this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)

World News

32301 readers
428 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I gotta love that even US hegemony is challenged on Lemmy, here not even Western superiority is a given which is at least something the vast majority on Reddit can agree on.

That said nuanced discussions seem impossible still, it's less a balanced mix where every spot on the scale is represented and more a fairly even balance of two extremes.

My current theory is that the majority of actual moderates (not US politics moderates) between two extremes just aren't interested in the debate, whereas the extremes very much are. I do gotta say that I too generally want to weigh in on things I either agree on completely or things I vehemently oppose, so I guess that kinda helps me understand how and why this is... But it makes everything seem like the extremes are the only two choices, which couldn't be further from the truth.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You have to understand that moderate positions or centrist positions are compromised positions. That means that you start with a position you have, then someone takes up a different position and then you change your position based on the relative location of their position. That's not a great way to go about arriving at positions. In fact, it's a guaranteed way to never actually get anywhere because your opponents merely need to go more extremely in one direction and you'll just get dragged along.

What you think of as extremists on the side of communism are people with positions that have literally been around for over a century and have been based in an adherence to scientifically analyzing human society to arrive at their positions. Does that make them extreme? Would you say the same thing about climate scientists? Do you think it's extremist to hold firm to positions that have been well and thoroughly analyzed and arrived at through rigorous study and debate?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That was the literal dumbest shit I've ever read in regards to your first paragraph. I don't think any moderate or centrist describes their political leanings as "smack dab in the middle between X and Y". I for one certainly don't. But I'm centrist in that I hold viewpoints along the spectrum to both sides some for sure in the extreme ends on some matters, like for instance criminal justice.

Second paragraph you believe that I'm talking in general terms. I'm not dismissing Communism (and whatever we'd define as the opposite extreme) as extreme, I'm saying inside the spectrum of people considering themselves communists there are extreme opinions such as the USSR was a utopia. Or that Mao Zedong was a great leader. Non extreme takes there would be "The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we've seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality". For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.

As for climate scientists the extreme take / opinion I often see is that the world is overpopulated and we need a drastic reduction, which is hardly what climate scientists propose but people read in all the time. That and eco terrorism.

Further we don't have a perfect theory of civilization in terms of how to optimally structure society to maximize life quality for everyone. And even if we did there is no guarantee we could get literally everybody onboard. This is where politics come in and surprise surprise but there is no perfect solution to be had. Only the one we can agree on collectively or the one we can force through by virtue of the power we hold. And any agreement in a group larger than one is going to be a compromise and we need to be much better at trying to reach those. And not entrench ourselves in positions from which we cannot move without conflict of identity or morals. I.e. we can't tie our political positions so tightly with neither identity nor morals such that we cannot reach a compromise to move further towards our desired state, if not directly towards it but diagonally.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we've seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality". For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.

Oh look, pretty much exactly what us communists and scientific socialists, as opposed to utopian ones, have been saying to begin with.

Michael Parenti - Blackshirts and Reds:

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

I wouldn't say the USSR "fell short" though. They were absolutely on the right track and vastly improved the lives of its citizens over what came before, taking the region from feudal backwaters to humanity's first space explorers in just 30 years, and rivaling a 200 y/o superpower in the process.

Its illegal dissolution by Gorbechev and his western allies was opposed by over 90% of the population and was a disaster that the former Soviet states still haven't fully recovered from 33 years later.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"No one wants to have a civil discussion here with me"

"No not like that this is the literal dumbest shit ive ever heard"

Go have your enlightened centrist discussions with an ai chatbot that wont challenge you. Ever.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

What.

You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions. Not only my opinions but everyone calling themselves moderate or centrist, we're talking millions of people you just said hold an inherently compromised position. That's some seriously dumb shit. That doesn't make you dumb, just that opinion and I clearly stated that paragraph was what I called out. I then addressed your other concerns and statements.

It's you shutting down any debate here. Not me. And yeah "enlightened centrist" is for sure a problem, people that think their position is inherently better because it doesn't adhere to an extreme. But I do not subscribe at all to that line of thinking and hold extreme opinions that I stand by.

