Free Hong Kong. Free the Muslim Uighurs from Chinese oppression.
Fuck Apple for removing the HKmap.live app and lying about why. Fuck the NBA's appeasement of China. Fuck Blizzard for banning the Hong Kong Hearthstone player. Fuck Chinese censorship and its Western accomplices.
Fuck the Chinese government. They are tyrannical communists. Mao Zedong was evil. The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre was evil.
Messages (42)
餌
have you ever looked up and to the left? what do you see?
Blizzard is not responsible for the nature of the Chinese government. For them to sell video games which is their moral purpose they must cooperate with the Chinese government to access their market. They exist to sell a product and protect their bottom line.
#14322
It's not *only* about the bottom line, at any cost.
> “I’m sorry, Mr. Roark, but the board will not re-open the question for further debate. It was final. I can only ask you to state whether you agree to accept the commission on our terms or not. I must admit that the board has considered the possibility of your refusal. In which case, the name of another architect, one Gordon L. Prescott, has been mentioned most favorably as an alternative. But I told the board that I felt certain you would accept.”
> He waited. Roark said nothing.
> “You understand the situation, Mr. Roark?”
> “Yes,” said Roark. His eyes were lowered. He was looking down at the drawings.
> “Well?”
> Roark did not answer.
> “Yes or no, Mr. Roark?”
> Roark’s head leaned back. He closed his eyes.
> “No,” said Roark.
> After a while the chairman asked:
> “Do you realize what you’re doing?”
> “Quite,” said Roark.
> “Good God!” Weidler cried suddenly. “Don’t you know how big a commission this is? You’re a young man, you won’t get another chance like this. And ... all right, damn it all, I’ll say it! You need this! I know how badly you need it!”
> Roark gathered the drawings from the table, rolled them together and put them under his arm.
> “It’s sheer insanity!” Weidler moaned. “I want you. We want your building. >You need the commission. Do you have to be quite so fanatical and selfless about it?”
> “What?” Roark asked incredulously.
> “Fanatical and selfless.”
> Roark smiled. He looked down at his drawings. His elbow moved a little, pressing them to his body. He said:
> “That was the most selfish thing you’ve ever seen a man do.”
#14334 Quoting a work of fiction unironically as a response. A parody website could not do better than this. :')
#14336
> Quoting a work of fiction unironically as a response.
I assume you are not familiar with Objectivism? Most people on this site are familiar with Objectivism and curi is an Objectivist.
*The Fountainhead* is a novel written by Ayn Rand. The book's hero, Howard Roark, is a representation of how someone that has fully understood Objectivism would act living one's life.
#14338 Your response is irrational. If that anon recognizes the character from the fiction novel, then he is aware of what book it is from, and possibly who wrote it. Why would you think you are convincing anyone with your response?
You don't address the criticism of quoting a work of fiction as a bad response by giving more details about the background of the author of said work of fiction.
You need to explain why it is relevant and how it contradicts the fact that Blizzard's sole responsibility is to make a profit, and how capitalism will inevitably lead to corporations kissing the boots of China.
Objectivism is nonsense anyway, but that's irrelevant here.
#14334 Blizzard is not compromising on their principles by dealing with China the US already violates their rights.
> If that anon recognizes the character from the fiction novel, then he is aware of what book it is from, and possibly who wrote it.
Anon's answer did not indicate anon knowing much about the relationship between FH and Objectivism. One can know *about* Ayn Rand without knowing anything about Objectivism. Actually, that seems to be very common.
> You need to explain why it is relevant and how it contradicts the fact that Blizzard's sole responsibility is to make a profit, and how capitalism will inevitably lead to corporations kissing the boots of China.
Blizzard can make a profit even if they chose not to pander to chinese officials and justify their censorship.
Blizz relies on capitalistic functions but act in ways that lead to it's very destruction. If Blizz understood capitalism they would stand up to totalitarian statism. Capitalism only works under freedom.
#14344 Blizzard would be sacrificing not only profit but they would not be able to sell video games to the Chinese it is in their self-interest to comply with the Chinese government. They are not responsible for the nature of the Chinese government.
#14344 Blizzard has nothing to gain from giving them a platform they can't change the Chinese government.
Such low quality comments here. China is evil and for sure fuck blizzard.
#14620 that's anti capitalism and anti reason.
https://spectator.org/the-fourth-reich/
https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/02/wuhan-woman-screams-chinese-authorities-barricade-inside-home-12162599/
Fuck China we shouldn’t even trade with them their economy should burn we have nothing to gain from them.
