• @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.

          • @Candelestine
            link
            English
            04 months ago

            China’s system is opaque. Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point. I’m simply not willing to give them any extra faith. For the third time, suspicion is default. Suspicion exists until evidence to the contrary is provided. This is just a basic safety principle in the modern age and is healthier than faith-based alternatives. I know you didn’t say that, incidentally, I was getting out ahead of a potential criticism before it appeared, saving us the time of having to discuss it. I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

            I think it’s a very useful definition of imperialism, actually. It captures the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades. Economic and military (the original) imperialism are simply other methods. I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

            You don’t think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              44 months ago

              China’s system is opaque.

              It’s not a coincidence why it’s opaque (to you).

              Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point.

              Wild if true

              I’m simply not willing to give them any extra faith.

              This aligns with US foreign policy

              I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

              True, ugh.

              I think it’s a very useful definition of imperialism, actually.

              No, because you rob you make the term imperialism meaningless. Why have “authority” and “imperialism” as words, when they basically define the same thing?

              Also I don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. I believe you’re mixing things up with “hegemony”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?

              I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

              It’s not equating imperialism with global capitalism. It’s saying that Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.

              You don’t think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

              Not that’s just a product of imperialism.

              • @Candelestine
                link
                English
                04 months ago

                Do Chinese citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers? Or are they forced to simply trust them? And yes, I do not think 100% of everything that comes out of our State Dept is automatically a lie. Some things are true, some are false. The default of suspicion applies regardless.

                Imperialism is empire-building. That’s the root word imperial, of-an-empire. It’s authority exerted over other people, foreign lands. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both worked on imperial projects, back when it was more commonplace. Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers. The Mongols had a hegemonic empire. Napoleon, while being imperial, did not have a hegemonic empire, as the British and Russian empires contested and eventually defeated him.

                So, I don’t understand this difference between steps/products of imperialism, and just imperialism. Either you’re empire-building, seeking authority over more and more peoples, or you’re not.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  44 months ago

                  Do Chinese citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers?

                  The CPC is the largest political body in the world with ~100M members. Roughly one in 15 Chinese is a member. So yeah I’d say so. For you to get a better understanding I recommend reading: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners - Roland Boer Also people not only seem to trust, but are also satisfied https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

                  Imperialism is empire-building. That’s the root word imperial, of-an-empire. It’s authority exerted over other people, foreign lands. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both worked on imperial projects, back when it was more commonplace. Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers. The Mongols had a hegemonic empire. Napoleon, while being imperial, did not have a hegemonic empire, as the British and Russian empires contested and eventually defeated him.

                  You’re giving me history examples and not answering my question. I still don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?

                  Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers.

                  Hegemon is not only the state, but the dominant ideology. So when you say “the new, informational-based methods of attack that” it says to me that you see changes in hegemony aka people having a different ideological framework than the dominant one. And the different ideological framework comes via (foreign) information.

                  • @Candelestine
                    link
                    English
                    04 months ago

                    Oh come now, the decisions of a country are made by its leaders, not every single member of its political party. Otherwise that would be true democracy, and unbelievably cumbersome and impractical. Also, I’ll remind you a fifth time, my default in the modern day is suspicion. I simply don’t believe people automatically. This is independent of the things they say and how good they sound. Like, when I’m buying a product, I do not simply believe the user reviews. Instead I try to look for someone providing a little bit of actual evidence of their objectivity. That would earn a higher degree of trust, though still not total faith.

                    I would describe it as an influence or informational or perhaps espionage empire. You can have a military empire, where people do as you say or you kill them, yes? You can have an economic empire, where you use economic coercion instead of military. Or, in the modern day, you can control through another form of power–control in the information space. While propaganda is certainly nothing new, it has reached a degree of power we’ve never seen before. Or so I’m arguing, anyway.

                    I disagree, I think that muddles what “a hegemon” is. An idea, not being a conscious thing, cannot be a hegemon. Only a human or group of humans can be. There’s nothing wrong with ideas competing because ideas alone cannot control. What one person realizes, another can too. While the idea can be influential, it cannot truly exert force. So, you could have an information empire, but having a hegemonic information empire is probably impossible without some kind of supernatural mind control. In this new way of looking at imperialism that I’m proposing, anyway. I acknowledge this is new, and traditionally empire was mainly economic and/or military.