NoneOfUrBusiness

Overall the Chinese are somewhat known for pragmatic approaches, why chasing illusions in this case? The total number of readers and writers can’t be that huge can’t it?

Probably enlightened despotism giving way to regular despotism. Facing economic problems, and having shed all pretense of being socialist, the Chinese ruling class likely needs a scapegoat for the country’s troubles.

Do we really need celebrity gossip here?

In China? No way.

This shit again?

If Zionists had any real leverage they could use to control states Spain and Ireland (and to a lesser extent France under Macron) wouldn’t be outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights. The guilt trip is definitely part of it, but also don’t underestimate the scale or pervasiveness of Israeli propaganda. I mean, unless you’re exceptionally educated on Palestinian history at least half the things you believe about the so-called conflict are probably Israeli propaganda., irrespective of what you feel about Israel. I hate to admit it, but they are good at this stuff. Their major Western ally status gained during the Cold War is also not helping.

This sounds a lot less incriminating if you replace OIP with Eblit.

I think there’s a tug of war going on between his Zionist handlers, his Russian handlers and more recently his Gulf handlers. The Russians called dibs first so they’re currently on top.

Does anyone even go to North Korea? Is that like a thing?

Eat shit, Zionists.

Do you have a source for that?

How are you gonna stop “the rich” from simply taking all of their digitally stored wealth and leaving the country that taxes them?

Their wealth is digitally stored, but their business isn’t. A car dealership or a Walmart are physical things that they can’t take with them unless they close up shop entirely and miss out on the revenue, and those are taxed too.

We live longer and longer, retirement age is something that needs to be adjusted with the human lifespan.

Should it? We live longer and longer, but we’re also more and more productive. 50 years ago, for example, the national labor force produced enough for them and (almost) everyone else to retire after about 40 years of labor. Certainly lifespans have increased, but have they increased more than the productivity of the national labor force? I doubt it. Productivity has definitely increased enough to make up the difference in lifespans, especially since most women now work, meaning essentially double the number of workers. In that case, should we not spend the extra time (which we have earned with our own labor) with our families and friends rather than sacrifice it to some rich prick whose only contribution to society is a portfolio? There’s something distinctly dystopian about the idea that living longer means we should dedicate our time to enriching the already filthy rich rather than enjoy life.

Oh that’s what you meant. In that case I see what you mean, but I’m not convinced. First, doing such a thing would destroy their own seat of power, as most revolts tend to start in the capital or reach it pretty quickly. Second, it would immediately spark a coup, civil war or intensify the revolution, for the same reason Assad’s gassing didn’t stop the Syrian revolution. The level of destruction a nuke can cause can be more or less replicated using conventional means, using a nuke means dealing with nuclear fallout which even the most maniacal governments wouldn’t put themselves through and using drastic violence tends to push people towards militancy rather than compliance. Third, it’d destroy their international legitimacy, give Western countries an excuse for drastic intervention and discourage their allies from helping them defend against such an intervention. Iran’s government is certainly evil, but they’re rationally evil, and nuking one’s own people is very much not rational.

They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn’t because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn’t use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn’t nuked South Korea. There’s a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it’s countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.

even with large incentives to do so,

What large incentives? Obviously talking about Iran here.

Iran isn’t good, but the kind of bad it does isn’t the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn’t be bombed by Israel year in and year out.

Isn’t that more than a year away? If Netanyahu and his stooges have their way there won’t be an Iran by then.

common sense isn’t always available when conservative is ruling.

It wasn’t when liberals were ruling either (see: Gulf of Aden). This is an imperialism thing, not a conservative thing (though conservatives are worse about it).

Yeah… No. The vast majority supported the genocide, either enthusiastically or through lesser evil politics. And no I’m not talking about voting for Harris; I’m talking about the liberal reaction to pro-Palestine protests and Uncommitted.

Removed by mod