Canada must stand up to China.

[loomer]

There's a fascinating look at that in David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models. I very nearly did my thesis on the issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

You interpret wrongly. It is a tradition that goes back to XIX century social-democracy, before it was coopted by militaristic rulers: first and foremost wish the defeat of your own government. First and foremost be concerned with the actions of your own government, with internal change.

I apologize for misconstruing your point. I am just so tired of seeing America's crimes, serious as they are, always brought up in response to issues in other countries, because very often it is a deflection tactic.

To me, it is not a choice between one or the other, between internationalism and internal reform. I believe that we live in an interconnected world, and one country's actions effect all others. This has always to some extent been true, but it is all the more true in the age of mass transportation and mass communication, climate change and industrial pollution and global terrorism, and a sixth mass extinction that is becoming more evident by the day. For example, I do not think that you can effectively oppose Saudi tyranny without opposing the American government's crimes which back it up, or oppose the American far Right (or the European far Right, or Assad, etc.), without understanding the role that Russia plays in propping them up.

I am an unapologetic globalist (in the sense of favoring international cooperation and opposing nationalism, not global corporatism or free trade). That is not a very popular belief in most times, and it seems that it is growing less and less popular now, and that is probably at the root of a lot of my differences on foreign policy with other posters here.

For the world as a whole it is absolutely irrelevant which imperialist power is the king of the hill: France, Britain, US, China or eventually India. What matters is the internal political processes in both the subjugated periphery and the opulent center. The processes of world-political development. Petty preferences here mean nothing.

I would argue that both internal and external pressure must play a role- which must take the lead depending on the circumstances, although I will acknowledge that internally-driven reform is preferably where possible. Nonetheless, you must, and clearly do, acknowledge that there are times where external intervention is necessary and just (the classic example being Nazi Germany in WW2).

I stood in opposition to the Russian government (which didn’t even bother to send the KGB back in the day, just hired thugs who would cripple or kill you and mask it as a routine street violence incident), and now have been like over a decade in emigration, so I take it you have a similar record of resisting real dictatorship, other than posting here? As you said you stand in opposition to dictatorship, I expect you to understand that I am not your enemy.

I want to sincerely thank you for having the courage to do so.

As to what I have done, as I have previously discussed, I have volunteered for and donated to political campaigns, and run for office myself at the local level. I have been fortunate enough not to find myself in life-threatening danger for doing so, but I hope that if I ever do find myself in that position, I have the courage to stand by my convictions regardless, as you did.

I don’t think it is racism, more like primitive nationalism: the idea of sanctions, for example. Canada sanctioning the US would never happen (a satellite state cannot do such injury to its suzerain, not unless there is an imperialist power that would protect it in its outrage). So you support an unreal thing. Whilst sanctions against China under US pressure can actually happen, and given China‘s state of development, these sanctions may well cause displacement, hunger and poverty, as the US sanctions on Cuba or Iran actually do.

I am not immune to biases, but I should be very sorry to think that any of my views were motivated by nationalism of any kind. I despise nationalism, and regard it as one of the greatest evils in the world.

As to the notion that Canada is a "satellite" of the US, I think it is an exaggerated one- Canada is a sovereign nation, and has opposed the US on notable policy issues in the past. We are by necessity close, because we share the longest undefended border on the planet, and there are literally millions of Americans living in Canada, or vice versa. So sanctions against the US would be highly unlikely in the short-term. In the long-term, what changes our relationship might undergo are hard to predict. A little over 200 years ago, American troops invaded what is now Canadian soil, and war between our countries was a real possibility until... oh, probably the early 20th. Century.

The actual reality is that the Chinese people are the only ones who can and should define and determine the future of China, its form of government and the like. It is not for Canada or anyone else to decide.

That I cannot deny. As I have frequently argued, no government of any kind can ultimately succeed or function if the majority of the population is adamantly opposed to it. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of Canada or other nations offering assistance to the Chinese people to help them achieve the future they have chosen, or to offer our views (which may be embraced or ignored) on any issue.

If the Chinese people wish to alter the government of their nation, it is their internal matter. If they do not, it is likewise their internal matter so as long as they do not invade other nations and seize their territory.

I regard that as an overly-simplistic view, for the reasons stated above.

This is my position. It has no relation to supporting a government, but allows the collective expression of the people‘s will. Until that expression is a war-prone fascist aggression or outright genocide, the matter lies with the nations themselves.

That sounds reasonable enough, but where do you draw those lines. For example, does your opposition to outside intervention extend to cultural influences such as mass media? Is it wrong for a foreign movie, showing a foreign viewpoint, to be shown in a Chinese theatre? Or for a foreigner to comment on the affairs of China on social media? Is it wrong to export American goods to China, for their peoples' consumption? All of those things will, subtly at least, influence the direction Chinese society might take.