And "civil" discussions are impossible over text, It's literally impossible to read and respond correctly to feelings in text and human beings aren't, by and large, capable of disconnecting their emotions from discussions, even less when it's political. And I argue we really shouldn't either. If we can't respond to strong emotions then we're not fit for debate either. Just look at literally any political debate anywhere in a democratic nation, it tends to get pretty heated. I argue more heated than necessary/reasonable right now but that circles back to my point about politics being too tied to morals and identity. But still, emotion is an inevitable and reasonable part of political debate.

That said my intention was never to hurt your feelings, my intent was to strongly reject what you stated, and "I strongly disagree" does not capture even close to how strongly I feel about that statement.

As such I'm sorry and I understand if you have no wish to engage in any debate. I really don't even see anything to really debate here either. Unless you want to defend your first paragraph I guess.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions.

Typical Redditor behavior, you don't even stop to look at who you are speaking with, you just assume every comment below yours is somehow the same person, and not possibly someone else who also thinks you're a total chud.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Valid, a poor assumption on my part.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (25 children)

but China is capitalist?????

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Which will further stifle innovation, just like every other time it's been attempted.

Thanks China!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Which is why WW2 led to no innovation and why NASA did nothing new, right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely right. The government can and should participate in STEM industries, sure, but trying to make innovation a government sector is just going to end badly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

got news for you, all innovation happens on the tax roll. and because it's free and public to use, companies take it, stick licenses on it, and sell it back to you (gotta love paying twice).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I've got news for you: historically, "centralised" research has led to fewer innovations in consumer technology and bureaucrats unilaterally redirecting funds away from promising areas for political reasons. For just two examples: Cybernetics was the target of a political campaign in the USSR, and their biologists denied genetics of all things and tried to promote agricultural policy based on genetics being wrong.

Alternatively, we could just look at where the USSR is now to see how well their centralised research and development efforts are going 👀

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

You could even lump giant US corporations into that group too. Companies like IBM innovated less and less the larger they got. You can't expect constant innovation from a singular machine that runs the same all the time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

your example is irrelevant and makes little sense as a counter when all research and innovation globally is still paid for by taxes. no business will spend billions on new ideas, they spend billions on commercial application of public (tax paid) ideas in order to profit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because it’s not right? The biggest competitor to the US technologically for decades was the USSR. They were the first into space, made the first computers etc. and they were much more centralised than China is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and Chernobyl never exploded because Soviet engineers don't make mistakes.

Komarov did not know he was going to die in Soyuz 1, he was excited and happy to be going up and didn't want Gagarin to get all the glory: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage

Science was so much better in the USSR there's even a whole list of things about how much better it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union

🤡

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Omg a Wikipedia article shit talking the USSR? Communism is over, pack it up boys.

You can spew anti-communist Cold War era propaganda all you want.

I know the USSR wasn’t perfect. But it really serves only the interests of the US empire to focus on that without ever mentioning all the bullshit anti-science shit the US and Western powers engaged in for centuries.

Acting like only communist nations had issues is propaganda, plain and simple. Ignoring all the similar issues western capitalist nations had is propaganda, plain and simple.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Michael Parenti - Blackshirts and Reds:

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

I doubt the person you're replying to is a socialist though ig. Prolly just a lib judging by them citing NATOpedia lol

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

US media says socialism bad tho :clueless:

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This isn't about socialism or "the US media", it's a fact that authoritarian regimes suppress science they don't like which is bad for science.

I mean, Soviet policy led to fucking up agriculture in a number of other countries because they rejected genetics; they killed one of their top cosmonauts because nobody wanted to listen to the literal hundreds of safety and operational problems the Soyuz rocket had; and caused one of the worst nuclear disasters in modern history because "Soviet engineering does not fail".

But yeah, I think all this just because of what I've been told, and not because I've seen with my own eyes scientific advancements stifled by authoritarian regimes 🙄

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

“Authoritarian regimes” 🙄 god shut up nerd

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

https://archive.is/20240220003112/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-19/china-vows-to-centralize-tech-development-under-communist-party

Archive of the full article.

This is rational from China's perspective. Divesting in the American technology pipeline not only weakens Americans grip on the global economy but also positions China as the leader in global technology.

