Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Intelligence Squared"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanfriesen9837
Our assessment of the business-govt relationship is quite the same, I think. Although I said 'comfortably allied', I thought it went without saying that the govt absolutely wears the trousers. And like you (it seems anyway) I'm watching for signs that the rich will start very very carefully to assert themselves. They will have to wait for men born later and with more regard for rich businessmen to move up in Beijing, I believe. And even then they'll be risking their necks.
What I wonder is, can that day ever arrive? Rich people get their way in this world, but I hear rumblings about govt intentions to swing way Marxist again as soon as growth has funded enough civil infrastructure, productive capacity, and weaponry. That would be one colossal stratagem. If it were to come about, fortunes would be seized, their owners exiled, jailed, or, you know, disposed of by New Red Guardsmen, surely?
Till next time. I'll always keep my eyes open for your comments. I don't know about you but I dabble all over the place. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanfriesen9837 Thanks for your reply. I'm not going to dig through the thread for my old comment, but I certainly never meant to "advocate for private fortunes". I probably just said Xi or his CPC successor is likely coming for them. So that's your inference, one made, I would imagine, after accurately detecting that I'm not a socialist or communist.
And it's not a surprising one given your overall tone, which matches that of typical Western sympathizers of the Soviet state in the mid-1930s---haven't seen any abuse by Stalin, great advances made, some things slightly troubling, injustice probably no worse than things in the US or Britain, repression no more than breaking some eggs on the way to an omelet, etc., etc.
That worked out well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ordinarily I would pass over your comment without comment of my own, but considering that good English is itself the subject, I feel it apposite to suggest that you recast it, removing the awkwardness so that readers may understand it first time through. (f you do, I'll remove this paragraph. Fair is fair.)
As to your point itself, invoking Shakespeare, I think I'll leave the Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle debate largely out of it, but wasn't there a Roman saying along the lines of 'Jove is permitted what an ox is not'?
P.S. I'd like to be helpful, not just critical. If you like, you may avoid all caps by italicizing. Type an underscore on both ends of the text concerned, no spaces, and presto, italics !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thchen8312
Thanks for your reply.
True, China and Japan are not to be too closely compared.
But if you think Japan did not scare the US throughout the entire 1980s, I suspect you were not alive at the time, or if so were in short pants. Surely even in China people knew this.
Many people in the US, even the educated, though not most I believe, thought that Japan could replace the US as the world's leading economic power. I'm not kidding.
The loss of manufacturing capacity, rising imports from Japan, massive inflows of Japanese capital to buy up major companies and landmark real estate in the US, technological outpacing by Japan, the strong yen, incredible real estate prices in Japan, and the immense size and strength of Japanese banks were some of the most important reasons, but not the only ones.
Now you know more.
My impression, moreover, is that Japan was at that time a bigger worry to Americans that China is to them now. That is, if the culture and media are any indication. I think Americans worry somewhat about war with China, but not that China will buy their country or do much more to threaten its economic future than it already does.
I can only guess why, but it's an easy guess. I think Americans vaguely believe that China will sooner or later stumble so badly that it is set back for a few decades or longer, because it does not have a multi-party system, in contrast to Japan, which they expect to persist for a long time. When China's crisis hits, I think it is assumed, its form of government will change and it may splinter, in all of this scenario surely recalling the example of the USSR, with whose flag the Chinese flag shared its colours. Americans think communism, even the sham communism of China, doesn't work. They think a people who are not free could never defeat them. This surely includes many or even most important politicians and many journalists.
They may be proved wrong or right. For my part I feel their belief is too strong. Cheers.
1
-
1
-
@thchen8312
You convince me of the likelihood that your disposition is dominated by sweetness, which is itself a fine thing, but I maintain that vigorous criticism is the job of educated people in a free society. Such a society quickly falls apart without what you call critical judgments. If you don't care much about whether a society is free, you may wish to consider that Confucius himself is relentlessly critical of unenlightened men and their errors.
No conversation is over just because somebody utters the word 'bias'. If you think you are free of bias I respectfully suggest you ponder it further. One may with hope in their heart regard themselves as low on unfair bias, but that's not the same thing.
Moreover, while you stress how full you are of love, respect, spirituality, and acceptance of difference, one can't fail to notice the strength of the criticism you direct at me in your last post. Although it's couched in polite language, you're actually saying I'm biased and disrespectful. But while I find this frankly hypocritical, mealy-mouthed, and passive-aggressive, I'm not in the least hurt or offended. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism whether I feel it's fair or unfair. I merely assert that improving the world starts with looking in the mirror.
Still, I do appreciate and see value in a veneer of politeness, as long as it's within certain limits of sincerity. We ought not to be at one another's throats, after all. The estimable Confucius would approve, too, I think.
Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Le Ploutonomiste I wondered whether, in borderline cases, native intelligence and sensitivity (neither in any way pathological, meaning healthy) lead to pathology on account of preventing healthy social development (or, to make it simple for you to grasp, if life is easier for average people), or if poor social development owing to any reasons at all can foster high intelligence and sensitivity by forcing a search for answers in the face of painful maladjustments (again translating so you can get it: if being a fucked-up social loser benefits perspicacity and cleverness).
I didn't say anything about myself. So your empathy and advice, though appreciated for its earnestness, is misplaced. A very neat line in presumption, officiousness, and vulgarity. You understood what didn't exist to be understood and did not understand what I did write.
(By the way, gay and homosexual may be different things to you but they mean the same thing in the Anglosphere, and gay is an English word.)
I won't wish you well with your mental problems, if any, as they are none of my business. But please accept a cordial adieu.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1