That’s not actually the situation, but thanks for playing. There is a country called China. It has existed for many years. Taiwan become a province of China in 1683 by force. 212 years later, Japan invaded it and made it a colony.

In 1945, the country known as China was ruled by a party called the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang and party in the country of China, the Communist Party of China, joined forces to push the Japanese out of China, which included pushing them out of Taiwan. Taiwan becomes a part of China again.

So Taiwan is a part of China at this point and the CPC and the KMT fight in a civil war The KMT loses. This makes the CPC the ruling party of China. Much like how the Union defeated the Confederacy and reunited the USA.

At this point, however, Britain, a country actively occupying colonial holdings in China, and the USA, actively asserting its privilege to own the colonies of Japan, decides that they would rather work with the KMT than the CPC so they intervene in the civil war and prevent the integration of Taiwan so they can engage in financial neocolonialism. They do this through force of arms.

So which is it?

A) Taiwan was never part of China because they stole it from the indigenous Islanders? In this case the US should be dissolved, as should Australia and all of Latin America.

B) Taiwan was part of China but because might makes right they rightfully seceded by the force of arms from the British and American imperial program? So now might makes right and Puerto Rico and Hawaii and Guam and the Marianas are colonial holdings fair and square.

C) Taiwan has been a part of China for centuries and restoring territorial integrity is the first step to ending the primarily contradiction of imperialism which threatens all progress in all other realms? China has demonstrated a commitment to 1-country-2-systems so we know Taiwan will be able to administer itself relatively autonomy except in areas of national defense. And we know China supports the cultural expression of indigenous peoples and that the indigenous of Taiwan will be afforded the ability to express cultural automony on the island and eventually will partake in a post-colonial movement after the existential threat of Western imperialism is contained.

Historical revisionism at its finest. Next you’ll be telling me Puerto Rico isn’t a colony, Korea has always been partitioned, and Hawaii doesn’t have a king.

The US was taking over the occupation of Korea from the Japanese. The USSR wanted the Koreans to govern themselves and be self-sufficient enough to not become vassal states of the USA which the USA would use to invade and nuke the USSR.

It’s not just a both sides wanted to control Korea thing. That’s not accurate

Apologies for missing the sarcasm. Yes, the USSR did engage, but from a position of weakness. They had no motivation to divide Korea but they didn’t have the will or strength to resist the beligerence of the US.

Ok, idolize/glorify is different than praise. Go ahead and argue that point. I am interested in understanding the position.

They said they didn’t praise Stalin, you said that saying good things about Stalin is praising him. He disagrees with your definition. I don’t. I think you’re right. That’s praising Stalin. But I don’t see anything wrong with praising people for the good things that they did.

Further you didn’t say they should admit that they idealize Stalin, you said they should admit that they praise Stalin. There’s definitely a difference in those two words. You’re moving the goal posts again.

You think I am projecting that I have a problem with cognitive disaonance based on what evidence? I am not trying to get you cross some moral line like “admit to everyone here you’re just a dirty liberal who thinks Obama was a good guy”. I am engaging you and critiquing you. If you can’t tell the difference, I can’t help you yet.

And if you can read the thread, the thread you are replying to invokes Rule 6 which is what caused the commenter you are debating against to start this conversation about praise/deification/etc

Read

Wow. Try inventing a partition line like Yosemite Sam and saying “I dares ya ta cross this line” and when the Korean people tried to push the racist American colonizers out of their country. Try forced them to lives in caves because of the amount of napalm they dropped. Try bombed every single building to the point where bombers were sent out and and there was nothing left to destroy.

There was no North/South division before the US created it, and they created it because they wanted to nuke China.

I am claiming that you pretend malaria and bad humors are both bad. One exists. The other doesn’t. You don’t seem to have the willingness to acknowledge that. The social credit score in China that effects individuals does not exist. Sure. You can say both the US credit scoring system and the nonexistent Chinese personal social credit score are bad, but that would be foolish.

You could be saying that the US credit score system and the Chinese social credit score that is used to manage negative externalities of businesses are both bad, but I would disagree with you.

But I am pretty sure you don’t know that the social credit score for individuals does not exist.

Perhaps you don’t understand what the word means.

The commenter said this only effects speculators.

You replied with:

No, it effects ‘ordinary’ Chinese people as many invested their life savings hoping to pay for a house or an apartment for themselves and their children.

That’s speculation. Investing with the hope of a big pay out is the definition of speculation. Yes, ordinary Chinese people can be speculators. Do you think speculators are not ordinary people?

It is absolutely driving away North Korea. You need to read more. North Korea has never and will never Trust the USA after what we did to them.

Rule 6 says “idealizing/glorifying”. A poster in this thread. Dogbert said the word “deifying” in this thread. Maybe you don’t think those are interchangeable. I could be convinced either way.

