|
OwlBot 2000 posted:So Computer Parts, is it OK to talk about helping people in India as long as suggest a Chicago School Islamic Theocratic regime, just to make sure there's no chance that it could ever support other things I like later and prove the purity of my motives? Leaving aside the fact that I truly think some socialist programs and strong state power are the only thing capable of actually helping India at this juncture, making sure I'm not accused of Computer Parts's deliberately vague redefinition of Imperialism should be my foremost priority. You do know "White Man's Burden" wasn't originally ironic, right? People back then also legitimately believed it was the correct course of action.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You do know "White Man's Burden" wasn't originally ironic, right? People back then also legitimately believed it was the correct course of action. Our discomfort at the possibility of our being compared to the British Empire (totally an apt comparison for what I and others have suggested) and an old Kipling story should dissuade us from talking about other countries, much less trying to help them. That's the only way to make the world a better place, after all, uncomfortable silence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:We should absolutely allow our discomfort at the possibility of our being compared to the British Empire (totally an apt comparison for what I and others have suggested) and an old Kipling story to dissuade us from talking about other countries. The point is "I legitimately believe this is the correct course of action" is not a defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The point is "I legitimately believe this is the correct course of action" is not a defense. It certainly is. If my goal is honestly, sincerely to help India without any real material or strategic gain to myself or my country (ha!) then I am not an imperialist by any reasonable or historical definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Your ridiculous dichotomy offers literally no analytic utility to anyone or anything. No, it offers the benefit of honesty and reminding people that forcing others to do what you want isn't actually innately bad, or wrong, or immoral. It's neutral, conceptually speaking. Stopping someone from making GBS threads their pants and lighting an orphanage on fire, good. Forcing someone to eat paint and give you all their money, bad. Forcing a really bad person to eat paint and give you all their money so you can return the money to the people they took it from, morally conflicted. Force itself? Again, neutral. And force isn't all guns and bombs, it can be trade deals or the spread of media, it can be promoting your language over the local language, it can be all sorts of things that promote who you are and how you think over what other people are and what they think. All force is neutral on it's own, and all force is equally force. Imperialism isn't a special bad kind of force, and doing the exact same things because you want to help doesn't suddenly make you massively different than the amoral slob that explicitly wants power and influence. Helping poor starving Africans with food drops isn't suddenly not a show of power, nor does it lack ramifications for the people and the cultures around them. False dichotomies on the nature of applying force help no-one. quote:I don't know why you think Imperialism is a good term to force onto the idea of caring about people. Caring about people is caring about people. Changing the fundamental beliefs of another country to conform to your wishes may be done because you care about people, but the action itself is imperialistic. Imposing your view over others to make a world that better suits your beliefs, an act you can only take because of power in the first place. Your definition of imperialism is based on opinion and subjective morality. This is an unbalanced relationship because...what, you say it is? And if other people don't agree that the relationship is unbalanced or exploitative, are you now wrong? Some people see western liberal philosophy and it's spread as cultural imperialism. Some see it as education on basic human rights. Guess what? From each perspective, both people are right. It doesn't change that the mechanics behind that peaceful education and an actual attempt at cultural genocide play out pretty much the same way. So why should I care one side doesn't want their actions to be called imperialism while the other side does? If it looks like duck....
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:It certainly is. If my goal is honestly, sincerely to help India without any real material or strategic gain to myself or my country (ha!) then I am not an imperialist by any reasonable or historical definition. I just want to be supreme leader of the USA to make the country great again, nothing in it for me, only implementing all my political viewpoints by force!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Imperialist has always been used to refer to forcible extraction of wealth from a country or empire-building, not "encouraging someone in another country to prevent people from raping other people" or even "force against another country." Imperialism is a good, useful word and it should not be redefined to mean whatever Boogaleeboo wants to the point where no one isn't imperialist. If everyone is Imperialist, why even have the word? It's meaningless for purposes of analysis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Because you are applying your western liberal values to the running of another, non-western non-liberal country and attempting to promote them there. This presumes that liberal values are western, though, and that's wrong - there is nothing in liberal values that makes them inherent to the Western thought. The case is not of introducing alien values, it's of supporting local people who already share them. Look, what's called 'values'/'cultural dimensions'/'personality traits' are, essentially, the same things, just on different scales - personal to societal. For example, American-style liberalism, i.e. egalitarianism+collectivism, is correlated to greater Openness in the Big Five personality model. And it translates to low power distance+collectivism (plus probably higher 'femininity') in the Hofstede dimensions. Hence, American liberals have a tendency to show, let's say, Sweden or Norway, in a positive light, because the cultures of these countries score lower on power distance and individualism than the US, and much higher on femininity. And, what's important, and my actual point, these things are also reflected in the structure of the brain. Authoritarians have stronger amygdala action, liberals have a stronger ACC action. Because these things are reflected in the structure of the brain/mind, they are not entirely culture-dependent - as usually in human biology, it's nature and nurture both. You can't really argue that Indian liberals don't exist. You can argue that an Indian liberal will perceive the same things differently than an American liberal, or a Norwegian liberal - but this person will still be more likely to be more open to experience and more egalitarian than an Indian authoritarian. And because these underlying things are the same for everyone, and not culture-dependent, I'd argue that it is possible to help an Indian egalitarian without being accused of imperialism. The fact that although people are raised in different cultures, they can have the same biologically determined tendencies, is also the reason for the emergence of a trend of global tribalism - people who have similar prevalent cognitive styles flock together, even if they are from different backgrounds, even different countries. Nationality is only one determinant of one's identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Owlbot 2000 is right, some people are arguing with a faulty definition of imperialism that has been neutered to mean "any outside intervention"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
on the left posted:I just want to be supreme leader of the USA to make the country great again, nothing in it for me, only implementing all my political viewpoints by force! There is some element of force underlying the maintenance of the status quo and all forms of realising change, further everyone supports the things they do because they believe them to be correct. Thus all forms of action including inaction are incorrect? Or you know imperialism has a much more specific meaning than some people in this thread are pretending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:16
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:You mistake the point. There are exactly two positions towards the rest of the world around you: There is isolationism, and there is imperialism. Think of it as defense and offense. You are either trying to keep the rest of the world out and not caring in the slightest what they do with their time as long as it doesn't impact you....or you are attempting to exert some form of control on the world around you, to extend your thoughts and beliefs to others, so they are more agreeable to you and what you want. List of notorious imperialist cliques: Amnesty International, the Red Cross, the United Nations and so on List of non-imperialist countries: Juche North Korea, the only one apparently
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
meristem posted:This presumes that liberal values are western, though, and that's wrong - there is nothing in liberal values that makes them inherent to the Western thought. Liberalism is a Western tradition. The notion that there's nothing "Western" about a tradition which presumes monist European nation-states as the basic organisational mode for society is bizarre. The fact that liberal thought is now ubiquitous doesn't change the fact that essentially all of the intellectual foundations are European, and the specific ways in which liberal values are pursued (the 'trinity'- representative democracy, free markets, human rights) are distinctly Western, with long and storied histories in Western societies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Dusz posted:List of notorious imperialist cliques: the United Nations and so on Like I'm not even going to get into the other ones, but do you know how many times the United Nations has gotten in trouble for landing troops in some oppressed region and starting up child brothels? What the gently caress gave you the impression the UN was some shining force for truth and justice? It's a largely powerless cheerleader club for how awesome it is to be rich and powerful whose commands are ignored when inconvenient. No more or less. It's done some good, and it's done some evil. It is, largely, a tool for imperialist forces seeking to maintain the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
