meth_dragon [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 6th, 2022

help-circle


  • you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.

    the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.





  • jfc, points for trying to turn this into a semantics game but sorry, fuck you

    lets look at bbc, first result we get when we search "台独民意调查“ on google.hk because apparently google.tw is too spicy for google’s techbro commissariat. whatever, close enough:

    2020年的数据首先反映在统独立场。台湾人偏向“台湾独立”的支持度为27.7%,是历年最高;“尽快独立”的民意有7.4%。此外,希望“两岸统一”则占5.1%,是历年最低。选择“维持现状再决定”的民众比例为28.7%,而且在持续下降中。“永远维持现状”者占23.6%

    even tries to reframe it by breaking up de facto status quo supporters into two camps but plurality still supports status quo

    how about cn language natopedia

    2020, NCCU (same as the bbc study):

    1. “尽快独立”占7.4%
    2. “偏向独立”占27.7%,为历年最高
    3. “永远维持现状”占23.6%
    4. “维持现状再决定”的民众比例持续下降至28.7%
    5. “尽快统一”占0.7%创下新低

    2021, united news:

    1. “尽快独立”占18%
    2. “维持现况再独立”占16%
    3. “永远维持现状”占51%
    4. “维持现状再统一”占6%
    5. “尽快统一”占4%
    6. “无意见”占3%

    2022, ‘taiwanese public opinion foundation’ (read: cia cutout):

    1. “坚持台湾独立”占27.3%
    2. “赞成但不坚持台湾独立”占22.8%
    3. “维持现状但偏台湾独立”占11.3%
    4. “永远维持现状”占8.4%
    5. “维持现状但偏两岸统一”占6.0%
    6. “赞成但不坚持两岸统一”占9.4%
    7. “坚持两岸统一”占2.4%

    look at how they progressively split the status quo category (the size of which does not demonstrably change) into smaller and smaller demos to try and push an agenda

    let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and more closely examine what is obviously the most compromised source here. this is the cia cutout’s (shitty and completely unprofessional) paper from this year. they’d probably lose funding if they put something as damning as actual independence vs status quo numbers out there so they decided to go with plausibly deniable second order opinion sets and STILL get blown the fuck out

    just take the L dude, taiwanese are completely cognizant of the fact they’re being primed to be the next ukraine and most of them understandably want no part of that





  • you realize that the uptick in frequency of these ‘provocations’ only started in response to the pelosi visit? the incident that had a considerable portion of the entire chinese population howling for the cpc to shoot down the plane and engulf the world in nuclear fire? this is the cpc’s way of appeasing its very large and very rabid nationalist constituency (who are very disappointed that they have not died in a nuclear armageddon, btw) and it is a meme on the chinese internet that despite all of its rhetoric, this pathetic level of ‘not touching you’ fuckery is somehow the lowest that the cpc is willing to stoop to when faced with a de jure violation of its sovereignty.



  • the GLF was economic policy made in response to withdrawal of soviet technological and financial aid during the sino-soviet split, one of the primary motivating factors of which being soviet insistence on china essentially allowing the soviets to recolonize the port of dalian to build a naval base from which to deploy its pacific fleet.

    on top of being under sanctions from the west, the sino-soviet split further deprived china of markets with which to support its all-important capital intensive industries and so china was forced to resort to agricultural export as a method of making up the shortfall. collectivization was also pursued simultaneously to pool domestic capital for internal consumption, but due to various geographical, technical and political considerations, internal consumption was not sufficiently stimulated to support manufacturing, and so agricultural export became the primary way to finance china’s continued industrialization. most accounts that are not hysterically anti-communist (including liberal darling amartya sen) of the period around the 1958 famine have records of aggregate production being more than sufficient to sustain the overall population, with the primary points of failure being overzealous local governments in highly productive areas, as opposed to popular western conceptions of overbearing central government mandated directives.

    all this to say that hitler and the holocaust’s relevance as a point of comparison to mao and the GLF as anything beyond ‘people died when he was in charge’ is laughably superficial and mostly only functions as a thought terminating associative fallacy for juicing your dopamine receptors in order to immunize your brain against more correct opinions.