The Gaming Den

Titanium Dragon wrote:Yeah, well, liberals hate China because we were promised a free Tibet and they never gave it to us. :< False advertisement, man!

You know. I have a bone or two to pick with China.

But I don't care about them running Tibet.

They can have it. They should have it. And sensible Tibetan freedom movement types should be only concerned about the rights of people in Tibet (and by extension China as a whole) NOT in some ass first plan to break away and form a rotting religious state/backwater broke tiny banana republic.

Secessionist movements are, far more often than not, fucking stupid. Why would some tiny backwater county want to NOT be part of China. China has it's problems but it's better than being Pakistan, and Pakistan is BIG in comparison to Tibet.

Anyway the Dalai Lama himself? Not only does he spend all his time running around building support for a BAD idea in BAD ways he is also a total dick. He is a nasty conservative religious leader with views worse than the damn Pope's. And lets remember, his plan basically puts HIM in charge of Tibet. WTF?

Buddhists aren't made out of Care bears and love sparkles. And the Dalai Lama and his basically James Bond Super Villain life style is a prime example of why people have to look at this shit just a little critically.

Heh, I was kind of expecting "EOM" to be the post content.

I hadn't really thought about this issue before, and I suspect most people haven't simply because "Free X" is a very easy cause to get behind without further consideration. China is a somewhat repressive country with lots of bad PR and on the other end of the spectrum as far as PR goes, Buddhists have been dealt a hand about as good as Canadians. Harmless, fuzzy little guys.

It's good to have reminders that not everything is so damned simple.

Tibet was a theocracy prior to its conquest by China. However, it was not actually that bad as far as theocracies go, and they were gradually reforming. Were Tibet to be free again, the Dalai Lama would not be in charge of it as more than a figurehead of state - it'd be a democracy. In any event, at this point he doesn't even want to be the leader of Tibet anymore.

The idea that it would be worse is stupid anyway. The Chinese have basically installed a puppet religious leader there in the place of the Lama who died, and they will do the same when the Dalai Lama dies (though he has said he may not reincarnate at all at this point). So, realistically, even assuming it did go back to the old theocracy, it probably wouldn't be as effective at crushing the populace as China has been, and at this point the religion is being used against them as a tool of oppression anyway, so it probably wouldn't get any worse. Also, the US would probably be their ally, which means that Pakistan wouldn't want to invade them.

It was mostly a joke anyway, though - I don't consider it to be a terribly high priority, personally. I'd rather China actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride.

This is not to say the Dalai Lama is not a dick, but I don't think its entirely fair to him to say he'd be as bad as the Chinese.

Titanium Dragon wrote:Also, the US would probably be their ally, which means that Pakistan wouldn't want to invade them.

Does Tibet have oil that we don't know about? Or a white population? If not, then I seriously doubt the U.S. would intervene. And I'm sure that China would be excited to see us performing military actions along their border too. I'm sure we'd step right in that shit pie and eat it all up.

No, the U.S. would not intervene because it would be dangerous to get militarily involved over there, and quite frankly we have demonstrated time and again that our country simply doesn't care about the plight of non-white people.

clikml wrote:

Titanium Dragon wrote:Also, the US would probably be their ally, which means that Pakistan wouldn't want to invade them.

Does Tibet have oil that we don't know about? Or a white population? If not, then I seriously doubt the U.S. would intervene. And I'm sure that China would be excited to see us performing military actions along their border too. I'm sure we'd step right in that shit pie and eat it all up.

No, the U.S. would not intervene because it would be dangerous to get militarily involved over there, and quite frankly we have demonstrated time and again that our country simply doesn't care about the plight of non-white people.

Right. Because we've never fought a war in southeast Asia. Not in Korea and not in Vietnam. And we definitely haven't prevented China from taking Taiwan.

We haven't; Taiwan had equal weaponry to China until the late cold war. But we did intervene in Korea, which led China to the mistaken impression we really did care. We did not win in Korea, nor Vietnam, where we lost the territory under dispute. And China wisely was uninvolved in Vietnam. And we didn't intervene in Cambodia or Burma.

