This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I repeat, "the West" routinely does corrupt shit that people in China get executed for. Virtually the entire American MIC would get the lethal injection in China, it's just legal and accepted. Being forthright about your vices is kind of a virtue, but only so long as people are not deceived that vice is actually okay.
What about COVID? They had wrong priorities, but broadly competent execution and thus very low deaths for the entire period of the lockdowns until Omicron. Maybe some data had been fudged at the margins. The denial is, again, circular.
What about statistics? For example they are often accused of distorting their GDP growth; the Fed thinks it's about accurate, just smoothed for whatever internal accounting reasons. They have significantly more honest accounting of manufacturing productivity, and accordingly higher productivity, both in units per worker and output per dollar of cost, which is to be expected seeing as how they clobber everyone in the global market. Tons of «Western objective reliable processes» is Eagle Burger Freedom Institute for Democracy inventing a contrived composite index to rank countries or companies from best to worst, it's so far divorced from base layer of reality that I have no idea who needs that. I don't know what you mean by «information».
Regarding pretense: «China has stated its position on multiple occasions on Greenland. The international law underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter is the foundation of the current international order and must be upheld. We urge the U.S. to stop using the so-called “China threat” as a pretext for itself to seek selfish gains.» I have no idea what you mean, they «pretend» as much as anyone, and they also don't bomb random countries or kidnap their presidents (they totally could stage coups in Africa for their benefit at this point, they do not). Your morality and idea of good and evil are comically self-serving.
We've just had a Chinese person explain that this is wrong, the petty corruption is pretty much gone, why do you believe you have a better clue as to the state of their corruption or how «superficial» the competence is? I think Xi is a true believer in anti-corruption because he's a child of true believers, has been a true believer all his life, became Chairman on the anti-corruption agenda at the peak of Chinese corruption scandals, purges loyalists who've been growing corrupt, and by all visible indicators corruption is down. It's not anarcho-tyranical, there's no anarchy to speak of, at worst there's tyranny. You're just rehashing tropes 10-15 years old.
Other tropes about disappearances etc. are also unsubstantiated.
They do not "while contribute to some renewables". They are the only player in town., eg “in 2023 China produced 98% of solar wafers, 92% of cells and 85% of panels globally”. They carry the entire renewables revolution, pretty much single-handedly, for the last decade, they are the ones who kept investing in it and made it economical rather than a boutique graft opportunity for Europeans, and now they're exporting cleantech for higher value than the US exports fossils. This was a conscious choice, they could have just kept scaling coal consumption.. It's largely strategic but also ecologically minded.
Whether «the West» is broadly good or bad is uninteresting because the West is largely made up of two parts: deindustrializing decaying states like the UK and most of the EU, and major fossil producers like the US/Canada/Norway/Australia. Someone needs to have industry to produce all the goods our industrial civilizaiton relies on. This someone happens to China. In light of this fact they've done pretty well on developing towards a more ecologically friendly regime.
Basically, the question for me isn't whether they're good or bad in some absolute sense. The question is how responsibly have they acted in their particular circumstances, which is, starting (say, after the death of Mao – I won't get into the merits of Maoism now; his power was a product of his key role in the creation of the state itself and unfortunately he couldn't have been dislodged earlier) with a very large, very poor and very angry population, in possession of little resource endowment but massive military potential, and facing an ideologically hostile West committed to convert or destroy them in the long run. What did they prioritize, and how did they execute? The standard for such situations is very, very low. In this context, I say they've acted with nearly unprecedented prudence and restraint for a major power, and produced unexpectedly good results: reduction of poverty at home, exporting deflation abroad, bailing you guys out in 2008, maintaining the economic viability of dozens of small states now, and not going on a conquest spree, even as they've been the largest industrial power with the largest army for many years now.
Morally, it is comparable to the rise of the United States.
More options
Context Copy link