Youtube comments of Hiyuke La Vie (@hiyukelavie2396).
-
11000
-
4000
-
2700
-
2500
-
2000
-
1800
-
1100
-
946
-
772
-
679
-
628
-
575
-
523
-
495
-
467
-
432
-
411
-
375
-
365
-
353
-
346
-
326
-
309
-
306
-
265
-
224
-
221
-
203
-
197
-
196
-
183
-
181
-
174
-
173
-
171
-
160
-
158
-
140
-
131
-
130
-
126
-
125
-
118
-
105
-
104
-
101
-
100
-
95
-
94
-
92
-
90
-
88
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
81
-
77
-
77
-
73
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
30
-
If he doesn't have any regrets, then why is he running and hiding?
If he truly feels that his cause is just, then just turn himself in, and he can tell his side of the story in court
Wouldn't that be the best way to advance his cause? Turn himself in, let the supposedly corrupt system punish him, thereby proving to the world that the system is corrupt. There would be an outpouring of sympathy for him, he can make a martyr out of himself, and perhaps even reenergize the movement
Isn't this his golden chance to accomplish what he wants, to be a hero for the movement, to be the Nelson Mandela of his city?
But he doesn't want to do that, because deep inside he knows what what he did was wrong. He knows that there will be no sympathy for him, and he knows what he will simply go to prison like a common criminal
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
To be fair, the Chinese also did not believe in a fair playing field. They also subscribe to the zero sum game mentality, even today
They shout about meritocracy today not because they truly believe in it, but because they are losing the zero sum game. I can bet you that if the tables were turned, and they were winning the zero sum game today, they would not give a single rat's behind about meritocracy
I've had conversations with many Chinese people in Malaysia, and even after decades they still don't seem to understand the concept that it is actually to their benefit to see the Malays proper
When the Malays, who account for half of the population of the country, prosper then the country prospers. A prosperous country is good for everyone involved, Malay or Chinese
But they don't understand this very simple concept, and are myopically focused only on safeguarding their own interests
So yes, when you have a community who is disproportionately ahead of everyone else, who also gatekeep opportunities to themselves, government intervention is not only expected but also necessary
The only sad thing about Malaysia's AA policies is how it has been hijacked to benefit only a very small select group of Malays, instead of the entire community as a whole
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@vegasgirl3538 Correct
This is what I observe in many women. They pursue a career, they earn their money, they buy things for themselves and travel wherever they want
It's a great life, it's understandable that they don't want to give that up for domestic life
But at some point, after they've seen most what they wanted to see, buy most what they have wanted to buy, travelled to most where they wanted to travel, they inevitably start feeling bored with life, because things are no longer new and exciting to them
It is at that point that they start thinking about domestic life. Unfortunately, by this time, they are usually in their late 30s or 40s. Their window for having their own children is rapidly closing. Some start taking drastic measures that they wouldn't have even imagined when they were young (going on blinds introduced by their parents, start looking for partners online, dating divorcees, etc), and some just resign themselves to living alone
I have many female friends who are like that
It's too bad, because many of them are nice ladies. They were just too distracted living and enjoying life when they were young instead of looking for a partner, and now that they are old their window has passed them by
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
This is unorthodox, but I feel one of the strongest tickets the DNC can field is a Yang/Biden ticket - that's right, Yang as president, Biden as VP, not the other way around
Yang and Biden are probably the two candidates who has the best chance at peeling support off Trump, and the key to beating Trump would be to turn some of his supporters
A Yang/Biden ticket also appeals to both the progressive and moderate sides of their party, with Yang being the progressive and Biden being the moderate
Yang's the right candidate to lead the US, but his weakness is his lack of experience in governance and lack of political allies - this is where Biden can play an important Obi-Wan role for Yang, and be a bridge between Yang and the establishment politicians
Warren is going to be crushed by Trump, and while Bernie is good as well, I feel his time has passed, 2016 was his year, not 2020
As for Tulsi, she's somewhat of a one trick pony - she'd be better suited as secretary of state or something
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@beckyweiss6072 I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Confucianism, so I can't really comment. That's why I'd like to read up more
About the status of women though, it's interesting that you mentioned how Spartan and Ottoman women were involved in fighting
China is probably one of the few cultures where there are numerous recorded instances of women leading armies. I'm not talking about leading tribal uprisings or peasant mobs, but actual generals with ranks conferred to them by the state
One famous example is the princess PingYang of Tang dynasty. She was actually buried with full military honours. I don't think that happens very often in human history, a woman leading the emperor's army and being given a grand military funeral upon death
Other famous ones are Liang HongYu, Qin LiangYu, and Mu GuiYing, for example
Again, we're talking about actual generals, leading the empire's army, with official ranks conferred to them. There are not many cultures who can make the same claim
Which one shows a higher regard to women? Giving them a weapon and telling them to join fight (like the Spartans and Ottoamns), or giving them an army and telling them to lead the fight?
If we widen the parameters to include women who led rebellions (like Boudicca), the list grows longer
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@jenimarai1906 First of all, can you objectively say you know what Tiannanmen was about?
What you know about that incident came from Western media, and according them, China brutally cracked down peaceful demonstrators - this is what the western media wants the world to see
According to China, it was a movement incited by the CIA, aimed at creating unrest with the goal of a regime change, and the demonstration itself was infiltrated by people working for the CIA
Which version is true?
The Chinese regime is capable of great brutality, true. But it is also true that the west, under the name of spreading democracy and freedom, messes with other countries all the time
The only thing we can say for sure is that we don't know the full extent what actually happened, and everyone is trying to spin the incident their way in their favor
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@bierdlll @Pidgeon "Deng Xiao Ping stopped centralized economic planning and opened up to global market"
And last I checked, DXP was the paramount leader of the CCP in the 80s, and his successors, who all carried on his policies, were all leaders of the CCP as well
So yes, factually the CCP lifted the Chinese out of poverty - even if you don't like it, facts remain facts
No, Trump got elected President because of the industrial Midwest
Do yourself a favour and read up on a topic before you start talking
The MSM would like you to think that Trump won due to Russian interference or whatever, but the simple fact is that disenfranchised Americans, primarily from the industrial Midwest, all the swing states that Trump needed to win and did win, came out in force and voted for Trump
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Ok, let's assume the best case scenario for US forces
The US navy completely destroys China's navy, and the US air force wipes out China's air force
China tries to retaliate with ballistic missiles but those all get intercepted at a 100% rate
US submarines and carrier groups bomb the entire Chinese seaboard with impunity and wipes out all Chinese military bases and factories
For all practical purposes, the US can now land troops unopposed anywhere they want on China's coast
They do that, and bulldoze their way to Beijing in short order
And they miraculously manage to do all this while sustaining almost negligible loses of their own
In short, the war goes swimmingly well for the US
But now what?
