415
Priorities (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

US tech may lag on the important stuff... but it's also pretty meh in the shitty ones too

Shaq sleeping meme showing Shaq sleeping at China lapping the US at manufacturing, robotics, trains, batteries, etc. followed by the description "Chatbots and Nudify Apps" and Shaq waking above the phrase "WE CANNOT LET CHINA WIN THE AI RACE"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

China isn't imperialist

Yes it is.

nor is it "expansionist imperialist."

Yes it is.

I have no idea what you're referencing.

Thanks for admitting you're uninformed. You can start by reading about Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. If you want you can look into their secret police networks in places like the UK and Canada too.

It is chauvanist to call China an ethno-state,

No it's not.

considering that it has 55 minority ethnic groups

All of whom are repressed by the dominant Han majority

who are overrepresented in the NPC

That's like saying America isn't racist because there are black people in congress.

Do you have an issue with responding to me directly

Not at all

are you hoping I just won't notice while you undermine me so you can get away with it uncontested?

Uncontested? I have no problem responding to your "contests."

Do you have a problem with me responding to people who aren't you? You want me to only talk to you, because if I have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people then it becomes harder for you to monopolize the conversation with aggressive efforts at spreading disinformation?

I'll respond to whomever I want. Do I need your permission? This isn't WeChat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    No, China is not imperialist, nor "expansionist imperialist." This is baseless. The west is actively imperialist. The west uses financial domination of the global south, including dollar hegemony, IP monopoly, unequal exchange, and more to extract as much surplus from the global south as possible. China does not, and the reason it does not is because it isn't dominated by private finance capital. Private finance capital is the main driver of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, and because you have not looked into the causes of imperialism and neocolonialism and have not looked at the numbers, you assume that the socialists must be guilty as well:

    I've read a lot about Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and while I still need to read on Inner Mongolia, I don't see that changing my assertion that China is not expansionist. I recommend you read Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation, Taiwan: An Anti-Imperialist Resource, Hong Kong Reading List, and Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. All of these are western sources, so you should have no problems with believing this to simply be "CPC propaganda."

    China has comprehensive minority protections and rights. Your evidence thus far seems to be that China is secretly evil because it has affirmative action, which is nonsense of course and demands more than just blanket statements with no backing. You're free to respond to whoever you want, but when you lie and slander to other people behind their backs, certainly you can see why that would be a pretty low thing to do, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    No, China is not imperialist, nor "expansionist imperialist." This is baseless.

    See, I just don't find it worthwhile to try to reason with people who are allergic to reality.

    you assume that the socialists must be guilty as well

    China is NOT socialist.

    Your evidence thus far seems to be that China is secretly evil because it has affirmative action

    That's a blatant strawman, as I never said anything of the sort.

    You're free to respond to whoever you want, but when you lie and slander to other people behind their backs

    Point to the lie. I've only spoken truth. And if it's slander to call out propaganda/disinfo accounts, then I'll say 99 hail marys and sleep soundly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    China is socialist, I already explained how and why to you a couple of days ago, which I will repost here so you can read it again:

    The PRC has a socialist market economy, a form of developing socialism where the commanding heights and critical industries are socially owned, while emerging industries are marketized. This is because the CPC understands the Marxist critique of capitalism, which isn't that private property is morally wrong, but that the basis of social ownership is centralized, socialized production as seen in developed markets, not decentralized and scattered production, which instead suits markets.

    The CPC already tried the more dogmatic method of collectivizing everything, and this went the way Marxists would predict: unstable. The developing areas were in contradiction between their unsuitable level of productive forces, and an attempt at forcing a higher level of social organization upon them. This resulted in dogmatic errors that have since been corrected.

    Regarding the CPC, they are a proletarian party. The state in Marxist analysis can never be a neutral "state," it can only be a "feudal state," a "capitalist state," a "socialist state." They can only represent the ruling class of society, as determined by which class controls the economic base. The proletariat and peasantry took power in 1949, and since then have had dominating control over the base and superstructure. Hierarchy is not class, that is not Marxist. The capitalists that exist in China are under the domination of the state, they are not in power.

    As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government. This is such a non-sequitor that I had to find a point somewhere, so that's the best point I could make out of your logic. I already responded directly to the lies you made, feel free to go back and reread my comment.

    I don't know what your goal is here. If your goal was to delegitimize me, then surely you'd actually respond to the points I brought up and source something, as it stands you're just legitimizing me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Regurgitating the same disinformation as last time isn't the same thing as making a point.

    As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government.

    I never mentioned affirmative action, that's something you brought up. We were talking about minority representation in legislature. Do you think affirmative action is required for minorities to become representatives? Because if so, that's pretty demeaning as it suggests you believe they can't get elected on their own merit.

    And I didn't say minority representation "in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government." I said that arguing that China doesn't have a racial hierarchy on the grounds that minorities have representation is the same thing as claiming America isn't racist because it has black members of congress.

    You have to completely misconstrue my point to arrive at the interpretation you took away, which tells me you're being disingenuous. Hence I'm not putting a full-throttled effort into my responses to you.

    If your goal was to delegitimize me,

    No, I don't have to make that my goal because you already delegitimize yourself with basically every comment you make. The only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview.

    then surely you'd actually respond to the points I brought up and source something

    Nah, that's just called "not taking the bait"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I referenced numerous works that provide definitive accounts of anti-discrimination laws, legal protections, and administrative power and representation. You deflected, said I was wrong, and refused to engage with any of it, hand waving it as "disinformation" despite largely being sourced from places like the New York Times. You have no actual legs to stand on, and justify your own lack of developed argumentation and lack of evidence as "not taking the bait." Anyone can see that the only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview, refusing to look at hard evidence and shutting your eyes and ears to uncomfortable facts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah none of your links were to the NYT, so that's just a blatant lie. Most of your links were to fringy ML sites, and the rest were only tangentially relevant to the discussion at best.

    I'll admit though, you seem to be getting better at deflection and obfuscation. A cursory glance alone might make it appear that I'm the one here being dense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    It wasn't a lie, the site links many western news sites as sources for claims. If you actually took a few minutes to engage beyond checking the links, you would have known that. No deflection or obfuscation on my part, just disappointment that you won't even do the due diligence to refute any points. You are indeed the one being dense, sorry to say. This is kind of like that time when you were insistent that the proper term is "Marxist-Leninism" rather than "Marxism-Leninism", which Wikipedia easily verifies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent