Candelestine

China's system is opaque. Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point. I'm simply not willing to give them any extra faith. For the third time, suspicion is default. Suspicion exists until evidence to the contrary is provided. This is just a basic safety principle in the modern age and is healthier than faith-based alternatives. I know you didn't say that, incidentally, I was getting out ahead of a potential criticism before it appeared, saving us the time of having to discuss it. I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

I think it's a very useful definition of imperialism, actually. It captures the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades. Economic and military (the original) imperialism are simply other methods. I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

You don't think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else. It's certainly not just the US, though we've done our fair share.

You can usually determine whether someone is trolling or not with some discussion. Just because someone says lgbt does not give them carte blanche to say whatever they want. If you really want to detect trolls, you need to remember some of them pretend to be lgbt just to cause more chaos.

It's not "both sides-ing" to assert that no position should be immune to criticism. No matter how underdog they are. Being an oppressed underdog should not give someone license to just do whatever the fuck they want like you're some fictional char like Batman or something.

Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well. It's not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

It's just healthy suspicion man. If you expect me to just apply some kind of universal trust to a country of human beings on Earth, you are sorely mistaken. People are people. No country on Earth is some holy union of people above being concerned about, that somehow does no wrong. That's just some weird, misplaced faith.

Again, I'm not forming an opinion yet. I apologize that this does not align with your very clearly pro-Chinese opinion. It is not China-Bad, it is China-is-a-country-and-countries-act-in-their-own-interests. These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose. I'm not trolling, I am dead serious in my position.

... you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities? You understand how silly that sounds? Where do you think their hypersonic missiles came from, gifts from some UFO or something? I suspect the technology was researched through the scientific method.

Transparency is generally the key to securing trust. Otherwise yes, suspicion should be a default position. I don't fully trust my government, I'm certainly not going to trust someone else's.

I'm a big fan of Magnus. Dude is overall a good role model, respectful and serious most of the time, while also being meme-ey, approachable and fun. Unique playstyle to boot.

He's actually largely responsible for me personally starting to pay attention to the game again. I hadn't even played in years.

From something I read yesterday he apparently talked about the UK helping them with targeting and intelligence with personnel on the ground. If I remember right.

It's not exactly surprising news, so to elaborate, I think the criticism towards him has been exaggerated. Likely for political purposes.

In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I'm not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I'm just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I'm withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.

No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let's say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

The article cited signals intelligence. I'm not with the NSA or anything, so I'm pretty much just going off the article.

Racism is often subtle, so my accusation is not one I can back with sound evidence. It's a personal, subjective opinion. Nobody was ever blatant and outright. Much like how bullying among kids is often done with a degree of culpable deniability, where you never cross the line far enough, but make your opinions known in other, less confirmable ways.

No, I do not think the institution supported their viewpoints. I doubt they would have been fired though. For one, tenure prevents that. For two, diversity of opinion, even distasteful opinion, is permitted if one does not cross lines. Thought is not what gets policed, only behavior. Subtle behavior with culpable deniability is protected at the practical level, by simply being too difficult to enforce.

One problem with vids like this is the algorithm doesn't know what it is. So, engaging with the stuff too much will open up some very dumb rabbit holes.