So the US has occupied the entire coast and also Beijing
What next?
Pop some champagne and receive China's surrender?
Unfortunately, they won't surrender. To them, the war has only just begun
See, even if in the best case scenario where everything goes right for the US, it's not going to lead to an end to the war
It'll simply lead to dragged out conflict spanning decades, with the US trying to hold on to the coast while China simply retreats to its interior and launch opportunistic counter attacks, while conducting guerilla warfare against the invaders on their own home ground
In short, it's going to lead to another Vietnam or Afghanistan type conflict, except on a MUCH, MUCH bigger scale
I mean, Afghanistan is a fraction of China's size, and at its peak the US had about 110,000 soldiers there. In order to maintain their hold on China's coast and surrounding areas, the US would need to pour in considerably more personnel than that
The US could try to brainwash the Chinese people in areas it conquered and install a puppet regime supportive of the US, but that's more of less exactly what the did in Afghanistan with the Taliban
There's just no way the US can capture China
As discussed, even if the war went perfectly for the US in the early years, it's not going to lead to a quick end of the war, it'll simply be the beginning of a decades long conflict, and it'll be suicidal for the US to pour in ground troops trying to hold territory that it captured
And this is all assuming the best case scenario for the US
In a worst case scenario, where China's missiles destroys entire carrier groups encroaching its shores, the war is going to be even more painful for the US. It's safe to say that the US president who orders US carriers into Chinese waters only to be sunk by missiles is not going to survive the next election
Both sides know that there is no way the US can win a war against China. A war between the two is going to be a very painful one for both sides involved, and China has a much higher pain tolerance. It's the reason why Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi could look US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in the eye and say the US is not qualified to speak from a position of strength
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hijodelsoldeoriente Saying that colonialism has positive effects is like saying WW2 had positive effects - hey, WW2 did vastly escalate human technological progress, so nevermind the hundreds of millions of innocents killed, right?
Colonialism is a blot in history, make no mistake about that - trying to whitewash it by saying it brought "positive effects" is purely that, whitewashing
As for them making a "statement of historical fact", no, I would disagree as well - they implied the Queen (aka the British) made them great - India is the largest democracy in the world and had been colonized for far longer, yet it is a literal shit hole these days - why didn't the Queen make India great?
There are many factors behind HK's achievements in the past century, and yes having access to British education may very well be one of the reasons - but to solely attribute HK's success to the Queen is misguided, or romanticized as you said
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Ken Yam You speak of democracy as if it is the holy grail of Japan's success, and you brought up how Korea and Taiwan did not have their own elections until much later, as if that somehow made them lesser nations
India is the world's largest democracy, has been so since 1951, yet it remains largely a poor and underdeveloped country
The Philippines was an ex-US colony and held its first election in 1937, yet it produced one of the most corrupt dictators in recent history, and millions of Philipinos today have to work overseas to eke out a living
Indonesia is the largest democratic Islamic country in the world, yet as recent as 1997, it participated in ethnic cleansing of its Chinese population, and the person most responsible for that is still free and even running for president today
So when you make it sound like democracy is some kind of barometer to measure a nation's success or worth, I have to say it sounds quite strange to me
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dfc803 Cure your ignorance
As early as 1951, DS Onn Jaafar opposed UMNO's Malay supremacy ideas and established the Independence of Malaya Party, a non communal political party that was open to all Malayans regardless of race
Unfortunately, during the KL municipal election of 1952, one of the earliest elections in Malaysia (which was still known as Malaya at that time), the party was thoroughly rejected by Malayans and basically wiped out, winning only 1 out of 13 seats being contested
The fact is, KL was overwhelmingly Chinese at that time, meaning most of the voters in that election were Chinese
Take a moment to digest this
DS Onn Jaafar rejected UMNO's brand of racial politics and offered the Chinese a vision of an inclusive Malaya where race shouldn't play a role in governance
But what did the Chinese do?
They wiped him and his party out, and chose to vote for racial politics by backing an UMNO-MCA alliance
They did that because the UMNO-MCA alliance fielded mostly Chinese candidates
So there you have it, the Chinese were given a choice of racial politics or non racial politics, and they chose the former
So no, the Chinese never cared for equality or fairness
They were very happy to support racial politics, as long as they thought they were benefitting from it
Too bad for them UMNO would end up dominating the alliance in very short order
In some ways, it's just karma, the Chinese supported racial politics back when they thought they were winning, but are now crying and moaning about it once it's become clear that they are the losers in a race based government
So if you really want to assign blame, don't just blame the Malays, the people you should really blame are your ancestors, the Chinese people in KL, who chose UMNO-MCA's race based politics instead of DS Onn Jaafar's vision of an inclusive Malaysia
But of course you don't know any of these, because you were never taught any of it
All you're taught is to hate UMNO because "uMnO bAd"
And you wonder why you are in the sorry state you are in now?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@8is Lol, two things
First of all, you didn't say "government corruption" in your first comment, you said corruption. You don't need me to tell you that there is corruption in the private sector
Secondly, even in a completely free market, there will still be standards and compliances. So that a vendor couldn't advertise chocolate and then sell you a piece of turd instead. And as long as there are standards and compliances, there will be corruption, because there will be people who are willing to pay a bribe for inspectors to look the other way. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you this, unless you are a child who has never stepped into the real world
Again, you realize how pig sh*t stup*d it is to equate capitalism with no corruption
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ewoudalliet1734 Oh wow, so much ignorance
1) "Taiwan only claims them because China does"
Like I said, wow, this is so ignorant to the point of almost being stup*d
Taiwan, or the ROC, has been claiming islands in the South China Sea as far back as the 1920s, back when even France and Japan were trying to claim to islands for themselves
Source:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144468615.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjbmfv60o3wAhVqzDgGHTouDpIQFjALegQIEBAC&usg=AOvVaw2aQ4Y2Ece3hi-CZm1bw47a&cshid=1618950293332
It sounds like you are the one who has a lot of reading to do
2) "I don't see either Taiwan or Vietnam destabilise the region like China did by building military bases"
Again, this is so ignorant that I'm not sure that you are really this uninformed or just trying to troll
Taiwan, or the ROC, sent military personnel to Itu Aba or Taiping Island in 1956 and has occupied the island since then
Source:
https://amti.csis.org/itu-aba-island/
There has been documented clashes between Taiwan troops stationed there and fishing boats from Vietnam and the Philippines over the decades
Vietnam too, had been building military posts in the Spratlys since the 1980s, which it has continuously been upgrading
Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/international.thenewslens.com/amparticle/97948
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0cd8fc6c-ac86-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122
The funny thing is, back in 1956, Vietnam had actually come to an agreement with the PROC and chose to relinquish its claims in the Spratlys
Decades later, they changed their minds and started reclaiming the Spratlys
So who is the one being aggressive?
