Joncash2

Only in times of war. It's literally one of the checks and balances to specifically prevent a president from stopping an election. Now, if we start a full blown war with Russia...

If that happens good? Why do we think having countries and borders that creates strife a good thing? If we eliminate all borders and are just humanity I see that as an absolute win.

I'm curious. When you read articles about how great the economy in the US is and it's just the voters that don't understand, do you agree? Do you believe the US government no matter how badly they do? If you don't believe the US government on this, why do you believe what their propaganda says about their enemies?

It's because they were never that effective before. But with the advent of drones, they have suddenly become a wildly important protection. This is cause the drones can get stuck in those slat gaps. No other weapon before had this kind of weakness. They were all basically just ballistics before drones.

Oh thank God for a moment there I thought we might actually do the right thing. Thank God for our global leaders assuring the universe will be safe from the disease that is humanity. /s

This is true, China doesn't care. I'm actually confused about the narrative around China wanting to take TSMC. Even the most cursory glace at the situation should make it obvious this isn't one of China's goals. This is because these EUV machines don't work on magic. They work on knowledge and spare parts. Even in the unlikely scenario that China somehow invades and these machines aren't destroyed by either China or the retreating Taiwanese, they aren't going to be able to operate them and more importantly get spare parts to keep them running. They'd at best be used to disassemble and review.

All of this ignores the fact that China is already at 5nm using their own equipment anyway. For the extra 2nm of difference between TSMC's 3nm to SMIC's 5nm isn't large enough to rationalize anything close to what they're talking about. It'd be cheaper to just keep subsidizing the Chinese industry rather than invading.

All of this is to say, that China may or may not invade, but TSMC isn't on the list of reasons. If anything, it's on the opposite end. China has a LOT of motivation to bomb TSMC to prevent the west from getting chips as if TSMC is gone, then suddenly Chinese 5nm are pretty much the most advanced chips in the world (besides Samsung). Thus, the real conclusion is we need to invest in Samsung, which surprisingly isn't happening for whatever reason is beyond me.

Uh yea, it's very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don't like.

We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn't cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it's literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it's applied to a group you don't like you just dismiss it? That's hilariously ignorant.

Also, what's happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they're just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it's just whatever group is next.

Edit. BTW that's why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.

I mean if that's your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren't separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They're taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That's what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They're going family to family to make sure they don't break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.

Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that's what they're complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It's why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.

*Edit: In fact there's video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it's entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I'm pointing out is, they're absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.

Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.

Unfortunately I can't find articles talking about bed sharing without it being from western media. It's obviously not something that's news worthy to begin with. I only know this because of my friends from the Xinjiang region.

The problem with the concept of cultural genocide is that there's a culture to genocide. Culture is defined by the situations and effects of the moment. Culture changes, ebbs and flows. The Menorah is as much a part of Jewish culture as the Torah. But the Menorah was created out of what we today would call cultural genocide. You can't genocide culture that idea is ridiculous, instead the culture will adapt and change with whatever is happening at the moment.

The question then isn't is there cultural genocide, but what if anything we should protect in a culture. USA used to have a culture of racism, we obviously went out of our way to "culturally genocide" that. Should we have not done that? Should the fact that it was part of our culture mean we should protect oppressing black people? In reality, by our own definitions, some cultures do need to be genocided.

Well a problem with your argument is that assimilation is not only not unethical, but absolutely necessary for a functioning society. Imagine if you will for a second if our culture accepted racism and bigotry. It would be necessary to force assimilation on people to stop racism and bigotry. Oh wait, that's happening right now. We're literally forcing a culture of acceptance on a culture of racism and bigotry. Is that unethical? Should we stop? Perhaps we should have colored drinking fountains.

The problem you're having with China is:

1. The government is the one that's doing it, instead of naturally letting companies like Disney shove it down people's throats.

2. The assimilation is over reaching.

The biggest problem is #2. We don't know what the fuck that means. Should I be allowed to say the N word if there's no other racism or bigotry? If there's no racism and bigotry, is the N word even racist? Yet we enforce word usage today, just words that only have meaning because we give them meaning. yet it's quite over reaching to censor words no? Where's the line drawn?

It's a hot take because while you are right, it's something that all countries do. It's just not necessarily the government that does it. Just look at the culture wars in the US. China's biggest difference is it's controlled by the government. But it also has nothing to do with Xinjiang. They do it to everyone, Hans Chinese inclusive. Technically that's what the great leap forward was. First forcing the Hans Chinese people to assimilate to the government's idea of a unified country. It worked, so they're pushing it everywhere.

Also, it's important to note that the only violent enforcement of this was on the Hans Chinese. This was Tian an men. After that they've gotten really good at subversion. There was only one suspicious killing in the HK riots for example. For as large a protest as it was, it was largely nonviolent. Compare that with BLM in the States.