And how do you define "genocide"? mr friendly guy raised the recent allegations that Canada is committing genocide due to the history of systemic racism against First Nations Peoples, and the high rate of murders particularly among indigenous women. Does that constitute grounds for intervention in Canada's affairs? And, if it does, then surely the reverse is true, and China's detention of vast numbers of Muslim minorities in concentration camps/reeducation camps qualifies as, at least, a cultural genocide that therefore warrants foreign intervention?

[The Romulan Republic]

There's a fascinating look at that in David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models. I very nearly did my thesis on the issue.

Do you have a point here beyond "human rights" has been misused to justify imperialism, therefore all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass? If so, please, elaborate.

In particular, I'd like to hear more about these "better models". Seriously. Sell me on the idea that there is a superior alternative to the notion that all people have an equal right to life, freedom of choice, and personal dignity.

[loomer]

There's a fascinating look at that in David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models. I very nearly did my thesis on the issue.

Do you have a point here beyond "human rights" has been misused to justify imperialism, therefore all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass? If so, please, elaborate.

In particular, I'd like to hear more about these "better models". Seriously. Sell me on the idea that there is a superior alternative to the notion that all people have an equal right to life, freedom of choice, and personal dignity.

I'm sorry, since when was saying that a certain writer's done interesting work on a subject mean that I'm saying that human rights should be discarded and autocrats are immune from criticism? Piss off, TRR.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's a fascinating look at that in David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models. I very nearly did my thesis on the issue.

Do you have a point here beyond "human rights" has been misused to justify imperialism, therefore all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass? If so, please, elaborate.

In particular, I'd like to hear more about these "better models". Seriously. Sell me on the idea that there is a superior alternative to the notion that all people have an equal right to life, freedom of choice, and personal dignity.

I'm sorry, since when was saying that a certain writer's done interesting work on a subject mean that I'm saying that human rights should be discarded and autocrats are immune from criticism? Piss off, TRR.

Specifically, work "...on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models."

So, I guess I'd have two questions:

1. Does this critique extend to all discourse on or promotion of human rights, or only certain aspects of it?

2. What "alternative models" are being shut out?

[loomer]

Do you have a point here beyond "human rights" has been misused to justify imperialism, therefore all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass? If so, please, elaborate.

In particular, I'd like to hear more about these "better models". Seriously. Sell me on the idea that there is a superior alternative to the notion that all people have an equal right to life, freedom of choice, and personal dignity.

I'm sorry, since when was saying that a certain writer's done interesting work on a subject mean that I'm saying that human rights should be discarded and autocrats are immune from criticism? Piss off, TRR.

Specifically, work "...on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models."

So, I guess I'd have two questions:

1. Does this critique extend to all discourse on or promotion of human rights, or only certain aspects of it?

2. What "alternative models" are being shut out?

Radical idea for you: Go read his fucking books rather than asking me. I don't especially care to engage with your vapid hyperventilating again but thought Ray might find his work interesting, which is why I posted - not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

EDIT: Ray, not TFG.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm sorry, since when was saying that a certain writer's done interesting work on a subject mean that I'm saying that human rights should be discarded and autocrats are immune from criticism? Piss off, TRR.

Specifically, work "...on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models."

So, I guess I'd have two questions:

1. Does this critique extend to all discourse on or promotion of human rights, or only certain aspects of it?

2. What "alternative models" are being shut out?

Radical idea for you: Go read his fucking books rather than asking me. I don't especially care to engage with your vapid hyperventilating again but thought TFG might find his work interesting, which is why I posted - not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

Nice strawman.

Radical idea for you: Actually be prepared to defend your fucking positions, rather than throwing a tantrum, insulting anyone who hasn't read all the books you've read (or do you only reserve that for conversing with me?), and walking away.

Because I believe this board has a traditional response for that sort of behaviour:

Concession accepted. Although that's admittedly out of place when you haven't even really offered an argument to concede- just a vague insinuation that you refuse to clarify or elaborate on because apparently we're all just supposed to have read all the same books you have.

But I forgot: you can just slap the word "hyperventilating" on anything I post and it counts as an automatic "I win" button on this board these days.

[loomer]

Specifically, work "...on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models."

So, I guess I'd have two questions:

1. Does this critique extend to all discourse on or promotion of human rights, or only certain aspects of it?

2. What "alternative models" are being shut out?

Radical idea for you: Go read his fucking books rather than asking me. I don't especially care to engage with your vapid hyperventilating again but thought TFG might find his work interesting, which is why I posted - not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

Nice strawman.