Like I said, I'm not sure whether you are really this ill informed, or you are just an China hater trying to troll
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sayantikamondal6402 Characters who I am OK with surviving:
Tyrion and/or Jaime, since they have unfinished business with Cercei
Jon, Danaerys, and Sansa, since the question of the North's independence and Jon's claim to the throne still needs to be resolved
Clegane, because Clegane Bowl needs to happen
And yes, Sam, Gilly, and little Sam, because Sam is basically GRRM's stand-in
Other than that, everyone else should have been fair game
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@帝徳高校岩崎 Instead of trying to be the western powers and colonize other countries, Japan should have used its power to help other countries fight off the western powers
For example, instead of trying to conquer South East Asia, Japan should have helped south east Asia kick out the Dutch, the French, and the British, and help the south east Asian countries achieve independence
Japan could have easily done it too, as the Imperial Japanese Navy at that time was much more powerful than the British fleet in South East Asia
I believe the South East Asian countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, etc) would happily regard Japan as a friend and trade with Japan if that had been the case
Also, same thing with China
The western powers were busy ganging up on China, and Japan took part as well
If Japan hadn't taken part, and instead had helped China modernize instead, again, I believe China would be quite happy to trade with Japan
Japan had a lot of power in the early 20th century
History would have been quite different if Japan had chosen to be a friend to other Asian countries instead of trying to be their new master
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dreamwolf7302 The US made a deal with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia agreed it, and other petroleum exporting countries, would only transact oil in US dollars
In return the US protects Saudi Arabia with its military
Look up what "petrodollar" means
In a vacuum, it's genius. It ensures that the US dollar becomes the most sought after currency in the world, since virtually every country has to buy oil. For Saudi Arabia, they get to use the US military like their own private army, directing it at their enemies. It's win-win
It's shady, because it means the US actively props up a murderous regime in Saudi Arabia
It's also what drove US foreign policy in the 20th century
It's no coincidence that countries that were deemed "enemies" by the US, such as Russia, Iraq, and Venezuela are all oil producing countries who do not like the arrangement the US has with Saudi Arabia
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
While I'm 100% in support of people standing up for their rights, this demonstration does feel a little silly
First of all, the protestor are yelling about democracy and freedom, but this is an extradition bill, not some bill curtailing press or personal freedom or anything like that - it's a bit like going to a pride rally and then shouting about veganism, it just seems odd and out of place
Secondly, the protestor claim that the extradition bill is an evil law that will allow China to arbitrarily extradite people to be trialed in China - but do they even know how extradition works? For someone to be extradited, he has to commit what is considered a crime by both territories
In other words, for someone from HK to be extradited to China, first they have to commit an actual crime in China, and then more importantly, it has to be something that is recognized as a crime by HK law as well - so saying that the extradition bill will allow China to unilaterally abduct people from HK is just stupid horseshit
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@unvaccinatedAndPureBlood Oh, I see what we're talking about here now
Chinese virologist, Yan Li-meng, and her claims
According to the American left, she's already been debunked though
For example, in an article published by Vox on Sept 18 2020, her research was criticized badly, and shown to be part of Steve Bannon's effort to "expose" China
Also, according to Vox's article, she promoted hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for COVID-19
You can see why some, like me, find her credibility to be highly questionable
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correct
This is what I observe in many women. They pursue a career, they earn their money, they buy things for themselves and travel wherever they want
It's a great life, it's understandable that they don't want to give that up for domestic life
But at some point, after they've seen most what they wanted to see, buy most what they have wanted to buy, travelled to most where they wanted to travel, they inevitably start feeling bored with life, because things are no longer new and exciting to them
It is at that point that they start thinking about domestic life. Unfortunately, by this time, they are usually in their late 30s or 40s. Their window for having their own children is rapidly closing. Some start taking drastic measures that they wouldn't have even imagined when they were young (going on blinds introduced by their parents, start looking for partners online, dating divorcees, etc), and some just resign themselves to living alone
I have many female friends who are like that
It's too bad, because many of them are nice ladies. They were just too distracted living and enjoying life when they were young instead of looking for a partner, and now that they are old their window has passed them by
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look, this is going to be a controversial opinion, but honestly the American people can think however they want to
If they want to be racist towards Chinese people, then that's their choice to make
Chinese people can't, and shouldn't expect to, control how American people think
The only thing they CAN control is their own actions, knowing that most Americans dislike or hate Chinese people
I don't know about others, but if I know that there's a room full of people who hate me, the only logical thing to do for me is to stay away from that room
It's stupid going into that room, and then whine when someone attacks you
So having the knowledge that most Americans dislike or hate them, and yet still choosing to go to live and work in America, at what point do we say that these Chinese people who are experiencing hate crimes in the US brought it upon themselves?
I mean, you know America hates you, yet you go and live and work there, but you're surprised that you get attacked?
Come on
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sambland3903 Nope, you have no idea what you're talking about
"Old" in the context of the cultural revolution has got nothing to do with age, being part of the older generation, or even having conservative thoughts
"Old" in the context of cultural revolution primarily related to things like superstition and mysticism
It's the reason why some old Chinese superstitions, such as avoiding having a 4th floor in buildings because 4 is supposedly unlucky, are mostly seen in places OUTSIDE of China
Within China itself, you MIGHT see some lingering vestiges of this superstitious belief in southern China, but in China "proper" aka northern China this has all but been stamped out
Sure, some WW2 vets might have been superstitious, and they might have been targeted as a result of that, but them being a WW2 vet has got nothing to do with it at all
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tsumugikotobuki0131 Just go read the article man
It details how the presidential debate is actually tightly controlled by the two major parties in the US. That is why independents and third party candidates are continuously sidelined
From the report:
Even if Stein and Honkala hadn't been hauled off a public street and handcuffed to those chairs for eight hours, Stein's exclusion from the debate was certain. The debates are very closely controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which excludes third-party candidates, among other things. George Farah is the founder and executive director of Open Debates, and author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. Farah told me on the morning of the Hofstra debate about how the CPD gained controlover the debates from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters:
"We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the League was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major parties had nominated."
