Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by ismey, Oct 3, 2014.
Occupy movement reawakens and in China no less.
this wasn't planned and coordinated along with the ukraine protests from a while back, at all. at all.
this time around the end game is probably just to disrupt and shake china as much as possible while squeezing some after effects from them, like certain accepting deals. who knows maybe they (west) even genuinely are trying to make HK demo to have it as it's own trading partner and partial individual. it makes sense since HK has a very specific traveling policy already for chinese outside of HK coming and settling into it.
But no sane person would deliberately try to make china 100% democratic, including US officials. it would be the end of modern countries in other parts of the world. imagine an influx of 900+ million people gaining access to foreign markets in a free and open society. free to move wherever and whenever they please, to buy up as much land and populate as much as possible. similar scenario with india.
If Ismey had a properly working brain and a good memory and/or willingness to look up the history of OWS he'd never compare HK protests with OWS. The reasons behind them as well as their goals are different.
Simply put, HK is quite happy about being Capitalists, they aren't protesting against income disparity, they haven't been infected by the stupid ideals of egalitarianism or feminism and whatnot.
They aren't happy about Communist party of China appointing their Govt. officials however and giving them no real representation.
The people of hong kong a majority support markets it does not follow that they are capitalists or support capitalism, a majority are liberals of a social democratic strain.
Just because a country is called communist does not mean it functions that way, China is pure state capitalism, which means no direct elections for the ordinary people and creates beaurocratic elite which monopolises state power, no workers cooperatives in control either just pure corporations like foxconn.
Free market is Capitalism, it's just the vast majority of its proponents don't like to use the latter word because of useful idiots like yourself. Hong Kong's has the closest economic model to Capitalism. Your attempt to separate the two is pathetic.
Moreover, the vast Majority of people in Hong Kong don't even support these protests. It's the young 16-22 yo students who fighting the fairly useless fight.
China is not communist but it's not State Capitalist either, by claiming that you basically show that you have no clue what State Capitalism is and how biased against Capitalism you really are, but I didn't expect anything else from a herdman. Moreover, elections have no bearing on economic model whatsoever, so you shouldn't have even mentioned them.
What China has is Socialist Market Economy. Here, even Socialists admit China is market socialist; http://www.socialismtoday.org/122/hybrid.html
Here is some more; http://knowledge.insead.edu/economics-politics/the-changing-of-the-guard-chinas-new-leadership-2359
P.S. The elections and democracy always lead to collapse and deterioration of countries as a whole, truly democratic elections are always based upon "Populism X Majority" model that tends to lead to complete failure. In Honk Kong's case those student shouldn't fix what isn't broken. On the other, the HK's elite does actually have an ability to cast votes that matter in Electoral College, which is the way it ought to be, only those who have a proper knowledge of politics and high social standing should be able to affect the politics.
liberals and social democrats dont support capitalism? how high are you right now?
and china isn't even fully communistic anymore. it's a hybrid. democracy doesn't work for them, if it did then they would've been one when the allies/us invaded them after ww2. they became the west's bitches back then and AFTER when most of the nation was starving to death and the US decided to give them unprecedented aid. why do you think the US has it's massive debt nowadays. if we didn't buy shit from them they wouldn't have an economy to live by.
even up to this day, this idiotic dogma of "cheap labor" where you see giant corporations like Apple and w/e, they take their businesses there for mass production while paying people 10 cents on the dollar. a shitty habit that on one side worsens those people's livelihood and at the same time gives them reason to give birth to more people that will do the same thing. and the process just keeps repeating itself.
also china's history pre-dates since 15.000 years ago. you think an infant like the US of A that was born yesterday can come in and be like "yeah, freedomz for erryone. whoohoo!!". these guys have been through more reforms that you can think of. imagine if they actually had elections every 4-5 years, even their 10 year mark right now is a stretch. it would be chaos. rioting in the streets, people being divided on which politicians/president to run the country.
imagine basic fucking regulations like birth rate control. if over 1.2 billion people had the freedom to go anywhere they wanted to and reproduce as much as possible. regardless of any consequences and full backing from their gov and other govs. or if the banking sector would allow cash flows to go from inside china outside of it freely. there would be no fucking china.
like i said, i believe the west isnt ready to give up on HK. even after the uk gave it back to the chinese. pretty sure most of the west was waiting for this to happen anyway. HK may very well become a partial individual with it's own government and economy in the near future if the west actually presses on it.
as you've probably seen lately in the news, and well it's been happening for decades now. Whenever a new company tries to grow roots inside china, they simply learn from these foreign companies what kind of business they're doing, then kicking them out and starting their own enterprises exactly like them. pretty sure the west is tired of that and is just trying to make HK + Macau a safe haven for corporations to thrive.