Radical idea for you: Actually be prepared to defend your fucking positions, rather than throwing a tantrum, insulting anyone who hasn't read all the books you've read (or do you only reserve that for conversing with me?), and walking away.

Because I believe this board has a traditional response for that sort of behaviour:

Concession accepted.

Tell you what, fuckwit: Show me the strawman. Go on - I dare you. Demonstrate the strawman according to its misrepresentation of your position.

As to my 'fucking positions'? My 'fucking position' is that David Kennedy is a scholar who writes about human rights and international humanitarian law and its failings whose work I found interesting and that I think Ray might find interesting too, nothing more and nothing less. Concession not made. Demonstrate that he doesn't exist or that I didn't find it interesting if you want to grandstand, you utter pillock.

I'll spell this out really bluntly for you: You seem to be operating under the assumption that 'David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models.' constitutes an argument for that point. It doesn't - it's a factual statement about what Kennedy's body of work contains. If you'd like, I can certainly prove it's what it contains - quite easily, in fact - but I'm not obligated to defend a position you've invented out of thin air because you're spoiling for a fight. For someone who whines and cries to the moderators about bullying, you've got a real tendency to start shit you can't finish, so think real carefully if this is a dogfight you really want to get into.

[The Romulan Republic]

Radical idea for you: Go read his fucking books rather than asking me. I don't especially care to engage with your vapid hyperventilating again but thought TFG might find his work interesting, which is why I posted - not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

Nice strawman.

Radical idea for you: Actually be prepared to defend your fucking positions, rather than throwing a tantrum, insulting anyone who hasn't read all the books you've read (or do you only reserve that for conversing with me?), and walking away.

Because I believe this board has a traditional response for that sort of behaviour:

Concession accepted.

Tell you what, fuckwit: Show me the strawman. Go on - I dare you. Demonstrate the strawman according to its misrepresentation of your position.

This:

not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

I do not, in fact, believe that all discourse on human rights is automatically positive, which is why I asked for clarification on whether the source you were citing viewed all human rights discourse as negative/imperialist, or only certain aspects of it. A question you declined to answer.

As to my 'fucking positions'? My 'fucking position' is that David Kennedy is a scholar who writes about human rights and international humanitarian law and its failings whose work I found interesting and that I think Ray might find interesting too, nothing more and nothing less. Concession not made. Demonstrate that he doesn't exist or that I didn't find it interesting if you want to grandstand, you utter pillock.

The obvious implication, to me, was that you share his views, at least to an extent, on the merits or lack thereof of human rights discourse. If that is incorrect, then I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding.

I'll spell this out really bluntly for you: You seem to be operating under the assumption that 'David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models.' constitutes an argument for that point. It doesn't - it's a factual statement about what Kennedy's body of work contains. If you'd like, I can certainly prove it's what it contains - quite easily, in fact - but I'm not obligated to defend a position you've invented out of thin air because you're spoiling for a fight.

I'll ask you point-blank, then:

Do you or do you not agree with the work to which you have referred that the discourse on the subject of human rights is a tool of imperialism, and that it forecloses other, superior models?

For someone who whines and cries to the moderators about bullying, you've got a real tendency to start shit you can't finish, so think real carefully if this is a dogfight you really want to get into.

I wouldn't go to the moderators so often (for all the good it does me), nor would I be likely to react with such otherwise unwarranted vehemence to individually minor slights, had I not been persistently and regularly harassed on this board (and yes, I can cite numerous examples of that claim if required, with quotes and links, though I'd prefer to do so in a different thread).

In any case, do not imagine that you intimidate me. The only thing that would give me much pause about debating this issue or any other with you is the shear ugly tediousness of the prospect.

[loomer]

Nice strawman.

Radical idea for you: Actually be prepared to defend your fucking positions, rather than throwing a tantrum, insulting anyone who hasn't read all the books you've read (or do you only reserve that for conversing with me?), and walking away.

Because I believe this board has a traditional response for that sort of behaviour:

Concession accepted.

Tell you what, fuckwit: Show me the strawman. Go on - I dare you. Demonstrate the strawman according to its misrepresentation of your position.

This:

not for you to get your knickers in a twist that scholars exist who don't think all human rights discourse is a net gain for humanity.

I do not, in fact, believe that all discourse on human rights is automatically positive, which is why I asked for clarification on whether the source you were citing viewed all human rights discourse as negative/imperialist, or only certain aspects of it. A question you declined to answer.

Ah. TRR, that's not a strawman. That's called hyperbole. It's also an accurate summation of your blustering attempt to demand I justify the position that 'all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass?' boils down to. And remind me... Did I make any such argument? No? Say, remind me, what's the term for inventing or misrepresenting an argument on the other side?

