• carl_marks_1312
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Again, I’m not forming an opinion yet

    Enlightened Centrist I see.

    These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose

    Or spreading misinformation or unjustified mistrust

    you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities?

    I guess it’s silly to ask that in deed. I’m not denying that they aren’t doing military research, but these are usually within the country. You’re still implying that they are doing arctic facilities to do military research, with nothing but a gut feel and no evidence whatsoever. Apart from the enlightened stance that they could be and nothing else. Which goes back to my original point that anything can be dual use.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s just healthy suspicion man. If you expect me to just apply some kind of universal trust to a country of human beings on Earth, you are sorely mistaken. People are people. No country on Earth is some holy union of people above being concerned about, that somehow does no wrong. That’s just some weird, misplaced faith.

      • carl_marks_1312
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Dude none is saying you shouldn’t be suspicious and none is saying you should be applying trust universal to any country. I generally agree with your statement.

        Voicing your suspicion however, when you’re uninformed is not contributing to anything and makes you either a concern troll or lapdog for imperial interests.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well. It’s not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

          • carl_marks_1312
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well

            I hope you’re talking about the US

            It’s not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

            Chuds are also only asking questions and being skeptic when talking about lgbt and trans issues, right?

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else. It’s certainly not just the US, though we’ve done our fair share.

              You can usually determine whether someone is trolling or not with some discussion. Just because someone says lgbt does not give them carte blanche to say whatever they want. If you really want to detect trolls, you need to remember some of them pretend to be lgbt just to cause more chaos.

              It’s not “both sides-ing” to assert that no position should be immune to criticism. No matter how underdog they are. Being an oppressed underdog should not give someone license to just do whatever the fuck they want like you’re some fictional char like Batman or something.

              • carl_marks_1312
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else.

                “Subjecting others to their control” is not a useful definition of imperialism. Also, I believe you’re mixing it with the definition of “authority”.
                Also there’s a reason that it’s not commonly defined as where you have finance capital shaping the states foreign policies in order to export surplus capital, secure commodities and cheap labor in foreign countries

                It’s certainly not just the US

                I agree, a variety of other global north countries engage in it too.

                It’s not “both sides-ing” to assert that no position should be immune to criticism.

                Not sure where you get that I’m saying this. Please carefully reread my comments and let me eat my own words when you find it and I might be able to clear up the misunderstanding. What’s I’m saying is this:

                • If you haven’t researched a topic enough, why voice opinion or skepticism?
                • It’s valid to have skepticism, but then why not research it instead?
                • If you believe to have done your research, back it up with your information sources in order to contribute more to the discussion than your blank skepticism

                Otherwise you’re functionally indistinguishable as a concern troll.

                Also regarding China: They’re definitively not above criticism, but when you do, it better be substantiated.

                • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  China’s system is opaque. Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point. I’m simply not willing to give them any extra faith. For the third time, suspicion is default. Suspicion exists until evidence to the contrary is provided. This is just a basic safety principle in the modern age and is healthier than faith-based alternatives. I know you didn’t say that, incidentally, I was getting out ahead of a potential criticism before it appeared, saving us the time of having to discuss it. I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

                  I think it’s a very useful definition of imperialism, actually. It captures the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades. Economic and military (the original) imperialism are simply other methods. I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

                  You don’t think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

                  • carl_marks_1312
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    China’s system is opaque.

                    It’s not a coincidence why it’s opaque (to you).

                    Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point.

                    Wild if true

                    I’m simply not willing to give them any extra faith.

                    This aligns with US foreign policy

                    I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

                    True, ugh.

                    I think it’s a very useful definition of imperialism, actually.

                    No, because you rob you make the term imperialism meaningless. Why have “authority” and “imperialism” as words, when they basically define the same thing?

                    Also I don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. I believe you’re mixing things up with “hegemony”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?

                    I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

                    It’s not equating imperialism with global capitalism. It’s saying that Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.

                    You don’t think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

                    Not that’s just a product of imperialism.