If you legitimately believe it's either isolationism or imperialism as if it's some kinda off/on switch I don't know how you can think anyone will take your view of groups like the UN seriously. Like, you've already established that literally anything but isolationism (which, in itself if a huge spectrum) is imperialism to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Our discomfort at the possibility of our being compared to the British Empire (totally an apt comparison for what I and others have suggested) and an old Kipling story should dissuade us from talking about other countries, much less trying to help them. That's the only way to make the world a better place, after all, uncomfortable silence. No, just no. Look, I know you mean well. But no action you could ever possibly take that has any kind of impact can be separated from the racist and authoritative ideas in this thread, and which you yourself have espoused. Like, this thread itself is a refutation of your idea that we, the West, should Do Something. This isn't some "Oh, if we find some magical combination of aid/education/political pressure it'll work out." What your epousing is an extraordinary Western idea of of "Solutionism." That there is is a solution out there for every problem. This is simply not true, if you take into account the record of the last 200 years of Western intervention. Sometimes, any and all intervention, no matter how clever or valid the idea will be doomed to failure, and hurt the very people you're trying to help. Whether it's the mutation of said idea when it's actually implemented, or the ignorance of the people you're trying to fit into a Western Post-Enlightenment model. If you listen to any of this, listen to this: In the West, doing nothing is actually far far braver than doing something. The idea that doing nothing is the easiest path in Western/American society is a complete lie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Like I'm not even going to get into the other ones, but do you know how many times the United Nations has gotten in trouble for landing troops in some oppressed region and starting up child brothels? What the gently caress gave you the impression the UN was some shining force for truth and justice? It's a largely powerless cheerleader club for how awesome it is to be rich and powerful whose commands are ignored when inconvenient. No more or less. It's done some good, and it's done some evil. It is, largely, a tool for imperialist forces seeking to maintain the status quo. You see this is why your understanding of imperialism is so general as to be useless - either you can condemn just about anyone under charge of "imperialism", or imperialism itself is now okay because everyone is an imperialist.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:If you legitimately believe it's either isolationism or imperialism I mostly think everyone in this conversation is human filth, but the UN is legitimately pretty hosed up so people should probably look into that if they weren't aware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:29
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:I mostly think everyone in this conversation is human filth, but the UN is legitimately pretty hosed up so people should probably look into that if they weren't aware. Hey, stop right there. I'm sure you have something much better in mind than the UN - why else would you be so obnoxiously smug and self-assured. Would Your Highness care to enlighten us sub-humans about these ideas? Do this, or us lowly Scum of the Earth might start thinking you're just a loudmouthed contrarian clown.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Hey, stop right there. I'm sure you have something much better in mind than the UN - why else would you be so obnoxiously smug and self-assured. Would Your Highness care to enlighten us sub-humans about these ideas? Do this, or us lowly Scum of the Earth might start thinking you're just a loudmouthed contrarian clown. No I'm pretty much entirely loving around because Owlbot was a joke in the India thread in GBS, but the UN has actually gotten up to some terrible things that just get brushed under the rug. And I'm surprised every time people forget that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:38
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:the UN has actually gotten up to some terrible things that just get brushed under the rug. And I'm surprised every time people forget that. So what? This isn't news to me, if that's what you were thinking. So what do you want? This world minus the UN, or what. I think you ought to say something because the argument reaches a lame dead-end if this is as far as you're going to go.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:No I'm pretty much entirely loving around because Owlbot was a joke in the India thread in GBS, but the UN has actually gotten up to some terrible things that just get brushed under the rug. And I'm surprised every time people forget that. We didn't forget it but that doesn't make you not a crazy dude for acting like they're standard operations or whatever and the UN is part of the "IMPERIALISM ON" side of the switch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Dusz posted:So what? This isn't news to me, if that's what you were thinking. So what do you want? This world minus the UN, or what. I think you ought to say something because the argument reaches a lame dead-end if this is as far as you're going to go. So you are telling me when making a joke post about groups that aren't really imperialist you intended to put the group that is *literally* a giant imperialist clique in with the rest, and that was intentional? Is this some sort of high form irony at work or what? Cuz that was my only actual intent in the thread so far, going "No seriously the UN is in fact a horrific bastion of imperialist excess". Tatum Girlparts posted:and the UN is part of the "IMPERIALISM ON" side of the switch. No, the powerless social group run by the most influential imperialist forces in the world is in fact a guiding beacon of tolerance and human development. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:53
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:So you are telling me when making a joke post about groups that aren't really imperialist you intended to put the group that is *literally* a giant imperialist clique in with the rest, and that was intentional? Is this some sort of high form irony at work or what? Cuz that was my only actual intent in the thread so far, going "No seriously the UN is in fact a horrific bastion of imperialist excess". I think the world has legions of flaws. Again - you think that is news to me, or anyone? This is what I think - the UN is imperfect but the world minus the UN is worse. In the context of the world, as it is right now, launching a tirade of smears against the UN is countereffective, unless it is coupled with a similar effort to replace it with something else (or to create the situation where it is obsolete). Such ideas (within reason) - that's all I am asking out of you. Also, having browsed D&D and its offsites for like 3-4 years, I don't think you should be allowed to post whatever under the defense that it's just a "joke post". It's just compulsive and wasteful behavior. I get why people do it - a lot of people think the world with all its problems is like a crushing sack of misery that you can't get rid of. They want relief, they want to be over it, and one of the ways to do that is through ironic detachment. However even if it is a decent way to self-medicate, it's not a fix for anything - it's mostly just waste.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I think the world has legions of flaws. Again - you think that is news to me, or anyone? Who gives a gently caress about that, I asked you a specific question: Did you intend to put the group that is explicitly run by and for the interest of the most powerful imperialist forces in the world in a section you implied weren't imperialist or not? Answer the simple, direct question. Because it is the point of what I've been saying, rather than a tangent you are going off on. And I'll ask another very specific question just to get ahead of it: Do you deny the UN is a tool for imperialist forces? Not "is the world better with the UN or not", the actual thing I just said. Do you think the UN is a tool for imperialist forces?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:28
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Who gives a gently caress about that, I asked you a specific question: Did you intend to put the group that is explicitly run by and for the interest of the most powerful imperialist forces in the world in a section you implied weren't imperialist or not? Answer the simple, direct question. Because it is the point of what I've been saying, rather than a tangent you are going off on. I'm sorry you don't get to carry out a smarmy witch hunt when your own position is completely unestablished, based on faulty analysis and butchered definitions, and you're a typical "funny irony" contrarian coward who likes to latch on like a tick to anyone with a firmly stated opinion, while himself not committing to any position. I brought up the UN because I don't think anyone on D&D can make a level-headed case against it and I haven't seen any anywhere, in fact. I hold to the position that while the UN is deeply flawed, the world minus the UN is worse. In order to change my mind, it's not enough to just throw out factoids. Maybe you think that is accomplishing anything - but let me remind you - I can get such "quality criticism" of the UN from even bigger fools than you, such as the NWO cult or libertarians. And their criticism is also factually accurate at times - but I don't become a NWO fanatic or a Ron Paul fanboy. Criticism in a vacuum is useless, criticism only has purpose if you present an alternative, both an interpretation as well as a practical proposal. So if you actually wanted to make a statement about the UN (instead of compulsively poo poo-post like the coward that you are), you would present one. So you could show how we could put together something better than the UN, or you could show me a way forward that renders the UN obsolete. Anything except what you're doing right now. I have an inkling on who or what you are, and I'm guessing you want to either maliciously poo poo post because you haven't taken your loony pills, or zealously shout for what you take to be the "right opinion". Even on your own terms you're a failure. In all your boisterous rhetoric, you have made yourself appear the clown (you're looking way worse than Owlbot), and have not given anyone any idea as to what your cause actually is. So you fail at propaganda, you fail at analysis - in short, you're a waste.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Wow, that was a lot of words to not answer a question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:22
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Wow, that was a lot of words to not answer a question. I answered the first in detail, and I had already answered your second question sufficiently from different angles before you asked it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:If you listen to any of this, listen to this: In the West, doing nothing is actually far far braver than doing something. The idea that doing nothing is the easiest path in Western/American society is a complete lie. Cool let's all sit on our hands. There is nothing Indians can learn from Western society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Wow, that was a lot of words to not answer a question. Although I'm tired of the white man's burden apologetics, if you really cared that much about the UN being used by powerful imperialist(I don't deny that btw) purposes why don't go and make an OP discussing the UN how it's good, bad and how it gets used by powerful nations to further their own goals and what you can do to prevent it, ex. Change it, remove it or replace. There I'v already made half the work for you now why don't you go and start that OP instead of cluttering up this GBS/DnD hybrid thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
In some way I take the derail about imperialism as a symptom of the fact there isn't easy or even relatively clear solutions to India's situation. India has tried autarky and ISI, it obviously reached its limits by the 1960s and the switch to globalized neo-liberalism since the 1990s looks like it may be winding down as well. To be personally honest, I don't know if necessarily strict Marxist-Leninist or Maoist policy can be much of a help either since India in many ways is very reliant on trade (and has a trade deficit). Top-down centralization may lead to more efficiency in certain regards but also abuse of power and a cultural revolution is easier said than done. There is also the chance India will be isolated economically (more so than it was than a non-aligned state) if it took a sudden revolutionary lurch, something that would be devastating to the economy itself. However, there is also the issue of industrialization/urbanization and how many people Indian factories and cities can hold (which I don't think is infinite), this is especially an issue because India's birthrate is so high. People who move to the cities will still be replaced in the countryside. So India walks a pretty fine line, and to be honest has far less leeway than it appears. Obviously the real issue is the countryside itself, and that redistribution needs to happen within the context of still being acceptable politically and ideologically to India's trade partners. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I answered the first in detail, and I had already answered your second question sufficiently from different angles before you asked it. No, you have a metric fuckton of personal attacks against me but you never actually answered those two questions. Those two simple, unambiguous questions. You raised moral issues about the UN, but you never said "Yes I think this is an imperialist group". Which is sort of something you'd need to do to answer the other question of "Did you intend to put this imperialist group in a list you implied wasn't imperialist?". Which is the other question you never answered. You also only have 7 total posts in this thread, and none before I posted, and the only thing you've examined from multiple angles is what a terrible person I am. Just to keep things clear. Which leads to the final question, which I wasn't going to ask until you answered the other two [Making a grand total of three simple questions you haven't answered], of why you felt the need to put an imperialist group in a list of implied non-imperialist groups to make a point. Which was the question I was actually building towards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In some way I take the derail about imperialism as a symptom of the fact there isn't easy or even relatively clear solutions to India's situation. India has tried autarky and ISI, it obviously reached its limits by the 1960s and the switch to globalized neo-liberalism since the 1990s looks like it may be winding down as well. To be personally honest, I don't know if necessarily strict Marxist-Leninist or Maoist policy can be much of a help either since India in many ways is very reliant on trade (and has a trade deficit). Top-down centralization may lead to more efficiency in certain regards but also abuse of power and a cultural revolution is easier said than done. There is also the chance India will be isolated economically (more so than it was than a non-aligned state) if it took a sudden revolutionary lurch, something that would be devastating to the economy itself. I definitely don't agree with the autarky bit, I meant forcing industrialization in a way that serves the export market well, whether that is electronics or clothing or any other kind of good, and yes, subsidize the foreign capitalists by allowing for low wages but keep things improving for workers through social services and infrastructure improvement. Make India attractive for foreign capitalists by having a well-educated populace, lots of infrastructure and a strong central government. Cut into China's market share a bit. It initially wouldn't be very revolutionary, at least in a way that would threaten foreign capitalists and force some kind of response -- it would be even a little better for American corporations in the short term. Later, after the groundwork is laid you can start socializing things -- but India currently has no means of production to seize and it cannot possibly create them on its own at this point. More and more I think Deng Xiaopeng was a good communist who was just playing the long game, instead of trying to compete openly with America before China was ready. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:59
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:No, you have a metric fuckton of personal attacks against me but you never actually answered those two questions. Those two simple, unambiguous questions. You raised moral issues about the UN, but you never said "Yes I think this is an imperialist group". Which is sort of something you'd need to do to answer the other question of "Did you intend to put this imperialist group in a list you implied wasn't imperialist?". Which is the other question you never answered. Well, I came here because I saw you making a horrendously flawed argument, using a definition that you butchered, while you refused to give us even the slightest indication of what you were arguing for, just what you were arguing against. All of this is something that often happens unchallenged. And seeing as I had a little bit of time to waste, I thought I would get you to stop ruining this thread. And seriously, could we drop the masks already? You're not asking me to answer yes/no questions because this is a pop quiz, you're trying to box me in. You're trying to direct the flow of the discussion so that after I answer, you can skewer me with a witty piece of rhetoric. I've used that trick as well - you get someone to answer a loaded question on your terms, and only then you deliver your actual point. It makes for a great effect. And don't try to deny it either - what else might you be "building" towards?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Dusz posted:You're not asking me to answer yes/no questions because this is a pop quiz, you're trying to box me in. No I pretty clearly have boxed you in seeing as you've refused to answer the question like a million times times now, and your inability to do so has lead to nearly a dozen posts that have nothing to do with the topic, completely ruining your supposed reason for getting in the thread: Your attempt to "get [me] to stop ruining this thread.". Even if I was trying to 'gotcha' somehow it would have been over by now. Now it's not, because you refuse to answer the question of why you put the UN in a group you implied was non-imperialist. Your idea of a leading question is "Is this what you meant, and if so why?", and this is what you complain about. And you do so while accusing me of not giving a clear idea of what I'm arguing for. Your inability to answer what should be a simple and non-controversial question is making you look like a crazy person. That is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:12
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:No I pretty clearly have boxed you in seeing as you've refused to answer the question like a million times times now, and your inability to do so has lead to nearly a dozen posts that have nothing to do with the topic, completely ruining your supposed reason for getting in the thread: Your attempt to "get [me] to stop ruining this thread.". I have been posting on D&D a while, and in here, all arguments of any sort are either one ideology vs another, or zealots vs some poor guy who is just trying to express himself. Maybe you haven't realized it already but our argument isn't any different, the relevant point here is whose going to make "his point", how and for what. Everything else is just jockeying to get either of us into a better position, so we can give off a more forceful appearance. You're just upset I revealed your old trick, and told everyone what game you're playing. I know the other half of your old trick is to make the other party look bad because he won't answer a "simple" question. Well tell me this - why would I answer it on your terms, now that you yourself have admitted it was loaded, and you were setting me up for a "gotcha". Do you really think you can get away with it now?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:No, you have a metric fuckton of personal attacks against me but you never actually answered those two questions. Those two simple, unambiguous questions. You raised moral issues about the UN, but you never said "Yes I think this is an imperialist group". Which is sort of something you'd need to do to answer the other question of "Did you intend to put this imperialist group in a list you implied wasn't imperialist?". Which is the other question you never answered. He gave a better description of the UN than the binary "imperialist/not imperialist". Count me as another person who thinks you're being an idiot. And it's so obvious why - when you strip a word down to the point where it basically no longer carries any useful meaning (everyone is an imperialist according to you) you've made a mistake. When you doggedly defend that mistake for pages you're wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I definitely don't agree with the autarky bit, I meant forcing industrialization in a way that serves the export market well, whether that is electronics or clothing or any other kind of good, and yes, subsidize the foreign capitalists by allowing for low wages but keep things improving for workers through social services and infrastructure improvement. Make India attractive for foreign capitalists by having a well-educated populace, lots of infrastructure and a strong central government. Cut into China's market share a bit. It initially wouldn't be very revolutionary, at least in a way that would threaten foreign capitalists and force some kind of response -- it would be even a little better for American corporations in the short term. Ultimately the issue is that India has been already trying that for the most part, and I am not certain a strong central government would be the game changer especially since any efficiency is going to come at a cost of likely disorder since India is very ethnically and linguistically pluralistic state. Also to be frank, China is going to do that better than India would ever hope to, and even China is having trouble with exports. To be honest, as I said in my previous post, I believe the market for exports may not expand as previous thought and that "market share" that India hopes to catch from China is going to be decreasing if not from actual real losses but from competition from every other part of the developing world. India wages may be a bit lower but ultimately they can only go so low which means its comparatively advantage is going to be marginal even if you somehow centralize a country that in some ways wasn't even centralized to that degree under the British. Deng Xiaopeng realized that China needed capital and trade with the US (and the rest of the west), as shown by the development of South Korea and Japan was going to be the quickest way to accomplish that but it ultimately had a lot of draw backs. It allowed China to develop to a considerable extent but created a lot of other problems for Chinese society. Yes, I think India would be envious of that type of growth but I don't think it is in the realistic realm of possibility at this point. If anything India may have to prepare for slower growth, and a increasing trade deficit while at the same time trying to improve infrastructure, and increase relative human development in rural areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Still haven't answered the question. asdf32 posted:He gave a better description of the UN than the binary "imperialist/not imperialist". Which has what to do with the issue of "Why would you put an imperialist group in a non-imperialist listing to make a point?". Like, at all. He wasn't making some wider moralistic point there, or weighing the pros and cons of the UN, he was just flat out saying the UN isn't imperialist. So does he actually believe that, or was he just lying to make a point? quote:And it's so obvious why - when you strip a word down to the point where it basically no longer carries any useful meaning (everyone is an imperialist according to you) you've made a mistake. When you doggedly defend that mistake for pages you're wasting everyone's time. I didn't, I admitted like 10 posts ago I was just doing that to gently caress with owlbot's thread. It's like you aren't actually reading what I type. I mean shame on me and all for that, but seriously: What is your excuse for arguing without reading what I'm saying? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:51
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:I didn't, I admitted like 10 posts ago I was just doing that to gently caress with owlbot's thread. It's like you aren't actually reading what I type. I mean shame on me and all for that, but seriously: What is your excuse for arguing without reading what I'm saying? Oh so you're now also admitting your only purpose in this thread is to poo poo post. Care to leave while you still have some dignity left?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Dusz posted:Oh so you're now also admitting your only purpose in this thread is to poo poo post. Care to leave while you still have some dignity left? Wait, seriously, you just noticed that now? Does *nobody* read their own posts or the posts of other people in D&D?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:55
|
|