You should probably know it as you just invoked it, fuckwit.

As to my 'fucking positions'? My 'fucking position' is that David Kennedy is a scholar who writes about human rights and international humanitarian law and its failings whose work I found interesting and that I think Ray might find interesting too, nothing more and nothing less. Concession not made. Demonstrate that he doesn't exist or that I didn't find it interesting if you want to grandstand, you utter pillock.

The obvious implication, to me, was that you share his views, at least to an extent, on the merits or lack thereof of human rights discourse. If that is incorrect, then I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding.

I actually do share, to an extent, his perspective. The thing you misunderstand is that my saying 'there's an interesting scholar on this' is not me saying 'there's an interesting scholar, and he is definitely right, ask me why'. I posted because Ray might find him interesting, no other reason.

I'll spell this out really bluntly for you: You seem to be operating under the assumption that 'David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models.' constitutes an argument for that point. It doesn't - it's a factual statement about what Kennedy's body of work contains. If you'd like, I can certainly prove it's what it contains - quite easily, in fact - but I'm not obligated to defend a position you've invented out of thin air because you're spoiling for a fight.

I'll ask you point-blank, then:

Do you or do you not agree with the work to which you have referred that the discourse on the subject of human rights is a tool of imperialism, and that it forecloses other, superior models?

I do, as it happens, but unfortunately for you you seem to have misconstrued 'there's an interesting scholar' for 'I, loomer, am asserting that all human rights discourse is bad and autocrats get a pass'. That would be a strawman, which you ought to recognize as, again, you just invoked the idea.

For someone who whines and cries to the moderators about bullying, you've got a real tendency to start shit you can't finish, so think real carefully if this is a dogfight you really want to get into.

I wouldn't go to the moderators so often (for all the good it does me), nor would I be likely to react with such otherwise unwarranted vehemence to individually minor slights, had I not been persistently and regularly harassed on this board (and yes, I can cite numerous examples of that claim if required, with quotes and links, though I'd prefer to do so in a different thread).

In any case, do not imagine that you intimidate me. The only thing that would give me much pause about debating this issue or any other with you is the shear ugly tediousness of the prospect.

You make this claim every other post, fuckknuckle. If you're so convinced that there's a persistent and regular campaign of harassment, maybe it's time to actually prove it rather than hyperventilating everytime someone says 'hey, check out <x>'s work!' to someone else - maybe start by addressing your claim to TFG of a persistent campaign to paint you as a racist. Afterall, if it's so tremendously strong that you feel a need to scream about it every other post it must also be so strong that you could take it to the mods since there's a rule against harassment, right?

Now take your strawmanning ass and shut the fuck up and sit down on it, you utterly inept, delusional, vapid, little man. Maybe next time you run for campaign you'll manage to get more than one vote - maybe your nan'll feel bad and bump it to a mighty two. I get that your feelings are still hurt from when you had to make the discovery you're not pro-decolonization, but I'm not really interested in dealing with more of your bullshit because I find the sheer (yes, that's right - it has 2 e's in this context!) ugly tediousness of the prospect utterly boring.

[mr friendly guy]

Now what is going on is some protestors are so upset with the existing system that a number of them are now nostalgic for British colonial rule.

It amuses me to see HKers talking about democracy and waving British flags. Did they not realise HK was ruled by a governor appointed by London and not elected.

Another thing to note, is that their nostalgia reminds me of the same "golden age" syndrome some Brexiters display. Basically it was so good in the old days if we just do what we did then, it would work now. The problem is, the economic reality is that HK is simply less competitive than prior to the handover. In 1997 it was >15% the size of China's GDP. By 2018 it is now 2.7%. In 1997 it was the largest Chinese city in terms of GDP. By 2010, Shanghai had surpassed it, by 2012 Beijing surpassed it, and in 2018 next door Shenzhen surpassed it. It looks like Guangzhou might do the same by 2020, but if the protests cause HK to go into a recession, it may surpass HK this year. Perhaps most damning is that HK used to have the most busiest port up until 2004. As of last year, its now number 7, with 4 of those top 6 ports Chinese, including the first, third, fourth and fifth spots. The other 2 spots go to Singapore and Busan, which just illustrates that its not just China that has adapted, but also other countries.

Blaming China for poor mainlanders using up public resources like hospitals, or rich mainlanders for causing the price of goods to go up, or harassing mainland tourists just shopping, just makes them look spoilt and does nothing to address the economic reality that HK is less competitive no matter how much they opine about their rule of law giving them economic advantages.Not that they care about rule of law anymore.

[ray245]

There's a fascinating look at that in David Kennedy's body of work on the trickiness of human rights discourse and how it not only functions as a justification for and tool of Western imperialism, but also forecloses on the possibility of other, better models. I very nearly did my thesis on the issue.

Thank you, I'll have a look.

It amuses me to see HKers talking about democracy and waving British flags. Did they not realise HK was ruled by a governor appointed by London and not elected.

A number of the protesters are too young to actually remember what British colonial rule was actually like. Some people might mistakenly assume that British Hong Kong was basically London in the far east, when that's not the case.

Another thing to note, is that their nostalgia reminds me of the same "golden age" syndrome some Brexiters display. Basically it was so good in the old days if we just do what we did then, it would work now. The problem is, the economic reality is that HK is simply less competitive than prior to the handover. In 1997 it was >15% the size of China's GDP. By 2018 it is now 2.7%. In 1997 it was the largest Chinese city in terms of GDP. By 2010, Shanghai had surpassed it, by 2012 Beijing surpassed it, and in 2018 next door Shenzhen surpassed it. It looks like Guangzhou might do the same by 2020, but if the protests cause HK to go into a recession, it may surpass HK this year. Perhaps most damning is that HK used to have the most busiest port up until 2004. As of last year, its now number 7, with 4 of those top 6 ports Chinese, including the first, third, fourth and fifth spots. The other 2 spots go to Singapore and Busan, which just illustrates that its not just China that has adapted, but also other countries.

And this is China can afford to play the waiting game and control all the cards. They don't need to send in the Tanks. They can just further isolate HK and divert further investments away from Hong Kong and watch as the Hong Kongers become less and less relevant in the business world. China is giving them the option of either be happy with the status quo or watch their wealth evaporate as other cities overtake Hong Kong.

Blaming China for poor mainlanders using up public resources like hospitals, or rich mainlanders for causing the price of goods to go up, or harassing mainland tourists just shopping, just makes them look spoilt and does nothing to address the economic reality that HK is less competitive no matter how much they opine about their rule of law giving them economic advantages.Not that they care about rule of law anymore.

And that's the big issue the Hong Kong protesters need to work out. They need to understand that China will never give in to their demands and no major world power will do anything about it. China is unlikely to send in the tanks because they don't need to send in the tanks to "punish" the protesters. Just economically strangle Hong Kong and they can't do anything about it.

[ray245]

If the West really wants to stand up to China, they can put their money into action by deliberately investing in Hong Kong instead of Shanghai and Shenzhen. But given that they want value for money, they won't.

[loomer]

I've just realized that for some reason, for some years now, I've been reading Mr Friendly Guy as The Friendly Guy. Whoops.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would like to point out that loomer just conceded that my assessment of the views he shares (over which he threw this petty tantrum) was fundamentally correct, that he justified misrepresenting my views as "hyperbole" (something for which I am routinely derided and insulted on this board), that he has dragged unrelated arguments from a different thread into this conversation in what I believe could be regarded as vendetta behaviour, and that he concluded this by unleashing a torrent of vicious and defamatory personal abuse on me which is an excellent example of the bullying behaviour that I have described, and which is far in excess of anything I have directed against him.

I know nobody will care, because I am considered an acceptable target on this board, but I just wanted to state that for the record.

That concludes my engagement with yet another derail. I shall not respond to any further content that does not address the actual topic of the thread (one which is of a significance which deserves more than yet another pathetic pissing contest).

[loomer]

I would like to point out that loomer just conceded that my assessment of the views he shares (over which he threw this petty tantrum) was fundamentally correct, that he justified misrepresenting my views as "hyperbole" (something for which I am routinely derided and insulted on this board), that he has dragged unrelated arguments from a different thread into this conversation in what I believe could be regarded as vendetta behaviour, and that he concluded this by unleashing a torrent of vicious and defamatory personal abuse on me which is an excellent example of the bullying behaviour that I have described, and which is far in excess of anything I have directed against him.

I know nobody will care, because I am considered an acceptable target on this board, but I just wanted to state that for the record.

That concludes my engagement with yet another derail. I shall not respond to any further content that does not address the actual topic of the thread (one which is of a significance which deserves more than yet another pathetic pissing contest).

Motherfucker, you started out by demanding I defend a position I never advanced, which by the way I haven't conceded to your 'assessment' of. Don't try and sit on your high horse when you started out with this load of shite:

Do you have a point here beyond "human rights" has been misused to justify imperialism, therefore all notions of human rights should be automatically discarded and non-Western (but only non-Western, of course) autocrats should get a free pass? If so, please, elaborate.

