• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    84 months ago

    just the words of the governmental body

    And of course (what you conventiently omit) past examples which I provided.

    My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever

    In deed you are consistent, in holding the default position that aligns with the current hegemon the US: China Bad.

    Since I am not an expert on the subject matter

    Then why are you concern trolling? No research, no right to speak.

    No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

    Can you point to any chinese research facilities doing military research to hold this type of skepticism?

    Also the argument for anything can be a national security concern goes more like: Hey you have a research station? My nation security is violated because you could be doing military research and spying Hey you have a civilian port and are producing X amount container ships a year? My national security is violated as you could easily turn these into naval battle ship production facilities Hey you’re stockpiling food? My national security is violated as in the event of war you could be feeding your soldiers

    Michael Parenti

    “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

    • @Candelestine
      link
      English
      -34 months ago

      Again, I’m not forming an opinion yet. I apologize that this does not align with your very clearly pro-Chinese opinion. It is not China-Bad, it is China-is-a-country-and-countries-act-in-their-own-interests. These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose. I’m not trolling, I am dead serious in my position.

      … you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities? You understand how silly that sounds? Where do you think their hypersonic missiles came from, gifts from some UFO or something? I suspect the technology was researched through the scientific method.

      Transparency is generally the key to securing trust. Otherwise yes, suspicion should be a default position. I don’t fully trust my government, I’m certainly not going to trust someone else’s.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Again, I’m not forming an opinion yet

        Enlightened Centrist I see.

        These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose

        Or spreading misinformation or unjustified mistrust

        you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities?

        I guess it’s silly to ask that in deed. I’m not denying that they aren’t doing military research, but these are usually within the country. You’re still implying that they are doing arctic facilities to do military research, with nothing but a gut feel and no evidence whatsoever. Apart from the enlightened stance that they could be and nothing else. Which goes back to my original point that anything can be dual use.

        • @Candelestine
          link
          English
          -14 months ago

          It’s just healthy suspicion man. If you expect me to just apply some kind of universal trust to a country of human beings on Earth, you are sorely mistaken. People are people. No country on Earth is some holy union of people above being concerned about, that somehow does no wrong. That’s just some weird, misplaced faith.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            54 months ago

            Dude none is saying you shouldn’t be suspicious and none is saying you should be applying trust universal to any country. I generally agree with your statement.

            Voicing your suspicion however, when you’re uninformed is not contributing to anything and makes you either a concern troll or lapdog for imperial interests.

            • @Candelestine
              link
              English
              -14 months ago

              Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well. It’s not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                54 months ago

                Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well

                I hope you’re talking about the US

                It’s not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

                Chuds are also only asking questions and being skeptic when talking about lgbt and trans issues, right?

                • @Candelestine
                  link
                  English
                  04 months ago

                  Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else. It’s certainly not just the US, though we’ve done our fair share.

                  You can usually determine whether someone is trolling or not with some discussion. Just because someone says lgbt does not give them carte blanche to say whatever they want. If you really want to detect trolls, you need to remember some of them pretend to be lgbt just to cause more chaos.

                  It’s not “both sides-ing” to assert that no position should be immune to criticism. No matter how underdog they are. Being an oppressed underdog should not give someone license to just do whatever the fuck they want like you’re some fictional char like Batman or something.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    44 months ago

                    Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else.

                    “Subjecting others to their control” is not a useful definition of imperialism. Also, I believe you’re mixing it with the definition of “authority”.
                    Also there’s a reason that it’s not commonly defined as where you have finance capital shaping the states foreign policies in order to export surplus capital, secure commodities and cheap labor in foreign countries

                    It’s certainly not just the US

                    I agree, a variety of other global north countries engage in it too.

                    It’s not “both sides-ing” to assert that no position should be immune to criticism.

                    Not sure where you get that I’m saying this. Please carefully reread my comments and let me eat my own words when you find it and I might be able to clear up the misunderstanding. What’s I’m saying is this:

                    • If you haven’t researched a topic enough, why voice opinion or skepticism?
                    • It’s valid to have skepticism, but then why not research it instead?
                    • If you believe to have done your research, back it up with your information sources in order to contribute more to the discussion than your blank skepticism

                    Otherwise you’re functionally indistinguishable as a concern troll.

                    Also regarding China: They’re definitively not above criticism, but when you do, it better be substantiated.