I’ll never understand how, as a parent, you can give all of your love to a child, raise them to ha e an inner voice of moral authority, and then be petty and vindictive when they are adults. If my child grew to be a petty, self involved adult (>28) I would wonder where in the world I could have been more present and more connected. Possibly not my fault, but if have to check to make sure.

Agreed. 2000 was fantastic, but that was 9 years before 7. Its been 17 years since 7.

I dont know why some people are assholes. You asked a beginner level question on a forum that allows, I’m assuming, beginners to ask questions. I hope this never happens to you again. Some of us enjoy working with sincere, curious beginners.

There are ways to talk to these condescending sarcastic assholes. But fuck them. I sorry they were hurtful and I hope you find people who want to go with you on your journey with you.

I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I’m sympathetic to it because it’s a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say

“Your next move: Build AI foundations. Our work with organisations confirms mounting evidence that isolated, tactical AI projects often don’t deliver measurable value. Tangible returns come from enterprise-scale deployment consistent with company business strategy.”

I read this as marketing. What’s the evidence you’ve been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn’t help like you say it will?

This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No… No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.

4th grade at a Christian school. My brother was getting into Metallica and so I was also getting into Metallica. Gave a friend a my brother’s copy of Kill 'Em All and that he could borrow it for three days.

My folks didn’t really care, but his mom raised hell over it. If you don’t know the album, look up it’s cover. Its got a bloody hammer in the center with Kill 'Em All st the bottom. She raised hell and I get called into a meeting with the principle and my folks.

I don’t remember what was said, but my dad wasn’t going to take any shit from them. I was there to learn and I was a good kid so they can fuck right off. Frankly, I don’t remember having any suspension or detention from it. What I do remember was them throwing out the cassette and knowing how pissed my brother would be. That was the real punishment.

The satanic panic was dumb. And I was lucky enough to not even know it was going on.

I’m finding it difficult to continue because you’ve abandoned political analysis for moral truisms. We began by discussing the objective sources of legitimacy and statehood, but you’ve retreated into a ‘Gish Gallop’ of emotional appeals.

Whether or not you like a regime’s methods doesn’t change the reality of its statehood or its control over a territory. Since you’re no longer engaging with the central argument of how states actually function in reality, there’s nowhere left for this conversation to go.

What we as we want and what is real are two different things. We do business and perform politics with many authoritarians and will continue with no end in sight. Some of us live in reality.

Winning the civil war and controlling the land does.

Winning an election in Taiwan doesn’t give them a claim to mainland China. This isn’t relevant.

1. Taiwan’s constition states that they are a part of mainland China. Their position is that the ROC and not the PRC are the rightful government.
2. 142 or so countries agree that the PRC is the rightful government of Taiwan. 12 recognize the ROC. And, importantly, 50 or so, including the US, acknowledges the claim that the PRC is making without agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Yes, the PRC claims that there is one country and Taiwan is a part of it. They also know that a seperatist group maintains control of Taiwan. If the confederacy lost all but Kentucky in the civil war, the US would still need to regsin control by military means. I’m not sure it would be called an invasion though.

I’m currently in a non-Western country. Tiered pricing is the norm. They just aren’t interested in exploiting your data or tracking your behavior.

You don’t think that people in the KMT would? I think there are still some who hold that view and would never say it because it’s brings waaaay too much heat and no political points. Rather, the KMT has shifted to cultural identity position.

“We are the original China; we don’t need to declare independence because we are already the masters of our own (ROC) house.” - Chairwoman Cheng

Calling it annexation is the pan-green position of the DPP. The other major ROC position of the KMT (pan-blue) would never use annexation because it would infer that the PRC is legitimate.

The PRC, of course, would also not use annexation. They would claim reunification of the country from a seperatist groups like the DPP.

I feel odd having to say this, but because I understand the other side doesn’t mean I agree with them. Its important for me to understand the major positions in this conflict.

They lost a civil war and retreated from the land. How is that a better claim?

I think you need to have a clearer idea of what left wing and communism are, how the CCP, PRC, and China are different, and know the CCP’s argument for Taiwain is. Relately, it would be important to know the ROC’s claim as well.

Once you know what communism is, you’ll have to ask yourself is the PRC communism? Can a single nation state be communist? How can a single party be legitimately move a government to communism through authoritarian means? How would it work otherwise? Is the CCP position on Taiwain imperialism? Does that argument hold water?

And does not challenge that position either.

The one response you got was just like, “But there’s just ONE rule.” totally missing your point.

AI COULD HAVE MADE THIS!

no… no… It probably couldn’t have

Both the articles were written in January 2024, ten months before the election. They weren’t analyzing the 2024 elections. There is no possibiliy of mentioning elderly white folks ev

They never mention whiteness anywhere in either article and the FT article is explicitly a global take mentioning Germany, UK, South Korea, Tunisia, and China.

There is nothing in the FT article implicitly or explicitly blaming “young white boys”. It is saying that when there is an ideological gap between young men and women, it has sociological implications.

I agree that the larger media narrative blames young white men’s regressive turn for the Trump presidential win and not elderly white folks or white Gen X women, but this is not that article.