Miss manners doesn't live here so cram your squalling about my 'vicious and defamatory abuse' (here's a freebie for ya, TRR: It ain't defamatory if it's true or if it's said to be offensive and without any expectation people would think it's true, so no - it ain't defamation. Yet another time you've fundamentally failed to understand what a word means. Vicious I'll happily cop to because you're damn right I can be vicious when a lying little shitheel like you demands I defend a position I've never asserted and which is antithetical to the ones I actually hold. Oh, and it wasn't 'misrepresenting' your views as hyperbole - it was perfectly accurate.) And it was your demand that I answer a point I never made that was vendetta behaviour because I'm pretty damn sure it's because you're still upset that you aren't pro-decolonization. Get off your high horse before it throws you in disgust and you drown in a pool of your own tears.

[K. A. Pital]

I apologize for misconstruing your point. I am just so tired of seeing America's crimes, serious as they are, always brought up in response to issues in other countries, because very often it is a deflection tactic.

To me, it is not a choice between one or the other, between internationalism and internal reform. I believe that we live in an interconnected world, and one country's actions effect all others. This has always to some extent been true, but it is all the more true in the age of mass transportation and mass communication, climate change and industrial pollution and global terrorism, and a sixth mass extinction that is becoming more evident by the day. For example, I do not think that you can effectively oppose Saudi tyranny without opposing the American government's crimes which back it up, or oppose the American far Right (or the European far Right, or Assad, etc.), without understanding the role that Russia plays in propping them up.

It is true. Which is why I said what I said. The difference between the US bankrolling Saudi Arabia or China doing the same would be nil for the people of Yemen who are bombed. The issue lies not in whether one nation or the other becomes a top superpower and imperialist, but rather in opposing the system of imperialism as such regardless of who is the top power.

I am not a globalist in the sense that right now, globalism is not at all like Internationalist organisations of the late XIX century. It is a long talk which I‘d rather avoid now. I prefer „internationalism“, which means giving every nation the ability to develop its culture and save and harness its creative achievements; righting the wrongs done to weaker nations in the past and working together to further cultural ties between the working people of all nations. Old internationalism.

I would argue that both internal and external pressure must play a role- which must take the lead depending on the circumstances, although I will acknowledge that internally-driven reform is preferably where possible. Nonetheless, you must, and clearly do, acknowledge that there are times where external intervention is necessary and just (the classic example being Nazi Germany in WW2).

Nazi Germany was uniquely dangerous in that it was a material foundation of fascism of the entire world; a prime industrial power which dedicated itself to genocidal aggression against others. This unique situation required its defeat, by even imperfect allied powers. This is what I have meant when I said the development of a nation should proceed unimpeded unless there is a threat of genocide. Support of revolutionaries inside the nation is fair game, too, but under the current system many seek to fully coopt revolutionaries to be just servile puppets of great powers.

I am not immune to biases, but I should be very sorry to think that any of my views were motivated by nationalism of any kind. I despise nationalism, and regard it as one of the greatest evils in the world. As to the notion that Canada is a "satellite" of the US, I think it is an exaggerated one- Canada is a sovereign nation, and has opposed the US on notable policy issues in the past. We are by necessity close, because we share the longest undefended border on the planet, and there are literally millions of Americans living in Canada, or vice versa. So sanctions against the US would be highly unlikely in the short-term. In the long-term, what changes our relationship might undergo are hard to predict. A little over 200 years ago, American troops invaded what is now Canadian soil, and war between our countries was a real possibility until... oh, probably the early 20th. Century.

It certainly looked like a cheap way of saying „look, I am also against the US, although I know my government will not do anything against Trump‘s thug kingdom“, but I am glad you believe a genuine reassessment of Canada-US relations is possible. I find it rather unlikely (both are white settler-states with similar legitimation of power, similar internal political issues and sadly, oftentimes similar imperial interests).

That I cannot deny. As I have frequently argued, no government of any kind can ultimately succeed or function if the majority of the population is adamantly opposed to it. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of Canada or other nations offering assistance to the Chinese people to help them achieve the future they have chosen, or to offer our views (which may be embraced or ignored) on any issue.

Sanctions seem to have a poor record of being seen as „helping people“ and since World War I and thereafter have achieved very little, other than help the governments stir up nationalistic fervor. Not to mention causing actual deaths and malnutrition at times.

That sounds reasonable enough, but where do you draw those lines. For example, does your opposition to outside intervention extend to cultural influences such as mass media? Is it wrong for a foreign movie, showing a foreign viewpoint, to be shown in a Chinese theatre? Or for a foreigner to comment on the affairs of China on social media? Is it wrong to export American goods to China, for their peoples' consumption? All of those things will, subtly at least, influence the direction Chinese society might take.