The League of Women Voters allowed third-party candidate John B Anderson to participate in a presidential debate in 1980, and in the decade that followed, the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, sparred with the League. In 1988, the parties tried to force the League into a contract detailing how the debates would be run. Farah explained:
"It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the League found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Grendel_Zahid A x7 gain in a decade is staggering. But it is not accurate to look at the value of your parents' house and conclude that housing has gotten unaffordable
The land that your parents' house sits on is in limited supply. Of course its value increases over time. It would be strange if it doesn't. In fact, it is unrealistic to expect your parents' house to remain at the same value when it comes your turn to buy a house
But this isn't an indication of unaffordable housing. When your parents bought their house, that area isn't as developed as it is now. Similarly, you only need to look at other areas in your city that is still being developed to find houses that are affordable. These areas will probably be further away from the well developed parts of the city, but they are there. You can also move to a more affordable city. The options are there
Now, you will argue, the fact that you have to look elsewhere, isn't this a sign of unaffordable housing?
Well, no. To put it bluntly, it is a sign of your own lack of competitiveness as a wage earner
As you said, your dad was one of the few geology majors around during his time. That means he had a highly valuable skill that was in short supply. Let's assume that puts him in the top 10% in terms of employability
Now ask yourself, are you similarly in the top 10%?
Chances are, you aren't. As you said, skilled workers are almost in a state of oversupply right now
So if you aren't in the top 10% in terms of employability like your dad, why are you disappointed that you can't buy a house like your dad did?
And as I said, it's not that you can't even buy a house, you can
Your dad bought a house that was fit for the top 10%. If you are only somewhere in the top 50%, then go buy a house fit for someone in the top 50% - that probably means somewhere a little bit further from the city, or in a different town altogether. The problem is when you are in the top 50% but expect to buy things like the top 10%
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SeanGTM 1. China bullying Taiwan
First of all, I assume you mean the PROC and the ROC, respectively
Understand that both the PROC and the ROC claims to be the legitimate government of China
As for bullying, how?
You realise that the PROC and the ROC are still in the middle of a civil war, yes?
As in, there's no armistice or even a ceasefire in place
They could start shooting at each other tomorrow if they wanted to
So how is the PROC "bullying" the ROC, when it hasn't even started shooting
2. Hong Kong
I'll just link these here, since it's obvious you love getting your information from the main stream media
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2021/02/10/hong-kong-protests-rioters-conduct-national-security-law/amp/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-should-avoid-undermining-the-hong-kong-judiciary-2j7nmft5d
Read them, and tell me if you disagree
3. Tibet
And what's with Tibet?
Tibet has been a part of China since 1720 under the Qing dynasty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_under_Qing_rule
In other words, Tibet has been part of China longer than the US has existed as a country
What exactly is the issue here?
Let's see your response to these, before we continue with the other topics you brought up
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dumb video
Because rice produces much more food per land usage compared to most other major crops, except corn and potatoes
In the case of potatoes, it can only be stored for a few weeks, compared to rice which can be stored for years, so in terms of feeding a large population, rice is still easily the better choice over potatoes
But what really puts rice ahead is when you also take into account that flooded rice farms are normally also used to farm fish and crustaceans, providing even more food, so the total food yield per land usage of rice farming EASILY beats every major crop humans have
So instead of making a video to nitpick on rice, this channel should produce videos to educate people on the advantages of farming rice over other crops, so that people can switch over to rice and help humans make better use of agricultural land, because climate change and all that
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@notaworldpeaceafterall6476 What debate?
The Taiwan government clearly stated in 1992:
"Taipei, on the other hand, considers 'one China' to mean the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1911 and with de jure sovereignty over all of China. The ROC, however, currently has jurisdiction only over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese mainland is part of China as well"
Can you read?
The Taiwan government in 1992 clearly accepted that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is part of China
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look, China's invaded by foreigners, but they kicked them out in the end. Look, China's invaded by foreigners, but they kicked them out in the end. Look, China's invaded by foreigners, but they kicked them out in the end. Look, China's invaded by foreigners, but they kicked them out in the end. Look, China's invaded by foreigners, but they kicked them out in the end
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xXxSkyViperxXx It doesn't matter whether Taiwan is being "aggressive" or not
If your stance is that legally the Spratlys belong to the Philippines, then it is necessary that you oppose any party who also claims the Spratlys, including Taiwan and Vietnam
You cannot pick and choose who to oppose
Well, you can, but that just makes your previous stance, that the Spratlys legally belongs to the Philippines, meaningless
That's why the South China Sea issue is a joke
Everyone is claiming something from everyone else, but somehow China is the one being singled out for blame
That makes your claims hypocritical, because now it's clear that your claims are not about your legal rights, your claims are instead about opposing China
And if that's the stance that you choose to take, that you are placing higher priority in opposing China instead of pressing your legal claims, then can you blame China if they also take an aggressive stance?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TimeGhost Unfortunately, the current zeitgeist of the western world is that China = evil
It started in politics, with Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia" and the TPP to counter China's rising influence, and it continued with Trump's "China, China, China" diatribe, which led to the so called trade war
Next, nations got spooked by China's ambitious OBOR projects all over the world, and then with China's claim the South China Sea, and most recently with whatever is happening in HK
It's even seeped into popular culture now, with TV shows, computer games companies, and the NBA all getting caught up in the current anti China sentiment
So in this context, people are now super sensitive towards China, to the extent that it's almost currently a given that, in any discussion concerning China, one has to start by condemning the "evil regime" in China, or he or she is in risk of being immediately labeled as a pro China agent
It's sad to see entire rational, thinking societies devolve into an angry, fired up mobs right before our own eyes
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video, but there's one misconception right at the beginning that needs to be corrected
The video gave the impression that the western action, namely the opium wars, caused the downfall of the Qing dynasty
This is an incorrect, eurocentric view
The first thing to understand is the Qing dynasty was actually established by Manchu invaders who had managed to take control of China, not unlike how the Mongols previously took over China and established the Yuan dynasty
As such, for much of its existence the Qing dynasty was preoccupied with putting down rebellions that kept popping up all over the country
The Taiping Rebellion, for example, was one such rebellion, which ended up being the bloodiest civil war in human history
The Taiping rebels managed to take control of much of China's industrial and propserous south, and it was only with European help that the Qing finally managed to put it down
If anything, European actions in China probably helped extend Qing rule, by assisting in putting down the Taiping rebels as mentioned, and also later by diverting Han nationalism from being anti-Qing to anti-west/colonialism
This may sound counterintuitive to western minds, but the opium wars likely extended the lifespan of the Qing dynasty, because in the aftermath of the opium wars the Han populace now hated the west more than their Qing occupiers
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominicjohnson307 Good question
Technically the PRC and the ROC are still in the middle of a civil war. There has never been a truce, or even a ceasefire agreement, signed between them after all. For all practical purposes, they could start shooting at each other tomorrow, and there would be nothing illegal about it
However, for anyone with even a tiny shred of common sense, it's pretty obvious that the ROC had lost the civil war
What the ROC is doing, stubbornly hanging on decades after they've "lost" the civil, is just wrong. They are unnecessarily prolonging a conflict that for all practical purposes should have ended decades ago
As for which government to recognize as the "real" government of China, what do you think?