-Crissa

Yeah but the war against communism is over and the US would never fight a war like Korea or Vietnam again without much greater strategic resources in the lurch. And I seriously doubt the Americans would actually fight China over Taiwan (and the Taiwanese know this too which is why they are trying to come to terms with the mainland)

Now as for not wanting to be part of China I think it is completely understandable. I wouldn't want to live under Chinese rule either if I wasn't Han.

That being said, in recent history Tibet was only and independent from China from 1912-1949 which is not a long history of independence to be heralding. Otherwise Tibets integration into various Chinese empires can be traced back to the 13th Century (though the dating is contentious). If you think the right of sovereignty is important than Tibet has been part of China for about as long Scotland or Wales has been part of England.

PL: what are the policies that the DL is proposing or upholding which you find more odious than those held by the pope? I'm curious rather than questioning the veracity of your statement.

Edit: China wasn't involved in Vietnam because it had become a Russian satellite state and the Vietnam didn't exactly have a long positive history with China (in fact China could theoretically claim Vietnam about as well as they claim Tibet because their long occupation of the country as well.)

We haven't; Taiwan had equal weaponry to China until the late cold war. But we did intervene in Korea, which led China to the mistaken impression we really did care. We did not win in Korea, nor Vietnam, where we lost the territory under dispute. And China wisely was uninvolved in Vietnam. And we didn't intervene in Cambodia or Burma.

You mean other than when we invaded and bombed Cambodia, arguably driving further support behind Khemer Rouge? Really, the only reason we didn't intervene in Cambodia was likely because we just had pulled out of Vietnam and were not about to repeat that mess in the country next door - not to mention we had already sort of been in the mess.

And we certainly did care about both Vietnam and Korea. And we did not "win" in Korea, but we did succeed in keeping South Korea free of Communist influence (and, given what a shithole North Korea is today as a result of their insane leaders, it was a good call). And we still do keep troops there.

The idea that we don't care about people unless they have oil or white skin is wrong. It is easy to say that and be callous about it, but we've intervened in numerous countries around the world full of yellow or brown people, not just white ones. Sure, some Republicans don't care, but I think a lot of Americans DO care - as long as they see it on TV.

Yeah but the war against communism is over and the US would never fight a war like Korea or Vietnam again without much greater strategic resources in the lurch. And I seriously doubt the Americans would actually fight China over Taiwan (and the Taiwanese know this too which is why they are trying to come to terms with the mainland)

I think we would fight China over Taiwan, actually, just to prove they couldn't push us around. Or we'd just surreptiously give Taiwan nukes like we did Israel.

The US was intially involved in Cambodia because the North Vietnamese were going through it. The American efforts in Cambodia were completely counterproductive (just let me point out I used to work with the current Cambodian opposition party so I do have a bit of experience on this topic). The Americans actually actively supported recognition of the Khmer Rouge after 1979 despite being fully aware of their atrocities just to flip the bird at the Vietnamese.

I think the larger lesson of American "help" since 1945 is "stop fucking helping all you do is fuck our shit up".

Titanium Dragon wrote:It was mostly a joke anyway, though - I don't consider it to be a terribly high priority, personally. I'd rather China actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, why should the Chinese give a fuck about the prosperity of a minority population that hasn't done anything but give them trouble? It seems to me that the Chinese government sees the Tibetans today as the U.S. saw the Indians in that they're a race of people who need to be assimilated into the populace and civilized. I mean, just years a generation ago they thought the piss and shit of their Lama was medicine, for fuck's sake!

Morzas wrote:

Titanium Dragon wrote:It was mostly a joke anyway, though - I don't consider it to be a terribly high priority, personally. I'd rather China actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, why should the Chinese give a fuck about the prosperity of a minority population that hasn't done anything but give them trouble? It seems to me that the Chinese government sees the Tibetans today as the U.S. saw the Indians in that they're a race of people who need to be assimilated into the populace and civilized. I mean, just years a generation ago they thought the piss and shit of their Lama was medicine, for fuck's sake!

This is hardly a change from the Chinese, given the huge market there for certain "traditional cures".

And really, the Chinese don't. Which is why they're so horrible to the Tibetians, even more so than they are to everyone else.

ckafrica wrote:PL: what are the policies that the DL is proposing or upholding which you find more odious than those held by the pope? I'm curious rather than questioning the veracity of your statement.