It is not wrong to comment, neither wrong to send your films to China. Whether these films are subject to quotas of stopped at the border, is a matter of the Chinese government. Export of US goods to China is likewise not wrong, although they can be stopped at the border by its government- for example, because both nations are in a period of trade tensions and protectionism.

And how do you define "genocide"? mr friendly guy raised the recent allegations that Canada is committing genocide due to the history of systemic racism against First Nations Peoples, and the high rate of murders particularly among indigenous women. Does that constitute grounds for intervention in Canada's affairs? And, if it does, then surely the reverse is true, and China's detention of vast numbers of Muslim minorities in concentration camps/reeducation camps qualifies as, at least, a cultural genocide that therefore warrants foreign intervention?

Cultural matters are not where I would draw the line; but physical extermination is. As for intervention in Canada - who could stop this genocide of First Nations? The UN? Theoretically, if the UN were able to intervene and reorganize Canada so as to protect the First Nations, it could be justified. I mentioned righting historical wrongs before.

But also the nature of the actions taking place must be considered. If the US were only forcing immigrants to speak English, I doubt this would justify intervening. But if it starts mass-murdering people in those ICE facilities near the border and dumping their bodies in sand pits... which can also happen - or if China starts exterminating Uyghurs physically, for that matter - these are valid grounds. Nuclear weapons massively complicate the situation, however, in that nowadays a nuclear power may be free to enact genocide on its own population without fear of retribution, simply because a nuclear total war is even worse an outcome than letting the genocide be fulfilled.

I don’t have good answers here. Intervention by nuclear powers into non-nuclear nations is also bad, but usually it has a limited set of consequences. Intervening to stop a nuclear power would entail the risk of causing a global massacre of all.

The best I can come up with is that in such cases all support should be given to forces inside the nation and adjacent to it, if they are able to stop the genocide by overthrowing the government or at least wind it down. It also sounds bad. This is because it is. Advanced military technology has become a way to protect oneself, but also a shield behind which any manner of violence can be done with impunity.

[mr friendly guy]

TRR, just report to a mod. I had people accuse me of doing x, and then when I ask them to report to a mod they chicken out. When I had to report someone for a vendetta violation they got HoSed. And I reported to a neutral mod as well, not one I am friends with. Basically if you feel that strong about it, report it.

-------------------------
Now that's out the way, let me go back into the OP now that I have a bit more time and point out some information which the person writing the OP somehow missed out which just irks me with its dishonesty. No doubt this got missed in the China bashing above, but hey, I am sure truth can't hurt us.

A few months ago, Hong Kong first erupted in major protest as millions of citizens poured out into the streets to demonstrate against a bill that would allow the Chinese state to extradite fugitives to the mainland. The former British colony has traditionally maintained an independent status under the "one country two systems" framework. However, protesters rightly fear that the Chinese state will use the bill to arrest dissidents, and stamp out Hong Kong's autonomous status in the process.

That sounds so bad. Maybe we should have a look at what this bill was about and how it came about. Well it was like all things, after a murder. Wait, what? You see one Hong Kong man by the name of Chan Tong-kai and his girlfriend were holidaying in Taiwan. For some reason he came back alone. Taiwan police found the body and suspected he did it. He had already returned to HK by then. When HK police confronted him and he fessed up.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law ... aiwan-sets

Only problem is, the crime was in Taiwan, and HK doesn't have really have much in way of extradition treaties to anywhere. So HK can only get him for money laundering (by using his dead girlfriend's card) which doesn't carry a long penalty. Hence the proposal for an extradition bill, which will cover not just Taiwan, but other places including China.

But guys, China has rules against spreading fake rumours, can't they get some Hong Kong dissident on this. Good point. So HK amended the propose bill to only work if the person is being accused of a crime which will lead to a jail sentence in Hong Kong of I believe a few years. So if China wants someone to face trial for murder, which warrants a jail sentence in Hong Kong, then yes extradition will imply although its up to the courts. If China wants someone for saying nasty things, then no it doesn't because wait for it.... HK doesn't have a jail sentence for that.

Somehow that got lost in translation (metaphorically, not literally) and protesters wanted the entire bill scrapped. So HK government eventually agreed. But now the protesters want more. Chinese news did point out one particular fact, does anyone still care about the murdered girl now? The amended bill would prevent someone going to China for saying bad things, but would allow our murder suspect to be extradited to Taiwan if the Taiwanese request him. Ah forget it. Western media and human rights activists already have, so you should too. The article certainly doesn't even mention this in passing, so I guess not important.
----------------------------------------------------

The second lesson to take from that, is the old adage, with some people, you give an inch, they take a mile. The bill was amended to prevent fear of extradition to China for things which are not illegal in HK. When that didn't work, it was scrapped. But now they want Carrie Lam to resign.

By not compromising when they got what they wanted, the protesters just invite others to dig in and harden their stance. And when China holds more of the economic cards, its a risky play by the protesters. Heck China doesn't really have to do that much. HK economy relative to the mainland is getting smaller and smaller. Within the next decade, its going to be a "tier 2" city only. The economic disruption of closing airports would just speed up the process.

[Dark Hellion]

Guys, instead of everything needing to be tattled to mods, why don't we try acting like the fucking adults we are. It is pretty goddamn pathetic to see how often grown-ass men and women turn into snippy little teenage debate team assholes over pedantic shit. Somehow this board managed to make a bunch of people who are professionals in their 30s and 40s turn into the kind of annoying douches that you avoid at parties because all they want to do is argue. You're not scoring any points, your husband/wives and children aren't going to love you more or less because you won the internet argument of the day on a tiny forum. You aren't going to get a promotion or a better job or house or better life in general from this. You aren't making the world a better place nor fostering understanding in others. You are just being a fucking asshole ruining others enjoyment in order to "win" some meaningless contest on a nearly defunct forum. Its honestly pretty pathetic.

[ray245]

TRR, just report to a mod. I had people accuse me of doing x, and then when I ask them to report to a mod they chicken out. When I had to report someone for a vendetta violation they got HoSed. And I reported to a neutral mod as well, not one I am friends with. Basically if you feel that strong about it, report it.

-------------------------
Now that's out the way, let me go back into the OP now that I have a bit more time and point out some information which the person writing the OP somehow missed out which just irks me with its dishonesty. No doubt this got missed in the China bashing above, but hey, I am sure truth can't hurt us.

A few months ago, Hong Kong first erupted in major protest as millions of citizens poured out into the streets to demonstrate against a bill that would allow the Chinese state to extradite fugitives to the mainland. The former British colony has traditionally maintained an independent status under the "one country two systems" framework. However, protesters rightly fear that the Chinese state will use the bill to arrest dissidents, and stamp out Hong Kong's autonomous status in the process.

That sounds so bad. Maybe we should have a look at what this bill was about and how it came about. Well it was like all things, after a murder. Wait, what? You see one Hong Kong man by the name of Chan Tong-kai and his girlfriend were holidaying in Taiwan. For some reason he came back alone. Taiwan police found the body and suspected he did it. He had already returned to HK by then. When HK police confronted him and he fessed up.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law ... aiwan-sets

Only problem is, the crime was in Taiwan, and HK doesn't have really have much in way of extradition treaties to anywhere. So HK can only get him for money laundering (by using his dead girlfriend's card) which doesn't carry a long penalty. Hence the proposal for an extradition bill, which will cover not just Taiwan, but other places including China.

But guys, China has rules against spreading fake rumours, can't they get some Hong Kong dissident on this. Good point. So HK amended the propose bill to only work if the person is being accused of a crime which will lead to a jail sentence in Hong Kong of I believe a few years. So if China wants someone to face trial for murder, which warrants a jail sentence in Hong Kong, then yes extradition will imply although its up to the courts. If China wants someone for saying nasty things, then no it doesn't because wait for it.... HK doesn't have a jail sentence for that.

Somehow that got lost in translation (metaphorically, not literally) and protesters wanted the entire bill scrapped. So HK government eventually agreed. But now the protesters want more. Chinese news did point out one particular fact, does anyone still care about the murdered girl now? The amended bill would prevent someone going to China for saying bad things, but would allow our murder suspect to be extradited to Taiwan if the Taiwanese request him. Ah forget it. Western media and human rights activists already have, so you should too. The article certainly doesn't even mention this in passing, so I guess not important.
----------------------------------------------------

The second lesson to take from that, is the old adage, with some people, you give an inch, they take a mile. The bill was amended to prevent fear of extradition to China for things which are not illegal in HK. When that didn't work, it was scrapped. But now they want Carrie Lam to resign.

By not compromising when they got what they wanted, the protesters just invite others to dig in and harden their stance. And when China holds more of the economic cards, its a risky play by the protesters. Heck China doesn't really have to do that much. HK economy relative to the mainland is getting smaller and smaller. Within the next decade, its going to be a "tier 2" city only. The economic disruption of closing airports would just speed up the process.

The protesters aren't a well coordinated movement. Right now it's becoming a movement of simply voicing anger at the current administration for whatever reasons they have.

The Hong Kong billionaires are now coming out and saying they don't support the protesters. We can see how things go, but some of the Hong Kong protesters' ultimate aim of a truly seperate democratic nation-state is unlikely to be realised.

The only real option for them is to basically emigrate elsewhere.