The one that represents 1.4 billion people, or the one that represents 25 million?
It's pretty clear cut, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kingofapex9493 That's the thing, these China haters cannot handle the truth. When confronted with facts, all they can do is start frothing at their mouth and go spastic and start yelling meaningless words and phrases like wumao, CCP, Xinjiang, Tianamen, Hongkong, Taiwan, etc
Most of the time, when you ask them to explain what they are talking about, they can't because they don't actually know what they are talking about, to them it's all just an alphabet soup of anti China slogans
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alexander Ilyas NIEMY [10Q2] Again, wrong
And you know what, don't listen to me, since in your mind I am just a CCP bot
Read for yourself on Wikileaks, the eyewitness account of what happened at Tianamen Square, from a Chilean diplomat stationed in Beijing
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html
You will see that the Latin American diplomat stated in very clear terms that he saw no violence at Tianamen Square and there were NO indiscriminate firing into the students by the army
In fact, most of the personnel who were at Tianamen Square were armed only with riot gear like truncheons and batons
Most of the students there were in fact allowed to leave peacefully
Aside from the beating given to the few stubborn ones who refused to leave, the Chilean diplomat did not observe any violence at Tianamen Square at all
What he did observe was bodies and wounded people being brought in from ELSEWHERE
This raises a lot of questions
What else was going on in Beijing during the same time the students were protesting at Tianamen Square? Who were these people who fought the army? Because it was clear they were not students. There are MANY unresolved questions, but what is irrefutable is there there were NO massacre of students at Tianamen Square
Unless of course you accuse the Chilean diplomat of being a CCP shrill
You see, that's the thing, for decades we have been lied to by the mainstream media, who misled us into believing that the Chinese used tanks and automatic weapons to massacre students in Tianamen Square
If not for WikiLeaks, the truth would not have come out
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pandorazhang9715 Firstly, I never used the word racist. You did
I also did not say anything about black or white people. You did
Are you sure you are not projecting something here
Secondly, you claim that race wasn't a factor in your decision to avoid Chinese people or Chinatown
I'm not sure how to put it to you, but that's an entirely self-contradictionary statement to make
If you're specifically avoiding Chinese people, no matter what reason it is that you make up for yourself in your mind, I'm sorry to point out to you, but by definition you are making a conscious decision based on race
Thirdly, as I pointed out, your excuse that you were just trying to be careful does not hold any water
If you were just trying to be careful, you would just avoid crowds in general, whether Chinese or not
Thinking that somehow Chinese people were more closely linked to the disease, and therefore specifically avoiding them, is discrimination based on race, pure and simple
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I thought I solved this, but when I continued watching the video the solution given seems a lot more complicated
My (easier?) solution is as follows:
I will give my team the following instructions
1. There are four lights, let's call them #1, 2, 3 and 4, with #1 being the indicator
2. If you see only one lit light, just destroy that one
3. If you see only one unlit light, just destroy that one
4. If you see there are two lit and two unlit lights, destroy the one that has the same state as the indicator (#1)
5. If you see all lights are lit or unlit, destroy the indicator itself (#1)
This feels like a simpler solution, doesn't it?
The logic behind this solution is this:
What I need to do is to make sure that the corrupted light is the only one that is lit or unlit, and my team will destroy it as per instructions 2. and 3.
Easy
And if this is not possible, then what I will need to do is indicate which is the corrupted light by matching its state to the indicator (#1), and my team will destroy is as per instruction 4.
And if the indicator (#1) itself is the one corrupted?
Then I can either make sure all the lights are either lit or unlit, in which case they will destroy the indicator (#1) as per instruction 5., or I can make it so that the indicator (#1) is the only light that is lit or unlit, in which case they will still destroy it as per instructions 2. and 3.
Try it with any permutation of the lights being lit or unlit, and corrupt any one of them, you will find that following this set of five instruction the corrupt light will always be the one destroyed
1
-
Some examples, with #1, 2, 3, and 4 representing the four lights
1 lit
2 lit - corrupt
3 unlit
4 unlit
I unlit 1, and 2 being the only light that is lit will be destroyed. The inverting the states of the light will present no problem, see the next example
1 unlit
2 unlit - corrupt
3 lit
4 lit
I lit 1, 2 being the sole unlit light will be destroyed
You can repeat this for any permutation of lights two lit and two unlit and see that it works
Let's try something different
1 lit
2 unlit
3 lit - corrupt
4 lit
I unlit 4. 3 being lit (same state as the indicator) will be the one destroyed. Again, inverting the state of the lights poses no problem, see next example
1 lit
2 unlit
3 lit - corrupt
4 lit
I unlit 4. 3 remaining lit (same state as the indicator) will be the one destroyed
Again, you can try this with any permutation of 3 lit/unlit lights and 1 unlit/lit light and it will work
What if the indicator was the one corrupted?
1 lit - corrupt
2 lit
3 unlit
4 unlit
I unlit 2. The indicator being the only one that is lit will be destroyed
Try it again
1 unlit - corrupt
2 lit
3 lit
4 lit
I lit 1. All lights are lit, the indicator will be destroyed
And so on. You can try with any permutations you can think of, but you can always single out the corrupt lit by following the set of five instructions given above
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The best way for the SEA nations and China to resolve this is to let China have strategic control over the islands, but everyone gets a share of the revenue generated from drilling for oil and gas
To small SEA nations, those islands have irrelevant strategic value anyway - does anyone really see any benefit for any of them to maintain a navy port in the middle of the south China sea?
For China, on the other hand, they value strategic control over the area, as a means of countering their rivals like the US
So leave the security of that area to China, and perhaps in return China can occasionally invite navies of the SEA nations to conduct joint patrols in order to improve goodwill, and fight piracy together
Economically though, everyone should benefit from drilling for oil and gas in the area
Work together and exploit the resources there together
Fossil fuel is slow being phased out anyway, so better to exploit them while they still have value
The revenue generated from drilling for oil and gas is going to be a huge boost for everyone, especially poorer SEA nations
Just look at places that have benefitted from oil like Dubai
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lufc4ps3 LOL, I'm sorry, but wrong again my friend
Ships are absolutely allowed by law to traverse the English Channel whenever they please
The only problem is, the Royal Navy doesn't like that, and invariably sends out ships of their own to say hello
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/royal-navy-tracks-seven-russian-warships-through-english-channel
Likewise, I find it impressive that you have thus far managed to carry a conversation without resorting to screaming about "wumao", "CCP shrill", "Chinese bot", and etc - you know, the usual drivel that China haters fall back on when they have nothing else to say, so well done there
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, 1:30 minutes in and I already have to pause the video to post this comment
Yes, it's tempting to view China's entire history through the concept of dynastic cycles, it makes thing a lot neater and easier to understand
But you have to understand, the Zhou dynasty wasn't just another Chinese dynasty
You see, for much of China's early history, there is no China
What there was however, was a bunch of smaller independent kingdoms
The kingdom of Zhao, the kingdom of Qi, the kingdom of Yan, etc
(Confucious was from the kingdom of Lu)
Each of these kingdoms have their own rulers, and although they acknowledged Zhou king as a sort of "king of kings", but they were all independent (they had their own currency, for example)
So trying to land that joke of China breaking apart at the begining of the video just shows a level of ignorance towards that period of Chinese history - how can China break apart when it was never one united country in the first place
It was only after the Qin dynasty that a unified Chinese state existed
It's the reason why the Qin dynasty is such a big deal in Chinese history, despite being so short lived
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"China has land disputes with all its neighbours"
Blatant lie
China has settled land disputes through negotiations with many of its neighbours, such as Russia, Pakistan, and Myanmar
China also has no border disputes with neighbours such as North Korea, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, and Laos
You repeating this blatant lie is a sign that you are either ignorant and deeply brainwashed, or you're just trying to spread anti China fake news
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanbrummfield448 I agree with most of what you said
Fewer people are starting a family nowadays, due to how society has changed, as you said. People have different ideals, different priorities, want to live different lives
And that's all fine
I'm not here to criticize people's life choices, or what they want to do with their life. What I find objectionable though, is how some are trying to externalise the decision making process, so that they don't have to take ownership of it
To me, it's fine to say "I don't want to have children, because I want to use my resources to travel and see the world instead", for example. What is not fine, to me at least, is saying something like "Oh I can't afford to have children, do you have any idea how expensive things are", when it's really the former statement they wanted to say
It feels like a cop out, instead of owning their decisions, they're trying to deflect. Maybe they didn't want to disappoint their parents, or maybe they don't want to be judged by others, or something. I can understand all that. But part of being an adult is taking ownership of your own decisions, even if it's inconvenient
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just another mat salleh making a video about something that he does not fully understand, just to put his own anti-China spin on this
For example, in the video he mentioned how Mahathir criticized Forest City, and then ousted Najib at the elections, as if it was Mahathir being some kind of champion of local interest
Please don't comment on something you don't fully understand
Mahathir doesn't give a shit about Forest City
It was merely another excuse to bash Najib
Right after his visit to China, Mahathir happily resumed the ECRL project
Malaysia is fine
We clash with China on many issues, but we are not stupid, we know what we are doing
If you mat salleh want to launch an anti China crusade, by all means go ahead, we don't care, you guys and China can nuke each other for all we care
But don't try to drag us into it, by spinning unrelated Malaysian political issues into anti China issues
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ozzy-pr5su You have to understand the difference between political parties, and the actual administration of the country
In the US, ICE agents are the ones rounding up illegal immigrants. Not the Republicans or Democrats
ICE, like the FBI, is a federal law enforcement agency, under the Department of Homeland Security
Same thing here
You can't just say "CCP runs the camps". That's just ignorant. Like I said, there are a myriad of questions about the camps that no one has any answers for, and frankly no one even bothered trying to dig
Which agency or department supervises the camps? Who are the directors or heads of these agencies or departments? Are the camps under provincial or central jurisdiction? Are the camps staffed by actual members of the CCP, or is that contracted out to a third party contractor? If it's contracted out, who do they report to?
People literally cannot make head or tails out of the situation of the camps in China, but are simply satisfied with the "CCP runs concentration camps, CCP bad" narrative
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacemerty4685 Lol
Please educate yourself before saying anything
The Korean war started as a civil war between north and south Korea, with no outside participants. During this stage of the war, north Korea's objective was to conquer the south. It achieved this objective, with Seoul being captured within 3 days of the war. North Korea clearly won this stage of the war
Of course, the US being the US, decided to intervene, and invaded Korea along with its allies, triggering the second stage of the Korean war
Against north Korea, the US suffered defeats at first (Battle of Osan). North Korea continued to push south, and was on the verge of wiping out south Korean and US troops until the US managed to land troops at Incheon behind the north Korean lines
In the ensuing months, the US began to push back against north Korea, and finally managed to recapture Seoul after more than 2 months of fighting. The US objective during this stage of the war was to defend south Korea, and they achieved this objective. The US won this stage of the war
If the US had ended the war here, they would have emerged as victors. But they didn't and this is where they f*cked up
Fueled by the momentum of their victory, the US decided to continue the war by launching new offensives into the north, with the objective of destroying the north Korean regime and unifying the Korean peninsula. These US offensives triggered the third stage of the war
Up until this point, the US was fighting only north Korea. China wasn't involved, and didn't want to get involved (the Chinese leadership was split on the topic). But despite warning the US not to cross the 38the parallel, the US did so anyway
US general Douglas MacArthur was confident the Chinese wouldn't dare get involved, and if they did the US would destroy them easily. Such was the arrogance of MacArthur that, when north Korea was on the verge of defeat, he even wanted to extend the war by attacking into Chinese territory
Of course, he wouldn't get such an opportunity
With US forces near its border, China finally decided to get involved, after being convinced that the US intended to invade China, and Chinese troops were sent into north Korea
The result was a disaster for the US. Within two months, the Chinese managed to push the US back to the 38th parallel, wiping out all previous US gains. The US was over confident of its abilities but was completely unprepared to fight the Chinese, resulting in them faring terribly
China's objective during this stage of the war was to prevent a US invasion and to evict US forces from north of the 38the parallel, and they clearly achieved this. China won this stage of the war
Of course, the war didn't end here either
China saw an opportunity to press further south, and the US was still determined to win the war as originally planned. This triggered the fourth and final stage of the war
Both sides fared terribly in this stage of the war
Despite managing to capture Seoul, Chinese offensives for the most part could not push too deep into the south. Likewise, US counter offensives into the north were swiftly pushed back to the 38th parallel. So desperate was the fighting that MacArthur requested the usage of nuclear weapons, which was denied
In the end, this stage of the war ended in a stalemate, and the Korean peninsula is what you see today
TDLR version,
First stage: north Korean victory over south Korea
Second stage: US victory over north Korea
Third stage: Chinese victory over the US
Fourth stage: stalemate
So yes, the US couldn't even handle a poorly equipped China during the Korean war. So much for being the world's greatest fighting force
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veekwok5611 "Do you know that in Guangdong, the younger generation Chinese are speaking mainly Putonghua instead of Cantonese"
Lol, compare this to Chinese people who migrate to the west, many of whom stopped speaking any sort of Chinese within one generation
"In Hong Kong, they are pushing schools to teach the Chinese language using Putonghua instead of Cantonese"
I understand why you might feel emotional about this. But try to be rational
Do you know that there are literally hundreds of different dialects in China?
Like, literally hundreds. This is not an exaggeration
Knowing that, do you think that all schools in China should be teaching the Chinese language in their own dialects?
Take a moment to think about this
You know this is impossible
It's extremely difficult, not to mention inefficient, to train enough teachers to all teach in their local dialect. What you will end up with is a shortage of teachers. It makes practical sense to stick to Putonghua, in order to train enough teachers for a nation of 1.4 billion people
This is simply the reality of the situation
Now, understanding this, what makes Cantonese so special?
Why should Cantonese receive special treatment compared to other dialects?
If Hongkies get to teach in Cantonese, shouldn't the speakers of the several hundred other dialects in China all get the same treatment?
The reality is, the vast majority of people in China understand the practicality of schools being conducted in Putonghua and have no problem with it
It's actually mostly overseas Chinese like you who moan and groan about it the most
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nevadataylor First of all, Democracy Dollars means every citizen is given $100 that they can donate to whichever politician they support
So I don't get what you mean the rich can purchase more democracy dollars - everyone gets $100
Second, the reason this works is, no matter what kind of rules and regulations you put in place, you got the face the fact, big money finds a way
You can never truly stop big money from infiltrating politics by using rules or regulations
The way to combat that is to wash it out instead, with people powered money
Say, a gun lobbyist approaches a politician, and offer him a cheque of $100,000, in exchange for said politician voting in the lobbyist's interest
Now, if 10,000 ordinary citizens give their democracy dollars to that same politician, that's $1million dollars - far out weighing whatever the lobbyist is offering
That way, the politician can then tell the lobbyist, I don't care about your $100,000 cheque, and serve the people's interest instead
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freakmoister So you've pivoted from "convention" to "common"
It still does not answer the original question
Why use the "-ese" suffix, when so many other options are available
Perhaps you are unaware, but the "-ese" demonym sometimes come with negative connotations
It's the reason why countries like India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, and The Philippines, countries where English is widely spoken, consciously avoid using the "-ese" suffix for themselves
That's why it's Pakistani, Philipinos, and Singaporean, and not Pakistanese, Philipinese, or Singaporese
And I'm sorry, but you sound like the one who's getting all worked up here
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yopyop3241 The concept of "natural rights", as you pointed out, is a concept
It is not law
Similarly, the IBHR despite its name is not a law, it is an UN resolution
So again, what is this "the law" that you kept talking about?
As you can see, you are being very vague, talking about concepts, and non binding UN resolutions
I, on the other hand, am talking about a consensus that BOTH the PRC and the ROC had agreed to, a consensus which Taiwan is now trying to renegade
As you can see, the PRC is the one abiding by mutually agreed upon rules here
Taiwan is clearly the one that is trying to go back on its word and disregard agreements that have been made in the past
1
-
@yopyop3241 You wrote a lot, but it basically still boils down to you agreeing with me that Taiwan is renegading on what it had previously agreed upon
It doesn't matter if you try to dress it up with concepts of self determination, cow dung draped in silk is still cow dung
Likewise, it doesn't matter how you try to justify Taiwan's stance. Fact of the matter is that the Taiwan government has repeatedly accepted that Taiwan is part of China, but is now trying to renegade on their own statement
And you can stop focusing on the year 1992
The same consensus was upheld by the Taiwan president in 2008
In fact, during her presidential run in 2016, Tsai Ing Wen notably did not state her opposition to the consensus, instead referring to it as "political realities"
It is only in recent years that she has taken a stance against the 1992 consensus
So stop harping on your "moment in time" argument, the Taiwan government has ALWAYS accepted that Taiwan is part of China
And finally, NO, please learn to read. I did not say the concept of natural rights is vague or incomprehensible. I said YOU are being vague, by not citing any specific legislation to back up your previous assertion that Taiwan is right according to "the law"
And the word incomprehensible did not appear in any of my comments. Like I said, learn to read
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ellezbth99 Lol smh
If you had to sign up and audition for the programme, what do you think about the host family?
Did you think they randomly picked a normal, average Japanese family? Obviously not. If you had to pass an audition, then the host family likely had to pass even more stringent requirements. They are NOT what a typical Japanese family is like
And what do you think is the purpose of cultural exchange programs? To make themselves appealing to you, obviously. Realize that what you experienced was a highly curated, more or less choreographed programme
This is not to say it's a bad thing. It's like visiting Disneyland. It's a fun thing to do, go enjoy it by all means. It's just dumb to think what you experienced in a cultural exchange program as an outsider is representative of what everyday Japan is like
It's like how you often hear of foreigners who come visit Malaysia all rave about how amazingly hospitable and friendly Malaysians are. But you as a Malaysian know that the reality of life is that many Malaysians are absolute assholes towards each other. But hey, foreigners are foreigners, they think Malaysia is some kind of paradise where everyone is super nice, so let's keep them in their bubble and not ruin things for them, right?
Anyhow there are people with even dumber delusions, so you keep doing you
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emyleaedruce4500 True
But what is the point?
The main objective of the ECRL is to link Port Klang, situated in the Straits of Malacca, to the South China Sea
Why does Malaysia need that?
Malaysia already has ample access to the Straits of Malacca, and also South China Sea
And it's not like the east coast states are manufacturing powerhouses, in which case they could theoretically gain some benefit of having direct access to Port Klang - but this is not the case; the east coast is a sleepy hinterland, whose main economic activities are chiefly agrarian
Malaysia simply does not have any urgent reasons to link its ports on the east coast to its ports in the Straits of Malacca, because it already has ready access to both
For China, on the other hand, ECRL will be of strategic importance for them, as it guarantees them access into the Straits of Malacca, and by extension the Indian Ocean
It also does not help China that Singapore, a major player in the Straits of Malacca, is not exactly a staunch ally, thereby necessitating them looking for alternative ways to gain access, in this case via Malaysia
This is purely China's project, and Malaysia is being made to dance to China's tunes
1
-
@emyleaedruce4500 As I said, you are right
My point is not that the ECRL will have zero benefits - my point is that the costs outweighs the benefits by quite a significant margin
You brought up durians, which is an excellent example - Malaysia produces some of the best durians in the world
However, it is not without challenges - for example, pests are a significant issue, and the way durian farmers have combatted it so far is via heavy reliance on pesticides, which actually have adverse effects on the durian; instead of spending RM55 billion on building the ECRL, imagine RM55 billion spent on R&D, to produce new strains of durians that are resistant to pests, thereby allowing farmers to grow pesticide-free durian; imagine also part of the RM55 billion being spent on promoting durian overseas so that countries like Japan, Taiwan, Australia, etc begin large scale import of durians - how much more benefit is that going to bring Malaysia?
Even spending the RM55 billion on building the high speed rail between KL and Singapore will probably benefit Malaysia more
There're just so many other things that Malaysia can be doing, instead of building this ECRL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ek940 Sure, I will enlighten you, since you asked politely
An opinion and a comment are two different things
"Cool"
"He had an apple for lunch"
"Lol 🤣"
"I can't wait for season 2 of the Mandalorian"
Those are comments, not opinions
Why are you saying that YouTube should shut down 90% of the comments?
People can people post whatever comment they want to on YouTube
Opinions, otoh, are a lot more nuanced
When you express an opinion, you are making a stand, one way or another
If you aren't capable of using facts to back up that stance, then yes, your opinion is worthless
You claimed that I said "opinions are worthless"
I said your opinions are worthless if you cannot back them up
Again, reading comprehension please
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewbirch Uhm, I think you are confused
Draconian = extremely harsh, excessive punishment
So go ahead, please point out what kind of harsh, excessive punishment does the law prescribe, if you still think the law is draconian
But ok, let's assume you were mistaken, and what you really meant was the law is vague in how the offenses are interpreted
What makes HK's national security law more problematic than say, India's anti sedition law?
India's anti sedition law states that Indians can be punished, including imprisonment for life, for offenses that are deemed to "excite disaffection towards the government"
The law further states that "disaffection" is explained as "disloyalty and all feelings of enmity"
Isn't this even more vague?
In fact, isn't this considered draconian? When people can be imprisoned for life for "disloyalty"
Don't all the questions that you raised apply to India's anti sedition law as well?
In fact, don't your questions apply to pretty much ALL types of national security laws that are in effect in other countries?
So what makes HK's national security law so unique and deserving of your condemnation?
Your answer please
1
-
@andrewbirch It's great that you brought up article 38, as it's one of the most misrepresented part of the law
"This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region"
That's it, that's the exact text of article 38
Critics love to play up the "danger" posed by this article, as it supposedly empowers Beijing to arrest anyone for breaking HK's national security law regardless of their residentship status
First question: how different is this from the US arresting Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou?
She was arrested, in Canada, for allegedly committing fraud trying to circumvent US sanctions. None of this took place on US soil, whether her arrest nor her alleged act of committing fraud
So if you feel that the US is justified in arresting a foreigner in a foreign country for breaking US law while she was outside of the US, in the name of protecting US interests, then shouldn't China be able to do the same?
Second question: China is not the only country who will arrest you on arrival, if you have been found to have broken their laws. A very well known example is Thailand's less majeste laws. Thai authorities can and will detain you on arrival, if you are found to have committed less majeste against Thai royalty. Most countries, in fact, will arrest you on arrival if you are found to have broken their law
Again, why is Beijing singled out for condemnation?
Third question: if you have no intention of breaking HK's national security law, why are you worried?
Again, using Thailand's less majeste law as example, I have no intention of committing less majeste against Thai monarchy. Consequently, I have ZERO fear of being arrested by Thai authorities. If, like me, you do not intend to insult or disparage the monarchy in Thailand, then you too will have nothing to fear
So why are you, or the critics of HK's national security law, so afraid of it?
While I agree in principle that people need to be vigilant against abuses of power, it's quite obvious that the pushback back HK's national security law is something else entirely
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrskippy4051 Hmm, how shall I put this
Let me try to explain to you as patiently as I can
When you say something is full, you are implying that the something can also be half full
For example, if a room is able to accommodate 100 people, and there are 50 people in it, you can therefore say the room is half full and if there are 90 people in the room, then it is almost full
Same goes with a glass, it can be full, half full, almost full, etc
This all make sense, and you are giving information by describing how full the room or glass is
Now, back to riot gear
When you say someone is in "full" riot gear, are you also implying that someone can be in "half full" riot gear or "almost full" riot gear?
You don't need me to tell you how ridiculous this sounds
Therefore the phrase "full riot gear" is redundant - the police are either in riot gear, or they are not in riot gear, period
But I get it, saying "full" riot gear, although redundant, is good for drama - not only are the police in their riot gear, they are in FULL riot gear DUN DUN DUNNN
1
-
@GenericProtagonist7 Now you're just arguing about semantics
If you're wearing a single piece of riot equipment, no, you are not in riot gear
That's like you holding up a dollar and saying "Hey look, I'm a partial millionaire!"
Sure, technically a dollar is part of a million dollars, so you are not wrong to say you are a partial millionaire
But it doesn't change how ridiculous it sounds
You're either a millionaire, or you're not - someone doesn't need to declare they are a full millionaire, to distinguish themselves from people holding a single dollar calling themselves partial millionaires
As I said in my reply to the other guy, I get it though
Even though "full riot gear" is redundant, it is much more dramatic - "Oh you better watch out now! The police aren't just in riot gear, they're in FULL riot gear!"
Makes me chuckle
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaptainVita "Highways only need a couple meters on each side"
Uhm, wrong. So very, very wrong. Look up images of the autobahn in Germany and see what's on either side of them. Do you really think it looked like that in their natural state? No, don't be naive. Large swathes of land were cleared. They then replanted some grass or decorative trees to fill up the empty space. You can't have a freaking jungle teeming with wildlife just a few meters away from a highway. It's a stupidly dangerous hazard. There are codes and regulations for these things. In Malaysia's case, instead of replanting the empty land on both sides of the highway with functionless, decorative trees, they replanted them with oil palm. It's a much more intelligent usage of existing land
Again, no one said that no forest was cleared for oil palm. How do you think cash crops work? Do you think they just magically sprung up in the middle of a pristine forest? You sweet, sweet summer child. Show me any example of industrial crops being grown without any land being cleared. Maybe in this fantasy world in your mind it exists. The point here is HOW land is being cleared. Indonesia, being impatient and greedy, went for the cheapest method available, the slash and burn method. Cheap and quick, but environmentally disastrous
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:28
Wow, already a factual error in the first line of your video
Soviet Union and China did not "support" NK per se
NK was the one who wanted to start the war, and Stalin gave his permission on the condition that the Chinese supported the war
China only reluctantly agreed to the war when told by NK that they had Stalin's support
Essentially, neither the Soviet Union nor China, especially China, wanted to "support" NK, they only did so when NK forced their hands
Even then, Soviet support amounted to only supplying small arms and air support over friendly territory, and Chinese forces didn't enter the war until months later, when US forces wanted to cross the Yalu river and bring the war onto Chinese territory
The way you phrased it made it sound like NK the Soviet Union, and China all started fighting the war together
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1