#15400 That's harsh. Trade has mutual benefit. And there's the issue of indirect trade: gonna ban e.g. buying used Chinese products owned by Japanese person? Will people need to find out the manufacture date to know if they can buy a used good? Since I assume we'll grandfather in the legality of all the stuff we already bought from China.
I do think we should take a harsher stance on China. They should not be sanctioned. With appropriate moral judgments coming from the West I think we'd ~immediately have a better situation. I think we could successfully pressure China to make some changes using smaller issues than the threat to cut off all trade.
China does have value to offer. They have lots of skilled labor in addition to a lot of cheaper labor that can take place with fewer regulations.
China is a hard problem to deal with and I think the initial steps to take (if we had better leaders and less internal conflict in our own society, so we were actually going to deal with this well) would be things other than talking about ending all trade.
I don’t think China’s economy will last for too much longer I don’t think we should become very reliant on evil. At the very least we should consider sanctions on them.
Trade with China has been encouraged for a while but as it stands China is not getting better than this is especially evident in the recent outbreak.
https://youtu.be/wHs9OCChgeY
We're doing a million things wrong in how we talk about and treat China (way too accepting of evil, friendly about it, etc.), and I don't think trading with them is near the top of the list.
I don't think China's economy will collapse soon – even if we cut off US trade entirely, which our leaders aren't going to – and I don't think trading with China is a major factor in their continued evil. I think incorrect and unspecified moral judgments are a bigger problem and the solution, as usual, is more about philosophical education. The best path to better outcomes is from people learning Objectivism, FI, etc.
#15401
Trade with China only allows China to win. China requires the massive collaboration from foreign businessmen who do business in China. In collaboration between the rational and irrational, it is the more irrational one who wins because Businessmen have nothing to gain from the irrationality of China, but China has everything to gain from them.
This is seen with the legitimization of China as the second biggest economy in the world.
This is seen when China is actively stealing the intellectual property of businesses in China.
This is seen with corruption from China in countries such as Australia because of dependence on the Chinese market and giving China political power appearing as a savvy legitimate investor to many countries.
This is seen in the loans they are now able to give to countries and when these loans default, they are able to exert control over these countries annexing many ports across the world.
This is seen in the amount of influence China has gained in collaborative international works such as the UN to the point where the W.H.O is praising China for its work in response to the corona virus despite the massive glaringly obvious cover up by China.
China commits evil and we are complicit trading with them trying benefit from that evil. It is the same as committing every evil act they do ourselves. In the same way trading with slavers is the same as having slaves. Just because there is a degree of separation doesn't make the of it evil disappear.
It was disgusting that Richard Nixon in 1972 visited China, when he met with Mao Zedong and opened relations between the US and China. As it was bad when FDR recognized the Soviet Russia and legitimized them prior World War 2. There never should have been trade with China in the first place.
Trade is mutual collaboration and collaboration with evil is evil and lets evil win.
#15423 China isn't a single, unified thing. It's made up of many individuals. The evil of most of those individuals is questionable. So should the US, as a collective, ban trade with all Chinese people, as a collective? That would forbid some Americans from trading with some non-evil Chinese people.
And a ban on trade with China is not politically possible, and would confuse people, unless and until there is better philosophical education about what China is like, how to think about it, etc. It'd also be valuable to accompany the ban with getting the support of many other countries, especially the best ones, rather than their opposition. If we can't explain it to the other Anglo countries, it's going to be hard to make it work well.
So we broadly need better moral judgment, better reasoning, better political leadership, etc. A few people knowing better isn't enough to set a free country's policy. We need to persuade more people. Then that initial would be enough to change the situation without a trade ban – maybe just a little, maybe a lot, it's hard to predict.
#15435
>China isn't a single, unified thing. It's made up of many individuals. The evil of most of those individuals is questionable. So should the US, as a collective, ban trade with all Chinese people, as a collective?
I never said ban trade with "all Chinese people, as a collective", the Chinese government isn't the Chinese people. I just said ban all trade with China the country which is highly controlled by the Chinese government. Trade is collaborative and due to the nature in which the Chinese government rules to the degree it does, it means collaborating with even Chinese individuals, let alone the giant Chinese Corporation which are highly integrated into the Chinese state , *in China* means collaborating with the Chinese government necessarily. The problem with that is it made the most authoritarian nation in the world the second biggest economy in the world, with all the power that comes with that and which it has brazenly used. Kraut brilliantly outlines this in his excellent video on China https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU. Simply in any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins. Who is eviler and more irrational than the Chinese government?