There used to be a really snappy video piece where this guy trots out a series of utterly insane and nasty quotes about womens rights, being born poor as divine punishment, freedom of sexuality, and a million other things then you are asked "who said this, the frothing blood crazed Pope or the kind Dalai Lama?" and every single one was in fact a quote from the current Dalai Lama.

But that asshole John Saffran apparently has had it pulled from youtube on copyright grounds or something.

So have a look at this more substantive and relevant article. It's from the left wing media (oh no!) which many idiots will immediately discount as reliable, but, well, they are idiots, all the more so in the context of a discussion about what the left thinks of Tibet.

PhoneLobster wrote: There used to be a really snappy video piece where this guy trots out a series of utterly insane and nasty quotes about womens rights, being born poor as divine punishment, freedom of sexuality, and a million other things then you are asked "who said this, the frothing blood crazed Pope or the kind Dalai Lama?" and every single one was in fact a quote from the current Dalai Lama.

But that doesn't in fact make him more odious, that just means he has said some batshit crazy and offensive things. I've lived in Buddhist countries and see nothing more spiritual or enlightened about them than followers of other religions. But their practices are nowhere near as bad as the Catholic church. Bad at times sure, but nowhere at their worst they aren''t near as bad as the Popes at theirs.

As for that article, while it probably is relatively accurate, that website looked pretty far left judging by it's ads. I can image that many would question it. The right are not alone in collecting wackos. As someone who used to hang with the international socialists, I do get suspicious of far left people's grips on reality sometimes.

The funny thing about socialists though.

They are very good on history.

And if you want to know stuff about certain topics, like this one or the history of unionized labor, civil rights, womens rights, and a wide range of other topics they are the best and sometimes ONLY source.

Other groups are not interested in those topics, if not actively working to forget them, and conservative sources often aren't interested in history at all.

I mean right this second if I wanted to know the details about say, the hijacking of the Australian RSL by ultra conservative assholes, my best source will be socialists. No one else even knows it fucking happened.

Edit: But all that aside. The topic was "Those crazy leftists and their love for freeing Tibet!" so going and seeing what those crazy leftists are actually saying, very much on topic.

Titanium Dragon wrote: You mean other than when we invaded and bombed Cambodia, arguably driving further support behind Khemer Rouge?

The United States and China both supported the Khmer Rouge. That's not even a conspiracy theory, both countries explicitly stated so in the United Nations in 1978, 1979, and 1982.

The Tibet "freedom" movement is a god damn sham. Supported as it is by the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Indian Research and Analysis Division, it serves no purpose whatsoever save to pull enemy-of-my-enemy bullshit against rival world power China. If we gave a fuck about the political freedom of people in China, we'd be slapping East Turkestan Independence stickers on cars or flying Heilongjiang Freedom flags or some shit.

But we don't. We keep Tibet around as a pet cause to rally people around the freedom of a people who fucking kept slaves the last time they had a nation of their own. Not because their political independence would necessarily be a good thing, but because Tibet is easy to remember and we know for certain that China is never going to give it up. It's just a way to piss in China's Cheerios, nothing more, nothing less.

Similarly, Pakistan supports the Kashmiri separatists in India, and China supports the Naxalites in India. And India supports the Bhajorans in Pakistan and so on and so forth and round and round. None of these countries are in any way contrite about supporting terrorism in their neighbors, and it's laughably retarded that people in the US like to pretend that that isn't what we're doing with Tibet.

-Username17

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Morzas wrote:

Titanium Dragon wrote:It was mostly a joke anyway, though - I don't consider it to be a terribly high priority, personally. I'd rather China actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, why should the Chinese give a fuck about the prosperity of a minority population that hasn't done anything but give them trouble? It seems to me that the Chinese government sees the Tibetans today as the U.S. saw the Indians in that they're a race of people who need to be assimilated into the populace and civilized. I mean, just years a generation ago they thought the piss and shit of their Lama was medicine, for fuck's sake!

This is hardly a change from the Chinese, given the huge market there for certain "traditional cures".

And really, the Chinese don't. Which is why they're so horrible to the Tibetians, even more so than they are to everyone else.

I don't have any confidence in Chinese naturopathic medicine, but trying to draw a comparison between that and the Tibetans' consumption of the bodily wastes of the Dalai Lama seems willfully ignorant to me. They're two very, very different things.

