guitars are real

policing a space/securing it for industry costs. They didn’t change the maps just to feel good about themselves, this is only the first step to opening these spaces up for exploitation.

If nothing else, they need a presence to help the companies quash unionization efforts on the mining rigs, don’t they? And that costs.

I don’t know that I justified it, just pointed out a basic historical truth about industrialization. With a shred of historical context it’s trivial to turn the conversation from “ew China evil” to “is it possible to industrialize without this shit?” which is a question anybody should have been asking from the very beginning.

At the end of the day, lambasting China for doing all the things industrializing nations have always done, without offering a concretely better, alternative path for industrialization, and simultaneously demanding they achieve a similar level of development as the West without doing anything the West did to get there, is honestly just pointless. The West imposed a competitive market system based on the preposterous violence of industrial production on the rest of the world, and are now going to be collectively hoisted by our own petards over the next few decades.

If we wanted them to industrialize without shit like ethnic homogenization/genocide/systematic exploitation of labor/everything else, we might have tried blazing a path to economic development that wasn’t based on those things.

For the record, though, any nation-state that got big did all of that. That is literally what industrialization has more or less always looked like. The US used to run sweatshops and disappear/murder activists of any kind, especially the ones who pushed back against the pennies-an-hour sweatshops. It wasn’t until the 20th century that US courts even started reading the First Amendment to mean the government had an obligation to not fuck you up just for your political beliefs (see this title since that’s a larger historical argument than can fit on Lemmy).

You don’t get social freedom and rights in an industrial society until it hits a very high point of development. This has been true of more or less anywhere.

While we could argue China should have looked for a better way to develop, the United States also helped create an international system in the middle of the 20th century where the only real option was to aggressively industrialize in an even worse way than the US did, or just be subject to outright neocolonialism (and then develop your industry also in a bad way, also likely without rights, and then not have a rounded enough economy to do anything other than be exploited by richer countries), and then, when China decided to just take a heavy state-led path that employed capitalism and tools of standard industrial nation-building to set themselves up as a powerful capitalist nation-state, like they were “supposed” to, Western countries, the US in particular, bought in hard and financed everything they’re now recoiling against.

China’s great sin, in this context (and while I’m being slightly sarcastic there, sure, the way they’re industrializing/running shit is bad), was choosing to use their enormous land-mass, resource base, and population to not just be on the very bottom. If America/the West had wanted to see the world industrialize better and more humanely, they should have tried at literally any point to help the world industrialize better and more humanely. At this point, it’s a little absurd for Westerners to complain a situation they created and financed extensively for decades.

I did some reading and while it’s true that the continued existence of the US federal government is a large collection of dick moves forming one gigantic meta-dick move, this is actually pretty straightforward. The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas defines a range of distances from the seashore where a state can claim the seafloor/minerals etc as its own; everything past that is the high seas. The US hadn’t previously maxed out its claims, so there was wiggle room under UNCLOS to expand said claims.

Now, why would they bother, why is it suddenly worth the extra administrative cost of claiming even deeper offshore waters, that’s an interesting question. I’d say it’s a good indicator of the increasing cost and difficulty of extracting natural resources (likely technology has brought the cost down some, too), pushing nation-states to pursue ever more exotic and costly extraction methods, but overall this doesn’t seem that significant (we all already knew that was a trend, that’s why we’re all on this community).

The push to expand territories is a troubling one, because sure, this is a legally uncontroversial move, but if expanding territories is at this point our best option for propping up the system, we’re in for another era of wars. But we all knew that already.

According to the State Dept announcement, the new lines were determined by the Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is a cross-agency task force representing 14 different federal agencies. More likely, the expanded areas have a variety of resources that would be of interest to US industries.

Okay, but what did you want the bereaved mom to say to the media, “thanks Israel for murdering my kid because of what someone else did!”?

Misinformation is a numbers game. For every 10 people that see the misinfo, only maybe 1 or 2 will ever see the followup proving whatever the misinformation was was in fact misinformation. And out of those 2, half will assume the followup is itself misinformation and have their belief in the propaganda reinforced. Out of the 8 who will never see the correction, maybe two will reject it, four won’t really know what to think (itself a useful propaganda outcome), and maybe two will accept it.

Concerted efforts to combat misinformation can help, maybe nowadays the number of people who see the followup is closer to 3 or 4, but it’s the same basic dynamics behind the Gish Gallop, but on an industrial scale. Making up bullshit is easy, analyzing and explaining why it’s bullshit on average takes longer than spewing out some new piece of bullshit.

Every other Zionist makes it a point to argue that the Palestinians were never a “people” because it was never an independent nation-state, but the only reason you’d split hairs about that in such an arbitrary way (point out where in the UN Convention on Genocide it says "it’s not genocide if they never had a modern nation-state of their own? Y’all) is to muddy the waters as to whether or not clearing out Palestine amounts to genocide. Blows me away people can look at this conflict and not conclude that Israel is committing genocide.

While we’re here, Bibi uses Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority and make independent statehood impossible. They don’t dislike Hamas. Hamas makes it very easy for Bibi to accomplish his party’s goals in Gaza, which include ethnically cleansing it. Why would they ever want to actually get rid of Hamas until Gaza’s been completely destroyed?

deleted by creator