m_f

Oh cool, new Tool album

Might be worth flagging that to @dansup@mastodon.social. The FAQ page states unambiguously that Loops won't do that:

https://loops.video/help-center/frequently-asked-questions

Might just be ill-advised copy/paste of legalese. If he's asked about it and defends the TOS with that in it, then I'd start to worry

Good points, still getting the hang of what communities are into the loops content format. And yeah, just trying to spread awareness of Loops to people that like the format, since it'll help the Fediverse grow.

Not trying to treat anyone like a click farm, I get no benefit from any clicks. I thought the video was a good introduction to GOG for anyone that hadn't heard of it, but as another comment pointed out, it's pretty likely that everyone in this community has heard of GOG at this point, so it's probably more preaching to the choir.

The magic of the Fediverse is that even if some of the other comments are right and you're the problem, you can go and spin up your own instance with your own rules. Other instances might not federate with you, but that's the whole point. Everyone can federate with the other instances of their choice.

I'm using a common definition of imperialism. If you wish to redefine it so that it can't be applied to your favorite imperialists, you need to justify that redefinition. To me, you haven't. Here's Wikipedia's definition. Whether or not you agree with it isn't really the point, it's a common definition and if you want to use it in a different meaning, you should make that clear upfront and/or justify the new usage:

Imperialism is maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.

I guess you could call that intentional? Intentionally doing the thing that makes sense, i.e. using the common definition, which is kind of a weird use of the word. At any rate, I'm having a conversation with you because you've been giving thoughtful replies, as much as we disagree with each other. This is the sort of discussion that is actually worth having. As hard as it is to talk about these things over text, I think this has actually been productive. I wouldn't have known that you're using a different definition of imperialism otherwise, for example. That is one of the hardest things when trying to communicate, is using the same words but talking past each other.

The article btw doesn't just reference western think tanks. India for example, has accused China of the same behavior. Many of their neighbors have accused them of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage_tactics as well. I also edited the link above to point at the main article, instead of a section that links to it.

I guess as long as we can agree that the PRC is acting in its own interests. I just have less faith in humanity than you do, I guess.

They're still imperialist, they just don't have the power to effect it as well as they have historically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy

They lost out to bigger imperialists in the 19th century. Now, they're recovering and behaving exactly as you'd expect if they're still imperialist, just with less power (but growing).

EDIT: Fixed link above to be direct

I am analyzing why things happen, you just don't like it. The analysis is rooted in looking at the entirety of their history. Materially, they have been just as imperialist as anyone else. My point is that looking at their imperialist history and saying things will be different this time based on vibes is foolish.

Materially, they're xenophobic, like the rest of humanity. Claiming that they're uniquely not xenophobic is racist in its own way.

They've decided before. So has Japan. But you're missing the point here. It's not about likelihood of it happening, it's about what's possible today vs possible in a changed world.

I'll try stating it another way. If the US got busy with a civil war for the next few years and I was in a leadership position of say Korea or Japan, I would be pushing for a nuclear program posthaste, because that's the only real deterrent.

The world we live in now is not one where it's advantageous to China to be overtly aggressive. We can theorize all day, but looking at Chinese history, they're just like every other empire in history, and have been quite aggressive in the past. Even the idea of "China" is born out of bloody wars of conquest. I don't see any reason that they'd be different if given the opportunity.

I agree on what it is and isn't, but that's the counterpoint to your statement that communism and imperialism don't mix. My assertion is that imperialism is a part of human nature, and so either you acknowledge that communism and imperialism do mix, or that communism isn't realistic for humanity.

I think there’s ~0% chance you’re interested in understanding [..]

It's hard to convey over text on the internet, but I am actually interested in better understanding the world. As much as I think places like Hexbear are silly, it's useful to encounter worldviews so alien. I really hate low-effort "dunking" even if it's something I agree with, because you can't learn anything from that and it loses all nuance.

I'm not saying "therefore they must be the maximum amount of violent at all opportunities". Can you point to any period in history in which empires were just chill and sung kumbaya all day long, though?

We have substantial real world evidence that China does not prefer to take that approach.

We have zero evidence that China would not take that approach in a world without Pax Americana (as much as I think the term is silly, it's a convenient shorthand). We do have a lot of evidence that China is a normal country like everywhere else and pushes their interests where possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy