• GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    You aren’t brainwashed, you are just enculturated to a very reactionary ideology. I actually agree that it’s better to analyze them as separate countries for the purpose of something like this graph, but this thinktank (which, to be clear, is very Atlanticist, i.e. aligned with your geopolitical views) is almost surely gunning for having their little infographics be diplomatically palettable in hopes that they get used by important bodies.

    • YaBoyMax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that that’s what’s going here, but making something “diplomatically palatable” is for all intents and purposes equivalent to appeasement and (in my view) automatically makes any other claims made subject to suspicion.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, Atlanticists are imperialists and should be condemned, but your view is rather unhelpful since it means the vast majority of statements connected to the UN since ~1980 fall under the same view. It’s not like the PRC denies that the RoC government exists and effectively controls the island of Formosa, in our context it is just a rhetorical affectation to the effect of the RoC government not being legitimate, which is a pretty fair stance to take given the RoC’s own positively absurd territorial claims.

        • YaBoyMax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ROC’s territorial claims are a side effect of the PRC’s stance on Taiwan. I don’t remember the exact details but essentially the PRC has previously declared that it would interpret any change in the ROC’s territorial claims as a declaration of war. It’s a matter of pragmatism.

          • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Uhh the RoC’s territorial claims are a direct effect of their century-old hyper-nationalist stances that led to them losing a civil war against the peasantry of China.

            Unless you think Mao somehow personally provoked them into declaring ownership over Mongolia?

            • YaBoyMax@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The ROC has undergone a pretty big shift in its form of governance and general culture in the last ~50 years. Yes, their current claims are a remnant of their past as the government of mainland China, but given that changing their official stance runs the risk of provoking the PRC they’re effectively immutable for the time being.

          • zerfuffle
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Given that the civil war never technically ended, I’m pretty sure a “declaration of war” just reinforces the status quo.