No, that is not the point that was made in this comment:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
This comment makes very plain that the writer believes that a nation only achieves independence through military force.
We’re not talking about what is ‘widely acknowledged’, we are talking about what you have expressed as your personal belief. And you do have a morality problem:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
You believe that in order to be independent from mainland China, Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.
You made this statement. It is not about international law, or opinio juris, or any other deflection you want to attempt. It is about what you believe justifies a nation’s independence, and it is solely based on the exercise of military power.
No, you said:
I would simply win the civil war instead of losing
Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don’t get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.
I see, so “might makes right” for you then?
I appreciate you making your sense of morality - or lack thereof - so very clear.
Yes, an authoritarian government with a lot of economic and military power just made it a crime to even speak about their own country’s independence, so they have legitimate reason to be afraid.
Just don’t walk behind them, or they might try to kick you.
This is really good advice for basically every animal with hooves. They mostly have a blind spot directly behind, like horses:
If you walk up behind them inside that blind spot and then move out to either side and suddenly appear in their vision, they’ll react defensively, usually by trying to kick you with their hind legs.
Basically if you can’t see the animal’s eyes then assume it can’t see you, and stay out of kicking range.
I’m having trouble understanding your point. What is the “quiet part”? That representatives from a foreign government visited Taipei?
This kind of action is more likely to make people reject the message.
You’re right that this doesn’t compare to the death and destruction in Gaza, but that doesn’t make it productive or helpful.
I’ll take “what is reductivism?” for $400, Alex.
No, I think it’s an invalid comparison. Do you struggle with reading comprehension?
Considering that this particular incident happened near the Second Thomas Shoal:
which is awfully close to Philippine territory and nowhere near China, I find your “but-what-about” attempt here specious and shallow.
I don’t think it’s valid to compare a full-scale ground invasion with smashing up a patrol boat. Ground invasions are overt acts of war, no matter how much the invader might want to label them as “special”. In this case I don’t think China wants an open conflict with the Philippines, not yet anyway. If you’re actually invading you don’t vandalize one boat with hand tools and then run off, like teenager leaving a burning bag of shit on someone’s porch.
This is about China doing whatever it wants, and international law be damned. It’s more of a Cartman-esque demand for obedience and submission.
China is probing the US’s willingness to get involved in another conflict.
“Stupid and petty” is how international bullies operate. Pointless violence is how immature people express their “strength”.
I know there have been maritime issues between China and others within the last few years or so
All of the maritime issues have been caused by China attempting to claim the entire South China Sea as their private property, in defiance of international agreements about national coastal waters. All of those issues were provoked by China trying to exert control over coastal waters that are rightfully the property of other nations, such as Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. China is a bad neighbor.
“Manipulate” is perhaps an overly cynical way of saying that everyone has their own motivations, which they pursue both consciously and unconsciously.
It factors into China’s ambitions to control the entire South China Sea:
Straight-up imperialism. All your ocean are belong to us.
Yeah, attacking a military unit seems like an act of war to me. Pretty blatant. Demonstrates that China only behaves as a bad actor with its neighbors, and can’t be trusted to be anything other than a bully.
This is basically China daring the US to do something about it. We shouldn’t take the dare, but we should respond with a show of support for the Philippines. China is flexing because they think the US is too busy with Ukraine, Israel, and the upcoming election.
Steve is one of those guys that has done so much with computers that if you have a problem it’s highly likely that he’s already dealt with that problem too and has a solution or workaround, or knows where to find one.
Yeah, I started listening to the podcast a couple years ago, and based on that I’d trust Steve’s opinion on basically everything related to computers & networking - largely because I know he’d be able to explain in detail why he has that opinion.
Lemmy is an absolute waste of time
You say that like it’s a bad thing
Ah, another appeal to violence as the source of morality.
It’s very funny for you to accuse anyone else of being authoritarian.