>That would forbid some Americans from trading with some non-evil Chinese people.
Yes, and I am a pro-open borders person. There should be a system in place like the one given to the Cuban exiles so non-evil Chinese people can escape and trade freely without the evil Chinese government in the picture. I don't think the point in which we stop trading with China is when we are literally at war with them. I think the Chinese government is an enemy, but I don't think warfare is a good idea either. Stopping trade is good enough.
>And a ban on trade with China is not politically possible, and would confuse people
I don't think whether if it is politically possible, due to current political opinion, has anything to do with whether we should do it or advocate it. This sounds purely like pragmatism. You are an objectivist so I assume you are for laissez-faire capitalism, but by that logic laissez-faire capitalism by being equally politically impossible, due to current political opinion, then you should be against laissez-faire capitalism. But clearly you do advocate laissez-faire capitalism because I don't think you are a pragmatist. Which is what you are expressing now.
>It'd also be valuable to accompany the ban with getting the support of many other countries, especially the best ones, rather than their opposition.
I agree, that was the idea behind trade agreements like the TPP (or the TTIP) which was to create trade bloc with south-east pacific and American countries which cut China out. Of course, Trump destroyed this giving yet more power to the Chinese. The US currently seeks to isolate itself and give more to the Chinese for the taking.
#15477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU
Around 35s he says (all quotes are rough paraphrases):
> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.
Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?
Then he continues by saying, roughly:
> If you pay for people's stuff, that will increase someone else's wealth, which is why most states throughout history have made strict trade barriers.
Do you think that's true?
Around 1:30 he says China has the world's most efficient state. Do you think that's true?
#15478
If you actually watched the whole video before making gotcha comments you would understand he was describing the thought process prior to Adam Smith's wealth of nations. Where nations didn't trade and just fought over trade routes.
#15478
Oh an I'm also confused what you mean by this?
>> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.
>Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?
Physically those are the only two ways you can get something from someone else. Either you use force and just take it from them or you do something so they will give it to you voluntarily, this is a true dichotomy. Either you use force or you don't. Are there different ways to get something from someone?
That statement is just factual it's not talking about the morality of it either (because of course using force is wrong) so you couldn't be saying it's false and thoughtless on those grounds because no ethical claim is being made.
So what are you saying is false and thoughtless about the statement?
#15481 *Oh and I also don't understand what you mean by this:
#15481
>>> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.
>>
>>Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?
>
> Physically those are the only two ways you can get something from someone else. Either you use force and just take it from them or you do something so they will give it to you voluntarily, this is a true dichotomy. Either you use force or you don't. Are there different ways to get something from someone?
The quote specifically sez you either take stuff or pay for it with no other options. You can get stuff from people without paying or taking, e.g. - by asking for charity.
#15483
>The quote specifically sez you either take stuff or pay for it with no other options. You can get stuff from people without paying or taking, e.g. - by asking for charity.
Well of course, I guess charity does exist. Though naturally people don't necessarily want to give away their stuff for free usually in the vast vast majority (99%) of cases people get things through trading or taking things. Charity was a bit outside of the subject of the video. Though I could get pedantic and say charity is it's own payment but it some circumstance or you can't be a choosing beggar and you get what's given to you not what you want. I still don't understand what is meant by it being "false and thoughtless."
#15483
Anyway, it's one nitpicked sentence that I doubt is over 7 seconds long in a hour long video/ Sure it's might of left out the 1% of cases where stuff is given out, out of charity.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/nike-apple-among-dozens-of-major-brands-implicated-in-report-on-forced-labour-20200301-p545ud.html
>Nike, Apple among dozens of major brands implicated in report on forced labour
This was kind of already obvious but new released report, large corporations which do a large amount of business in China implicated in slavery. So you you are still pro doing business in China, you a fine slavery just separated by 1 degree.
Of course if people have been paying attention to current events the coronavirus has caused 6 trillion dollars in economic damage. With the US stock market in the red down more than 10% down. This is clearly the result of growing dependence on an evil power. China doesn't get away with evil as we live in an objective reality it will get it's just dessert and all those you try to profit from it's evil too will face destruction.