Also, you didn't answer my question. I asked "why should the Chinese give a fuck about the prosperity of a minority population that hasn't done anything but give them trouble?" I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, seeing as how you believe that China should "actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride" when the Tibetans are, from what I understand, basically viewed by the Chinese as primitive people who need to be integrated into modern Chinese society before they can be taken seriously.

Please note that I don't share their views, but that I'm taking up this position for the sake of argument.

EDIT: This is an old blog posting, but I think it's still relevant given that it's written by a man who lives in China right now. It let me see a point of view that was different from the typical "FREE TIBET THEY WANT DEMOCRACY" bullshit that we encounter so often.

And if you want to know stuff about certain topics, like this one or the history of unionized labor, civil rights, womens rights, and a wide range of other topics they are the best and sometimes ONLY source.

They're biased. They also won't acknowledge unsavory influences, such as, say, organized crime and the USSR, even though both were involved in various capacities in organized labor, the American communist party, ect.

I don't have any confidence in Chinese naturopathic medicine, but trying to draw a comparison between that and the Tibetans' consumption of the bodily wastes of the Dalai Lama seems willfully ignorant to me. They're two very, very different things.

Right. In one case, they were eating shit. In the other case, they're eating endangered wild animals. I think I know which one I'd prefer them be doing.

Also, you didn't answer my question. I asked "why should the Chinese give a fuck about the prosperity of a minority population that hasn't done anything but give them trouble?" I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, seeing as how you believe that China should "actually become a decent country and take Tibet along with it for the ride" when the Tibetans are, from what I understand, basically viewed by the Chinese as primitive people who need to be integrated into modern Chinese society before they can be taken seriously.

Uh, I think I did answer. Did you read the post you quoted?

Titanium Dragon wrote:And really, the Chinese don't. Which is why they're so horrible to the Tibetians, even more so than they are to everyone else.

And I didn't say they SHOULD, I said it'd be nice if they DID. There's a fundamental difference between the two. You obviously didn't read my post carefully.

As for why the Chinese should treat them in a civil manner, I answer: look at the United States and Australia. If you treat your native people like shit, you end up with a population which is wracked with poverty indefinitely, and thus end up becoming a permanent burden on you, as well as a point with which people will always counter your arguments about what good people you are.

EDIT: This is an old blog posting, but I think it's still relevant given that it's written by a man who lives in China right now. It let me see a point of view that was different from the typical "FREE TIBET THEY WANT DEMOCRACY" bullshit that we encounter so often.

It is, but it is also biased towards the Chinese point of view.

And it isn't really like the LA riots. In the LA Riots, the blacks were killing a bunch of Asians because they were angry at white people. In the Tibetian riots, the Tibetians were killing the Han, who they were actually angry at. So there is a fundamental difference in that the violence is, at least, being directed at the appropriate population.

Titanium Dragon wrote:They're biased. They also won't acknowledge unsavory influences, such as, say, organized crime and the USSR, even though both were involved in various capacities in organized labor, the American communist party, ect.

No.

The best, hell ONLY (not just only legitimate, but ONLY) sources for information on the influence of the USSR and organized crime in socialist and unionists movements, are socialists and unionists.

Because the conservatives don't talk about the history of unionized labor AT ALL. Because to do so embarrasses their movement, they instead actively ignore all actual credible historic record of the matters involved.

So yeah. Biased as opposed to what? Like I said, there just is no other source for a lot of history. The history of the political agenda and influence of the RSL in Australia is exclusively covered by historians that depict an organization overtaken by right wing facists. Because that's what happened and the only people who know or care are socialists.

But more than that history itself has a left wing bias. That is actually what happened and conservatives really do NOT want you to know that!

And really is it surprising that history has a socialist bias? Socialism is after all a movement founded on observation of history. Conservatism is a movement founded on ignorance. There is a reason why one provides you information on history and the other doesn't and to simply dismiss the information held only in the hands of the group that gives a damn is to accept and indeed embrace utter ignorance, and by extension the conservative agenda.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully.

This shit is getting old. Next time I see it I'm putting you on ignore.

PhoneLobster wrote:

Titanium Dragon wrote:They're biased. They also won't acknowledge unsavory influences, such as, say, organized crime and the USSR, even though both were involved in various capacities in organized labor, the American communist party, ect.

No.

