Jump to content

leicsmac

Member
  • Post count

    13,476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by leicsmac

  1. That's right, and my point wrt the bolded is that the corps you mention could one day do exactly the same thing as Huawei/the Chinese government did in terms of "digging up the road" if they were so inclined and had similar control of infrastructure. Of course, it seems that they do not for the time being, but if Huawei are not going to be involved with that infrastructure, who will be? Whoever it is, will have similar power and there really aren't that many parties out there that can be trusted with it. Totally agree with the last couple of sentences, this should be either kept in-house or perhaps shared only with places that don't in fact have a national or corporate self-interested axe to grind - if any exist with the expertise.
  2. I don't really see how that invalidates Sampsons original point. Either you have one of a few different US-based and controlled corporations controlling such infrastructure, or a Chinese-controlled one doing so instead. It's still up to the beholder to decide which is more palatable and that normally comes down to what one thinks geopolitically about the benevolence (or lack thereof) of such actors. On that point alone, I certainly wouldn't trust the current US administration and corporate interests with that responsibility any more than the Chinese one at the present time, but that being said the US corporate and governmental situation can change far more quickly and easily to something better than the Chinese one can do. Absolutely. They're also far from the only big actor to import or export overt and covert brutality in the name of their own national self-interest.
  3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53411506 A step in the right direction!
  4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53411850 Ah, the land of the Free.
  5. Studies at the "University of Life", obvs.
  6. TBH that's exactly the kind of petty point-scoring in the face of a global crisis that would appeal to Trump, so I reckon it's possible. Who knows, though.
  7. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53397673 I mean, Pompeo is in fact spot on, but there is more than a little of pot calling the kettle black here.
  8. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53386165 Well, that could well be the reason, right there. Gender equality and roles is still such a big problem in Korea. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53387331 Diplomatic tit for tat continues.
  9. Hope you feel better soon, man.
  10. Actually, on the earlier topic, Ms Satrapi says it much better than I can. She's referring to Iran, but the same could well be said for many other places too.
  11. The makeup of the Chinese government definitely shouldn't be ignored, but nor should it be used to judge the whole populace or the country itself (which many people and yes, the Mail, seem keen to do) because who knows if the government there is representative of what they wish for? People should learn to separate such terms as they have much less to do with each other than they do in a democracy. I think it certainly isn't implausible that the UK has the capability to carry out strikes in the way the Chinese have done, or be part of a united force that has already done so (take Stuxnet from a few years ago, for example). WRT the Covid outbreak (that is still not 100% guaranteed to have originated in China in the first place, merely the first place it got big and merely on the balance of probability), the idea that the Chinese held back information that is the irrelevant factor IMO. Considering that it wasn't deliberately deployed as a bioweapon (outside the minds of all but the most dedicated tinfoil-hat wearers, anyway), regardless of where it's come from, when a force of nature like a virus is within your borders it's your problem and your problem alone - the response and effectiveness thereof is entirely the responsibility of the nation involved, provided one believes in those pesky ideas about sovereignty, anyway (that's practically what the term means). It's disingenuous to let those like Trump, Bolsanaro and even Boris (among others) off the hook even in a small fashion by saying the matter was out of their hands due to the Chinese, because the simple fact is it wasn't - they all had the capacity to fight Covid within their own borders, they just messed it up. Just purely for the record - I despise the Chinese government for what they get up to and what they have done in the past to keep power and the lives they've thrown away to "save face". But generalisations of the country itself based on their government when it isn't a democracy chosen in large part by the people are lazy and inaccurate and should be called out as such (not that this stops various xenophobic sources, including the Mail, from doing so, more's the pity).
  12. Well, it's not typical of the Mail(?) to stir up some nice Yellow Peril, is it? As much as the Chinese government are repressive bastards and what they're doing to Hong Kong is brutal and should be called out, their government isn't their people, cyber conflict is a form of realpolitik that every leading nation (including the UK) indulge in, and they definitely aren't responsible for the failure of US, UK and Brazilian (among other) governments to contain and adequately deal with Covid-19 once it got within their borders, no matter what folks like Trump might say in order to deflect from their own shortcomings.
  13. A story in a few acts. I actually find this incredibly saddening - I'd much rather a person like that be alive to live a better life now that they know what real consequence means.
  14. It certainly doesn't lend itself to predictability of outcome, does it? Which can very well be dangerous, it's true. Can also understand the misgivings about the movement over in the UK - I guess I don't tend to focus on that as much as other people do and you do wonder if something is happening in the shadows, it would hardly be the last time that people who desire the status quo have managed to manipulate a movement from within and tear it to shreds, or even just watch it happen because of the personality clash that often occurs within such movements. Just hope that doesn't sound too tinfoil-hat. Goes without saying that we absolutely agree on the state of play and necessity of the action Stateside, and as such that tends to be my main point of focus given that's where it started and that's where it's really needed.
  15. Thank you. You'll get no disagreement from me that the message certainly has become obfuscated and there is a fair amount of difference in race relations between the UK and the US and that should be made a lot clearer. There's a lot that has been gotten wrong. However, I think I'd stand by my arguments as per the discussion with Dahnsouff above, and I'd add that while I'm usually quite cynical about humans of any ethnicity and power, I'm not so cynical to think that every such movement purporting to push for equality is instead pushing for supremacy of their own "in-group" instead.
  16. May I ask why? I'm honestly curious.
  17. ...I'm guessing there's supposed to be an argument about totalitarian restriction of freedom of expression as a similarity, because I'm not sure what other parallels can even be inferred, let alone directly stated? Of course, if you're going to go that way there are better comparisons to use - Stalin's USSR, for instance. It would be equally tenuous, but at least the views of race and gender roles are similar and you wouldn't be comparing white supremacists with...well, not-white supremacists.
  18. Then that's fair enough. I can't be sure that I agree empirically, but I can see why someone would think that.
  19. Perhaps this is overly semantic, but hang on - does it have no meaning positive or negative, merely cosmetic, as you implied in the penultimate post or does it have distraction from the original aims as you implied in this latest one? If it's the former (which was the basis of my reply) then I think my point stands. If it's the latter and you've clarified your stance, then I do see where you're coming from as the discussion about it can well be distracting, but I don't see how making such a gesture can be harmful when coupled with political action to fulfil the initial objectives of the BLM movement (goes without saying that the second part of that is by far the most important part).
  20. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53366307 Populist fundie in divisive playing to the support shocker.
  21. If that is true (that it has no meaning), then there's no reason for not doing it. Certainly agree that actions matter more than gestures and that there's a lot of distraction tactics going on, but I'm not sure how much of solid action we've seen from Boris wrt the original aims of the BLM movement either.
  22. If one thinks being asked to undertake a gesture in support of a movement and consider that "bullying" and thus use that as symbolic of the movement itself, chances are that person didn't really care much about the original aims of the movement in the first place - either through not really knowing what those aims are thanks to highly successful misinformation campaigns or really just not caring about police brutality against people of colour in the US. Because, and perhaps this point has been made before, regardless of the various distractions happening the original reason for BLM existing still is a problem, and still needs addressing. At least it's reasonably clear now where those Mail readers polled on the matter stand.
  23. https://www.businessinsider.com/katie-miller-says-unmoved-by-child-detention-facility-visit-book-2020-7 I'm thinking there's a sign around the White House that says "You Don't Have To Be Callously Sociopathic To Work Here But It Helps!"
  24. One sitting over 90 minutes, yeah. It would be hilarious but...you know.
×
×
  • Create New...