#15700 https://curi.us/2288-identification-policy
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/nike-apple-among-dozens-of-major-brands-implicated-in-report-on-forced-labour-20200301-p545ud.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_world
Oh, just noticed the article on forced labor was already posted
> If you actually watched the whole video before making gotcha comments you would understand he was describing the thought process prior to Adam Smith's wealth of nations. Where nations didn't trade and just fought over trade routes.
it seems like a mistake that he did not preface that he was talking like how people used to think, and only mentioned after.
why would curi (or anyone) spend the time watching an entire hour long video, even though he already disagrees with it in the first 35 seconds?
>Simply in any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins. Who is eviler and more irrational than the Chinese government?
what if america is like "hey china can u give us 100 dollars?" and then chinas like "uh sure fine", does china win?
if a goodguy, and a badguy collaborate to kill badguy2, then i think good wins.
> Simply in any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
i think thats just a copy paste from galt speech, but you just added the word "Simply" before the word "in", and also you didnt credit AR or mention it was a quote, you just wrote it as if it were your own words.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html
Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 216
> The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.
> In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
> ***In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.***
> When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
i guess i disagree with galt quote. i dont have a good understanding of objectivism.
#15704
>it seems like a mistake that he did not preface that he was talking like how people used to think, and only mentioned after.
>why would curi (or anyone) spend the time watching an entire hour long video, even though he already disagrees with it in the first 35 seconds?
Sure, I agree that the video could have explicitly said that this was the way nations functions prior to Adam Smith. This doesn't make it any less nitpicking when it explains this around minute 6 mark after providing some context about China in a video about China. In the full context his attack was silly. I do think there are errors in the video such as calling China an 'authoritarian capitalist' country which is an oxymoron. But overall I thought the video was very insightful.
>what if america is like "hey china can u give us 100 dollars?" and then chinas like "uh sure fine", does china win?
What does this mean? This doesn't sound like cooperation this sounds like a tax and this has nothing to do with businesses trading with China. The many problems from this is it gives China legitimacy, China steals IP, it enriches and further empowers authoritarian China government. There are also problems posted above about slavery being used. If you mean taxes like a tariff well those taxes tend to be put on the citizens which isn't good.
>if a goodguy, and a badguy collaborate to kill badguy2, then i think good wins.
There is a real-life example of that. It's when the US government gave lots of supplies and resources to the USSR and surrendered half of Europe to the USSR and communism for the next half-century to beat the Nazis. Hopefully this points out clearly why this isn't good. While it got rid of one evil (The nazis), it overall totally empowered the USSR and left a third of the world under communism.
>i think thats just a copy paste from galt speech, but you just added the word "Simply" before the word "in", and also you didnt credit AR or mention it was a quote, you just wrote it as if it were your own words.
>http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html
>Galt’s Speech,
>For the New Intellectual, 216
Since Objectivism was a major element of this blog I assumed this would be common knowledge and it was obvious that I was paraphrasing Rand as a lead up to my next question, I didn't mean to write as if my own, I will provide the citations if that is a problem. Also, you messed up the citation, it isn't from the New Intellectual and Galt didn't say this. It's from Capitalism: the unknown ideal. It actually said that on that website, but I guess you misread that.
>i guess i disagree with galt quote. i dont have a good understanding of objectivism.
I actually explained the reasoning in a comment further up above going off Rand essay 'The Anatomy of Compromise' from capitalism: the unknown ideal. The idea basic idea is that the good has nothing to gain from the evil and evil has everything to gain from the good. This is because evil doesn't create anything on its own and is self-destructive, it is only through good helping evil that it wins. Therefore, in any cooperation between good and evil that evil wins.
In China's case, the evil Chinese state is held up and empowered purely by the businessmen and the helpless citizens that create and build in China and this furthers China's evil goals.
#15701 I don't have facebook, I dislike VC and I don't really want give you money to identify myself. In terms of online content or presence, a couple months ago I talked to you in direct message briefly when you got banned from Charles Tew's discord server. I gave you a image of what he said. Does that prove I'm not some freshly created troll or do you want more?
> #15701 I don't have facebook, I dislike VC and I don't really want give you money to identify myself. In terms of online content or presence, a couple months ago I talked to you in direct message briefly when you got banned from Charles Tew's discord server. I gave you a image of what he said. Does that prove I'm not some freshly created troll or do you want more?
oh and my twitter handle is @Griseo_Lepus
#15788 Oh ya, I remember. And your twitter was created in 2016 and has > 700 tweets. That's good enough, thanks.
Regarding China being awful: I suspect them of lying about coronavirus containment.
https://curi.us/2304-the-wuhan-coronavirus
Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age.