also a great steppingstone inside china. similar to ukrane and russia. you know, just in case.
but, hey you can just believe in that other story. freedomz, and everyone holding hands, fucking john lennon singing in the background and all the kids shouting "democracy, democracy" while thinking no one of this was planned ahead. arab spring, ukraine protests..."imagine all the people"
"Liberals" is a very loosely defined term, my dear. In America, ever since 30s or so Liberal in USA meant left of the center, the main reason for it is the preceding intellectual milieu, where the Conservatives where the more Capitalist pro free market guys and Democrats where more of a Govt. interventionist guys IE the democrats where more trendy and eager to accept the newer ideas and new ideas of 20s and 30s where mainly Socialistic in their nature.
In Europe (and Asian, look up Hong Kong Liberal Party), Liberals are right of the center, look up "Classical Liberalism, Mises".
Are left of the center. Most of them want to combine markets with govt redistribution. Their main goals are universal equality. But, unlike more direct Greens and Socialists they are softer and milder.
Anyways, if it's not broke, don't fix it; http://www.straitstimes.com/news/as...dia-reports-biased-against-china-says-shanmug
"The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves."
John stuart mill
John stuart mill, essentially the father of modern liberalism, advocated women rights and as he said above proposed workers cooperatives an economic democracy basically.
I like to think of myself as an equality egalitarian, even though it's not a 100% position social democrats believe in. Even though they tend to be for equality, they do not follow egalitarianism. The main reason for that is because it's so close to being perceived as communism. It further expands from being equal in rights such as voting, freedom of speech, security to equal in worth and social status which means that all should be paid and viewed upon as the same.
However no matter how you look at it, it pretty much is the core of communism. Basically, it's centered more on collectivism than individualism. Probably the scariest part of egalitarianism. It sounds fine at first and yet when you put it in practice, well you get you know, dictatorships. Someone to enforce it and then there's everyone else.
Egalitarianism does have it's good parts, some of them found in gender equality, religious equality, (political is kinda fuzzy). Like for example, the notion of men and women being paid the same amount for the same type of job. Or how people from one religion treating equally and fairly people from all the other ones & non-religious.
And the reason why I bring this up is that even though equality and egalitarianism sound the same, they're not. Equality is incredibly vague and more related to legal aspects of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality), while the other to social and belief systems, even politcal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism)
Dominant beliefs, ideas and most importantly ideologies always give birth to legal aspects of life. As a matter of fact it's just the former one being enforced through the latter one. Law is force.
Moreover, people as well as sexes are not equal and making unequal things equal is what I call injustice. It's also stupid.
What makes you think people have rights in the first place? At best they are arbitrary abstractions made up by elites as rules and laws for the rest of the people to follow, rights come in both negative and positive form, look it up. And then there is a bunch of philosophers who made up their own theories of rights, all of them are different and all of them are non sequitur.
It's not better for every single citizen to have an ability to cast votes, universal suffrage turns countries into populist shit. Most people are so fucking dumb and gullible that even you would look like a genius compared to them. Moreover, most people have no clue about economy or politics, they'll vote for any swindler who will promise them hope and change or will talk the tough patriotic talk. They can also be deceived in mass and not be even aware of it for the rest of their sorry lives.
People shouldn't be paid or "viewed upon" the same, that's the biggest pile of shit I've heard..today.
So naive, stupid and fairly mainstream. Men and women always get paid equal, or rather appropriate amount for their jobs when you compare them properly. Not just sexes but the backgrounds of those sexes, their social standing and capabilities. I'm not surprised you fell for this 40 years old talking point democrats/social liberals love to bring up, as I told you in the past you're stupid.
The religious "freedom" can only exist within a society that oppresses or manages religions equally (which is not possible, it can manage them about the same at best), across the board. But once you pull the force factor, the law, out of the equation religions always start to duke it out until one of them becomes the predominant force within a certain geographical area. There is a lot more to it, some religions don't mind sucking up to the helmsmen, they can offer a lot of means of subjugation of the masses to them. But regardless, I see no reason why atheists should treat religious equally. In the long run it doesn't cause any change, the society stagnates, the better men don't get to elevate themselves and the worse types of men, the chandala caste doesn't get what it deserves.
Anyways, you suck. You're tad bit too timid and you lack the drive let alone honesty to see the world for what it is. Or maybe you're just incapable of forming proper judgments.
So you're basically saying that the people of Hong Kong don't deserve equal rights because they look different, have different religious, political and cultural views than others and because somehow their voice is weaker shouldn't be helped to reach those basic standards? Man, Communist Ukraine really did a number on you. It's like you went from one extreme to the other.