Also, we have more evidence of US putting back doors into technology then we do China. If you're living in the imperial core, it's far more likely that the US is monitoring your activities then China is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

If there's anything to retain concern for it's Chinese companies sharing data with the US gov. On the plus side, that will probably decrease as the US tries to isolate (read: undermine and create a cold war against) China.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Not that you could before, but I wouldn’t trust any chips, hardware, software, anything made from there from a security stand point anymore.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

On what basis do you make such a claime?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What alternative is there lol. The rest of high-tech are made in the US or its allies, which is worse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The USA partnered with the German company, Siemens, to install hidden wiretaps into the phone equipment that was used by every embassy in the world. For years the USA had access to literally everything that ambassadors from every country were saying.

Then we have the USA Congress holding a trial after it was revealed that every telecom company in the country broke the law and spied on all internet traffic and gave it to the NSA. The result of that trial? Retroactive immunity for all involved and changes to the law to make it legal going forward.

Then we have the Snowden leaks that show the NSA has chosen "market solutions" for data gathering, meaning that they will collaborate with private companies, even funding them through the network of money, so that those private companies gather as much data as they can on citizens so the NSA can buy it. They also have major partnerships to install persistent vulnerabilities that they can exploit, and there are major revelations in the leaks about how they influence which companies but which companies in order to ensure control over the startup tech that doesn't collaborate with military intelligence.

Prism, Raptor, Echelon - these are the programs we know about. There are undoubtedly a number we don't.

Then you have Oracle, Palantir, AT&T, Verizon and many other tech companies that were either founded by, funded by, or wrre revealed to be infiltrated by military intelligence.

Military intelligence influences cryptography at the highest levels, pushing for specific algorithms to be adopted by ANSI and ISO as the default recommendations.

USA spies get jobs in American tech companies. That's part of the program. High level State Department and Military Intelligence officials take executive jobs openly in companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

And then they lie about it, have been lying about for decades, and create clear and obvious propaganda that belies their motivations. When TikTok was being accused of being Chinese spy tech, the USA forced TikTok to give control of its USA operations to a USA tech company with executives and staff from the USA State Department and Military Intelligence. Even after this happened, they continued to publish scare articles about TikTok being Chinese spyware even though in the USA it was controlled entirely by the government.

The USA has 600+ military bases around the world, it has secret black sites in dozens of countries where it conducts torture, bio experiments, and illegal operations explicitly to avoid legal troubles in the USA (because they aren't there) and legal troubles in their host country (because they have immunity).

Compare that to China.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Actually, hilariously the US government has so much power over Tik Tok that Harvard scholars and the ACLU are terrified of the over reach.

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/the-tiktok-bill-isnt-only-about-tiktok

Biden's recent tik tok doesn't show Video capitulation to the CCP as the GOP claims, but rather the overwhelming narrative control our government holds over Tik Tok. While other social media was showing the genocide of Gaza, Tik Tok was posting IDF soldiers partying. And still US politicians tried to say China bad since the parties made the IDF look like the compassion less genocides they are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Do you really need to ask why you shouldn't trust the countries responsible for the vast majority of neocolonialism, and the ones currently supporting a genocide?

Just look up some of the numerous shit the CIA has done, or the fact that they collect information on every US citizen to use against them, etc. Like the 1965 Indonesian massacre of 700k to 1mil people where the CIA supplied the military dictatorship with information on them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

From my point of view, Western powers are more realistically gonna impinge on my human rights than Beijing is.

Your circumstances may be different.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because while there are only obtuse and vague accusations that China is backdooring technology, there's no proof besides a Chinese law that says Chinese tech companies have to help authorities.

The US on the other hand was caught red handed doing what they accuse China of with the Prism system. It was caught spying on Angela Merkle. And just ask Snowdon how he feels about living in exile in Russia for exposing that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

In other words- their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft. Now they decide to finally wrangle it in. Thanks CCP.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Agree that IP laws are shit for developing a country & its people.

You've come to the right site; we're all pro-piracy and anti walled gardens here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft

We need more of that. Fuck megacorps and their IPs. Hell, even the US completely disregarded br*tish IP laws when it was industrializing, and African countries will do too when they industrialize.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

their entire tech industry was built on by industrial espionage and corporate theft

basedbasedbasedbasedbasedbasedbasedbased

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

wrangle it in?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›