The best, hell ONLY (not just only legitimate, but ONLY) sources for information on the influence of the USSR and organized crime in socialist and unionists movements, are socialists and unionists.

Uh, there are people who are neither socialists, unionists, nor conservatives.

But more than that history itself has a left wing bias. That is actually what happened and conservatives really do NOT want you to know that!

Well, reality has a well-known liberal bias...

But that's mostly sarcasm. Reality is neither liberal nor conservative.

And really is it surprising that history has a socialist bias? Socialism is after all a movement founded on observation of history. Conservatism is a movement founded on ignorance. There is a reason why one provides you information on history and the other doesn't and to simply dismiss the information held only in the hands of the group that gives a damn is to accept and indeed embrace utter ignorance, and by extension the conservative agenda.

History doesn't have a "socialist" bias. If we chart the long and troubled history of socialism, you'll see that socialism has been more or less discredited as a primary system. The most efficient economies blend socialism and capitalism.

And conservatism isn't really based on ignorance so much as it is resistance to change.

TD, we all get misunderstood. It happens. Try to defuse rather than yell when it happens, else we're talking at each other rather than clarifying.

I often write things correctly and get called on something as though I didn't mention it, but I totally mentioned it. But I also often write things in ways people couldn't have understood me. And that's my fault. It's usually the writer's fault, even when it is there, it's just not totally clear. Things are easy to read wrong and not see it that way. That's why it's good practice in pro jobs to have more different eyes read something to edit it.

On that point, I thought TD was pretty clear but obviously I can see his point a bit easier than others. It happens. Keep with the verbosing, we'll get to an understanding eventually.

-Crissa

TD wrote:If we chart the long and troubled history of socialism, you'll see that socialism has been more or less discredited as a primary system. The most efficient economies blend socialism and capitalism.

What the fuck?

Socialism is by definition a blend of command economy and capitalism.

You are talking out of your ass so hard that it's super hard to take you seriously. You seriously just gave away so much ignorance that you must have been left a pauper.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

TD wrote:If we chart the long and troubled history of socialism, you'll see that socialism has been more or less discredited as a primary system. The most efficient economies blend socialism and capitalism.

What the fuck?

Socialism is by definition a blend of command economy and capitalism.

You are talking out of your ass so hard that it's super hard to take you seriously. You seriously just gave away so much ignorance that you must have been left a pauper.

-Username17

Which definition of socialism are you using, exactly? Lenin's? Marx's? The socialist party of Sweden's? What?

Socialism has been used to mean a variety of things, and you can't say it is that "by definition" because it has several definitions.

A more precise term for a combination of a blend of command economy and capitalism would be a mixed economy.

Titanium Dragon wrote:Right. In one case, they were eating shit. In the other case, they're eating endangered wild animals. I think I know which one I'd prefer them be doing.

I'm hoping you are implying that you'd prefer they eat the animals rather than the fecal matter. If not, then I hope you are the first to step up and eat shit instead of animals before calling upon anyone else to do the same.

Titanium Dragon wrote: And it isn't really like the LA riots. In the LA Riots, the blacks were killing a bunch of Asians because they were angry at white people. In the Tibetian riots, the Tibetians were killing the Han, who they were actually angry at. So there is a fundamental difference in that the violence is, at least, being directed at the appropriate population.

Erm. Are you trying to imply that riots are better if they attack the people they are angry at? I'm pretty sure that regardless of who you are attacking, you are still attacking a human being for reasons other than self-defense and that makes it wrong.

clikml wrote:I'm hoping you are implying that you'd prefer they eat the animals rather than the fecal matter. If not, then I hope you are the first to step up and eat shit instead of animals before calling upon anyone else to do the same.

I believe I specified "endangered wild animals". And I'm specifically referring to their use in traditional (read: bullshit) medicines.

Erm. Are you trying to imply that riots are better if they attack the people they are angry at? I'm pretty sure that regardless of who you are attacking, you are still attacking a human being for reasons other than self-defense and that makes it wrong.

Yes, actually, I am saying that it is better if they are actually fighting back against the people who are oppressing them rather than randomly stringing up some innocent bystanders.

Moreover, if you are in a situation where you feel like your culture and way of life is being threatened by outsiders, do you not think that in the minds of many people fighting back would constitute "self defense"?

This is not to say it is a wise thing to do.