And this is quite priceless when you say women are treated equally. Well, putting to side that you don't even specify which women, it's kinda ironic seeing someone that originated from eastern europe not recognizing the problem. Apart from plenty of western countries aka western europe, usa, canada, you're going to see a lot of biased towards women. I would give personal examples how one works overtime and gets paid just as much as her male counterpart when she is even in a more valued industry that does pay more but only to the male ocunterparts, but then again you probably left when ukraine was still a communist country.
Either way, one nation or even region within it can have political reforms AND equality + some forms of egalitarianism such as freedom of practicing your religious beliefs and equal salaries for the genders. Of course, I mean at a microlevel in very exact examples like: man + woman working in the same industry, same type of job position, same firm, doing the exact same hours, putting the exact same work and being paid the same at the end of the day. And we're not talking here of places like Holland or the US.
Don't even get me started on the biased towards foreigners that get a job out of their country compared to the natives. (and this is already well known and recognized throughout the world it's just really hard to combat it since you can't just really force that nation into giving immigrants more money)
And a more precise example towards this topic, you can have, say, a political reform such as China's restriction on leaving permanently the country (freely) or wiring all your funds out of state and still have equality within that same nation/region.
I'm saying that rights do not exist. I'm also saying the political system they've got in Hong Kong works well and therefore there is no need to fix something that is not broken. The equality you speak is a delusions driven by moralist fanatics. It doesn't exist in nature, it only exists as a useless abstraction, as a Moloch for sickly men to worship.
They don't, Hong Kong is fairly monolithic in regards to ethnicity. It's religious make up is of no consequence however, people who live there do not seem to be driven by supernatural doctrine.
The question you ask me about helping or not is pointless. If you think they should be helped then feel free to sacrifice for them and acknowledge their delusions. Your last comment is nothing but a mismashed attempt to offend me, if you would have been a smarter, more well informed person you'd never blame Communism or ascribe any Marxist characteristics to what I had said before.
It's not bias, but an acknowledgment. Have you ever asked yourself why there are Masculine and Feminine character traits? It's because on average men and women tend to have different aspirations which are driven by their physical attributes, mainly hormones. Although the discussion of this topic might prove to be extremely challenging, it will be both based upon subjective experiences and a lot of postmodernist, feminist memes which have infected the culture.
I didn't argue that women ought to be oppressed by men, I'd much rather prefer to see both sexes play their natural roles.
But, difference initiates inequality. And everything is different in this universe, which is great.
The Ukraine bit (you seem to leave way too many of them, ask yourself why I'm not bringing your background all the time but you do.) is fairly silly, unless you forgot about my age and our..encounter in Amsterdam. But if you forgot about it that's a good thing.
Why are you telling me about how you want the world to be? I have no desire to make it so nor can I. Moreover, you seem to base every want of yours on your personal, subjective sense or morality which is driven by your emotion and visions which you sucked in like a sponge from popular culture and some pundits, talking heads, etc.
Which is fine. But it's your vision, not mine. And since you can't make it true, since you're powerless, just as me, I don't care.
You can't have it because there is no such thing. People are unequal. You could have a judicial system which would supposedly deal with other people on equal grounds but that's also a dream because people, human beings will be that system's practical application.
I guess I'll quote the Big Mean Book, let's see how it goes, ahaha!
China people think too much of themselves _l_
Are you speaking from your own personal experience? I've met a a few Chinese immigrants and generally speaking they tended to be fairly humble and calm people. With 2 notable exceptions..
China is complex can't generalise an entire group/ nation of individuals, saying they "think too much of themselves" it is a very hard generalisation to make, need some statistical evidence for your claim.
Totally, we gotta solve it with the science, bitch.
But if you weren't such dumb know-nothing chicken shit cunts all ya all woulda known that Chinese have a very strong sense of ethnocentrism if you will. They consider Hong Kong as well as Taiwan to be Chinese or "of China" because those who live there are culturally Chinese.
The rest is a matter of legal issues and power play and as of today it is capable of solving it, moreover, pretty soon China will have as much influence, if not more, than USA. And here is the crux, Chinese are far more durable as a nation, as a human mass, than Westerners. Booo!
I found one of greg's old youtube videos where he talks about global warming and gender/race equality.
I don't like Ninja Turtles so it can't possibly be me.
Your infantile and hypocritical ways of laughing out people you happen to dislike/disagree with at any given moment reminded me of tsurugi's habit of bringing up your unattractive face and obesity as a valid point to shut you up. Did you like his discourse? If no, why did you post a random youtube vid claiming that it belongs to me?