japan-ROK trade war, etc.) and so the marginal pressures in the region would be more aligned towards subtly pressuring China to not fund triad violence against the population, and reduce the likelyhood of a bloody crackdown' I would be like ok, but I don't think that's what you're saying?

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Like, if you want to say something like 'under a democratic President we would have an American-led TPP and somewhat different political circumstances in the region (ie. less likely to have an escalating Japan-ROK trade war, etc.) and so the marginal pressures in the region would be more aligned towards subtly pressuring China to not fund triad violence against the population, and reduce the likelyhood of a bloody crackdown' I would be like ok, but I don't think that's what you're saying?

    No I'm saying that, when news of the Uyghur concentration camps came out, the US and EU should have moved together to cut China out of the world economy, as much as possible.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    BigJoeMGiggles_Funsworth
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    KetBraRchanenCauld
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    Its a century of totalitarianism for them. They're fucked. We need not be party to that fucking.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Like, if you want to say something like 'under a democratic President we would have an American-led TPP and somewhat different political circumstances in the region (ie. less likely to have an escalating Japan-ROK trade war, etc.) and so the marginal pressures in the region would be more aligned towards subtly pressuring China to not fund triad violence against the population, and reduce the likelyhood of a bloody crackdown' I would be like ok, but I don't think that's what you're saying?

    No I'm saying that, when news of the Uyghur concentration camps came out, the US and EU should have moved together to cut China out of the world economy, as much as possible.

    I don't know the point you are making anymore. The original point was that a different Democratic or Republican President would do something different, and the Uyghur point here and your other point seem to indicate towards some sort of moral declaration, instead? Considering the camps started while Obama was in office, I don't see how that strengthens your thesis, either.

    I think the Chinese Government is committing and will continue the commit atrocities against its people and is a bad government, but that doesn't mean a different US President would be able to materially do much to change the situation. Does that mean that what is happening is ok? No, but pretending that this would be solved if Trump were not President is a weird stance.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    Its a century of totalitarianism for them. They're fucked. We need not be party to that fucking.

    So we wreck China's economy, ruin the livelyhoods of tons of people, radicalize the Chinese people in support of the CCP against foreign intervention making liberalization that much less likely, launch a global cold war, and don't actually improve anything for Hong Kong.

    And somehow this is supposed to be the ethically pure choice?

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2019
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    Its a century of totalitarianism for them. They're fucked. We need not be party to that fucking.

    So we wreck China's economy, ruin the livelyhoods of tons of people, radicalize the Chinese people in support of the CCP against foreign intervention making liberalization that much less likely, launch a global cold war, and don't actually improve anything for Hong Kong.

    And somehow this is supposed to be the ethically pure choice?

    The CCP has already radicalized its population in support of itself, that is what a totalitarian state does.

    Our livelihoods are already ruined for every moment we profit from our relationship with that heinous state. It proves all our values worthless in the face of money and economics.

    We've already entered a global cold war, we entered it when the PRC and Russia decided not to embark on liberal political reform and cemented their rule.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    Its a century of totalitarianism for them. They're fucked. We need not be party to that fucking.

    So we wreck China's economy, ruin the livelyhoods of tons of people, radicalize the Chinese people in support of the CCP against foreign intervention making liberalization that much less likely, launch a global cold war, and don't actually improve anything for Hong Kong.

    And somehow this is supposed to be the ethically pure choice?

    The CCP has already radicalized its population in support of itself, that is what a totalitarian state does.

    Our livelihoods are already ruined for every moment we profit from our relationship with that heinous state. It proves all our values worthless in the face of money and economics.

    We've already entered a global cold war, we entered it when the PRC and Russia decided not to embark on liberal political reform and cemented their rule.

    I think you're just factually wrong on a basic level, and beside that your desire for a glorious crusade to purge the world of evil seems to have totally failed to learn any lessons from American foreign policy since 2001.

    Your desire for some sort of aggressive showdown against every state with a shitty government is chillingly Millennialist, and would spread human misery on a massive scale and accomplish little else.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2019
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A Democratic president (or even a Republican that wasn't Trump) could rally the free world to stand against China. Trump alienates the entire world and wants nothing but to dominate in unilateral trade deals.

    As of now, if I were an EU leader, I would not risk a confrontation with China, because Trump is ready to stab me in the back and strongarm me in a possible moment of economic weakness.

    OK and what does that actually mean

    The US and EU backing each other in an economic confrontation with China. Sanctions by the two biggest economies in the world.

    So we'll have a global recession and China will still insist on controlling Hong Kong. And then what? For that matter, what's your win condition look like with China backing down? An independent Hong Kong?

    China couldn't possibly afford to be so visibly beaten in that scenario you're describing, at least by the view of the CCP. Like for that matter it would unite mainland Chinese support for the CCP - the Chinese are not willing to just lay down for a new century of humiliation.

    Its a century of totalitarianism for them. They're fucked. We need not be party to that fucking.

    So we wreck China's economy, ruin the livelyhoods of tons of people, radicalize the Chinese people in support of the CCP against foreign intervention making liberalization that much less likely, launch a global cold war, and don't actually improve anything for Hong Kong.

    And somehow this is supposed to be the ethically pure choice?

    The CCP has already radicalized its population in support of itself, that is what a totalitarian state does.

    Our livelihoods are already ruined for every moment we profit from our relationship with that heinous state. It proves all our values worthless in the face of money and economics.

    We've already entered a global cold war, we entered it when the PRC and Russia decided not to embark on liberal political reform and cemented their rule.

    I think you're just factually wrong on a basic level, and beside that your desire for a glorious crusade to purge the world of evil seems to have totally failed to learn any lessons from American foreign policy since 2001.

    Your desire for some sort of aggressive showdown against every state with a shitty government is chillingly Millennialist, and would spread human misery on a massive scale and accomplish little else.

    I have no desire to invade anyone. I have no desire to trade with gruesome states like the PRC or North Korea, that show no interest in granting their populace rights and freedoms. I have no desire to profit from any relationship with such states unless they are on the grounds that reforms will be made, and that relationship is contingent on the good faith furtherance of human rights and freedom, and that relationship will be revoked if bad faith is shown.

    We debase ourselves with our relationship with the PRC (and Saudi Arabia and such and such). How can we tell our children that our country stands for anything? We are hypocrites.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Sign In or Register to comment.