As for what I am talking about, the fact that Dogbert praises Stalin is apparently a problem for you. It is possible to praise people for the positive things they have done. Some people argue against that praise because they think the negative things the person has done are more important. Some people go so far as to believe it’s not possible a person has done anything praise worthy ever because of the bad things they have done and that therefore anyone praising them is clearly morally derelict and that their opinions no longer matter.

The fact that you are trying to paint Dogbert’s praising of Stalin as something he should “admit” is a way of drawing a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs, a form of thought policing, and also a way to create an echo chamber where you can’t be confronted with positions that challenge your own position and threaten some of the beliefs that you hold tied into your identity.

So what I am talking about is you, choosing to interpret Rule 6 as applying to a positive analysis of Stalin’s actions in office because you can’t really handle discourse that runs counter to an orthodoxy that you adhere to.

You said “you don’t know how much I considerer both systems” in another comment.

That’s pretty much all the back up one needs.

The social credit system in China does not apply to individuals. It was originally designed for businesses. A limited pilot in certain locales was applied to individuals. That pilot program was shutdown in 2019.

So sure, go ahead and consider both systems that actually really exist. Go ahead and claim that both things can be bad. Keep on pretending!

signs of the same authoritarian and imperialist cancer

China accounts for 75% of poverty alleviation globally

China has not dropped any bomb in 36 years.

China invented the social credit system in response to dairy producers cutting corners and poisoning people. It was punishing profit seekers that harmed the people. It then ran a limited experiment with some local governments to apply it to people. It did not go well, and the democratic will of the people was that the program should end, so it did.

China’s opposition to the West is a bare minimum requirement. The alternative is an integration with the West that subordinates the needs of the people to the needs of the Western elite. It doesn’t stop there, but it’s a necessary prerequisite.

Once that bar has been cleared, the next problem becomes one of defending against Western interference. One cannot be materially opposed to the West and not materially capable of defending against the West. So the second bar is whether the nation is capable of defending against the West. China is clearing this bar as well, but it includes authoritarian behaviors in order to stop covet operations. There is currently no known way to stop covert ops without use of authority.

From there each individual thing you want to discuss needs to be discussed on detail, but the overall picture is one of separating from the imperialist cancer and maintaining that separation and an attempt to build a space for healthier growth for which there are no models and there are not successful experiments that can be drawn from, which means creating sufficient space for experimenting and that means sufficient space for doing it wrong, and likey doing it wrong more often than doing it right for a significant period of time. (Looking at Mao)

No, tankies don’t see the same imperial cancer because it clearly isn’t the same imperial cancer

The Chinese government ended the pilot programs for social credit scores for individuals in 2019 because the Chinese people didn’t want it, so Xu Xiaodong is likely one of those examples where a local government running their implementation of the pilot overreached and the central government, responding to the will of the people, ended it.

That you critique China without researching it is aligned with the US State Dept. That you share lies about China (e.g. the social credit score) is aligned with the state department. That you don’t think there’s anything to discuss positively about the Chinese project aligns with the state department.

Oy, both of you are acting like the social credit score is real. It’s not. China implemented a social credit score for businesses based on how much harm they were doing to society and some provinces ran limited experiments with individuals years ago. It went very poorly and the government, being democratic, responded to the people and ended the pilots.

There’s another credit score that Alibaba offers which is opt-in only and it tracks your financial behavior (paying on time, paying back debts, not over borrowing in a short time period, etc) and it’s used to give financial incentives and discounts, but again is opt-in only.

You’re arguing the morality and alignment of something that only exists in Western propaganda. Read something, I am begging you.

No because France, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, and Germany are all problematic in the same ways, as are their colonies, former colonies, contributions to the body of work (like racism), and collaboration with the problems of today (Third Reich, NATO, etc). We could even include more European nations in the list for these same reasons.

Wait, admiring is deifying? Someone needs to update the rules. Sounds a lot more like you’re attempting to weaponize the rules to create a thought police regime so you don’t have to deal with your own cognitive dissonance.

Analyzing the successes and failures of the Soviet project is not deifying. Admiring specific leaders for specific accomplishments is not deifying.

Taiwan is a province of China.

The Taiwan government today is relying on strategic ambiguity, neither saying it is an independent country nor saying it is part of China. However, the KMT which prosecuted the White Terror under the protection of US and UK warships claimed the mainland for decades.

Sorry, that’s just now how politics works anywhere. Do you consider with political party “ruled” which states or cities or islands in the US? When the Confederacy seceded from the Union did that suddenly mean they were no longer legitimately part of the US?

Taiwan was part of China, there was a civil war. The losers of the war retreated to Taiwan, and then the US and UK sent warships to block the victors from bringing the losers to justice. Taiwan at that point was still part of China, the country, but now had its own fascist government prosecuting the White Terror and killing hundreds of thousands of people while the US and UK protected them, and then integrated them into the global economy. At no point did Taiwan secede, at no point did the concept of the nation of China have its borders redrawn, nor did the nation of China declare a separation between the island the mainland.

Hell, even the fascist mass murderers on Taiwan said it - there is only one China and Taiwan is an island province of that country. And world leaders agree that’s the case.