China is the new Russia

[aerius]

Reuters link
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2001DL

FBI points to China as biggest U.S. law-enforcement threat
Mark Hosenball, David Brunnstrom

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI on Thursday identified China as the biggest law enforcement threat to the United States, and its director said Beijing was seeking to steal American technology by “any means necessary.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray told a conference the bureau currently had about 1,000 open investigations of Chinese technology theft across its 56 regional offices.

FBI counterintelligence chief John Brown said the bureau arrested 24 people last year in China-related cases and had already arrested 19 in 2020.

He told the conference at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that the FBI believed “no country poses a greater threat than Communist China.”

Wray said the threat needed to be addressed through action across the whole of the U.S. government.

“As I stand here talking with you today, the FBI has about 1,000 investigations involving China’s attempted theft of U.S.-based technology in all 56 of our field offices and spanning just about every industry sector,” he said.

Wray added that China was aggressively exploiting U.S. academic openness to steal technology, using “campus proxies” and establishing “institutes on our campuses.”

William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, told the conference China was placing particular priority on stealing U.S. aircraft and electric vehicle technology.In advance of Thursday’s event, Evanina estimated the theft of American trade secrets by China costs the United States “anywhere from $300 (billion) to $600 billion” a year.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr told the conference China has emerged as the “top geo-political adversary” of the United States and highlighted the threat posed by Beijing’s pursuit of dominance in next-generation 5G telecommunications technology.

“China has stolen a march and is now leading in 5G,” Barr said. “They have already captured 40 percent of the market and are now aggressively pursuing the balance.”

The FBI data shows an aggressively stepped-up campaign by U.S. authorities to root out Chinese espionage operations pursuing American secrets. This has snared a growing group of Chinese government officials, business people, and academics.

In 2019 alone, public records show U.S. authorities arrested and expelled two Chinese diplomats who allegedly drove onto a military base in Virginia. They also caught and jailed former CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency officials on espionage charges linked to China.

China’s efforts to steal unclassified American technology, ranging from military secrets to medical research, have long been thought to be extensive and aggressive. But U.S. officials launched a broad effort to stop alleged Chinese espionage in the United States only in 2018.

CHARGES ‘ENTIRELY BASELESS’ -CHINA

The Chinese embassy in Washington rejected the U.S. allegations as “entirely baseless.”

“The people-to-people exchange between China and the US is conducive to stronger understanding between the two peoples and serves the fundamental interests of our two countries,” it said in an emailed statement.

According to CSIS, of 137 publicly reported instances of Chinese-linked espionage against the United States since 2000, 73% took place in the last decade.

The CSIS data, which excludes cases of intellectual property litigation and attempts to smuggle munitions or controlled technologies, shows that military and commercial technologies are the most common targets for theft.

In the area of medical research, of 180 investigations of misuse of National Institutes of Health funds, diversion of research intellectual property and inappropriate sharing of confidential information, more than 90% of the cases have links to China, according to an NIH spokeswoman.

One main reason Chinese espionage, including extensive hacking in cyberspace, has expanded is that “China depends on Western technology and as licit avenues are closed, they turn to espionage to get access,” said CSIS expert James Lewis.

In late January alone, federal prosecutors in Boston announced three criminal cases involving industrial spying or stealing, including charges against a Harvard department chair.

Prosecutors said Harvard’s Charles Lieber lied to the Pentagon and the NIH about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan: a Chinese government program that offers mainly Chinese scientists working overseas lavish financial incentives to bring their expertise and knowledge back to China. They said he also lied about his affiliation with China’s Wuhan University of Technology.

During at least part of the time he had ties to the Chinese university, Lieber was also a “principal investigator” working on at least six research projects funded by U.S. Defense Department agencies, court documents show.

A lawyer for Lieber did not respond to a request for comment.

Will the US sanction the shit out of China like they did with Russia? That's a good question. Will my wife let me have a harem?

[Gandalf]

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

You know it's going to be good when they phrase it as "Communist China." I'm not sure how to describe the PRC in one word, but I'm pretty sure communist isn't it.

[mr friendly guy]

The answer is no, they won't sanction the PRC for spying. The same reason the PRC didn't sanction the US after China in the last few years broke up CIA spies, re : executed them. I know someone is going to say, its different when the US does it, we don't steal intellectual property, except from the British empire. Frankly each country is naturally going to take information which is more useful to them, in China's case its some pieces of intellectual property, although the stereotype of China just stealing all the time is grossly exaggerated, just look at their courts ruling on intellectual property to see what I mean.

[mr friendly guy]

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

You know it's going to be good when they phrase it as "Communist China." I'm not sure how to describe the PRC in one word, but I'm pretty sure communist isn't it.

Command capitalism is the word you're looking for. Where the government coordinates to a large extent economic goals using market forces. Japan in the 80s were famous for doing this. Although China takes it up a couple of notches. As opposed to laissez faire capitalism which American right wing ideologues favour, ie deregulation because market forces will work things out by themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

Once again, aerius never fails to be the first on this board to defend a dictatorship.

The comparison in the title was a poor one, though, if (as I presume) it was meant to imply that China is the victim of a Western frame-job. Given that Kremlin election interference (and assassination campaigns) were proven and validated time and again, and even the Trump administration's own investigation acknowledged that the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia was justified and not due to partisan bias.

Mind you, I'm not particularly heart-broken about the Chinese government stealing the intellectual property of corporations I'd like to see broken up. I"m more concerned with the hundreds of thousands (at least) of Muslim minorities being herded into concentration camps.

The answer is no, they won't sanction the PRC for spying. The same reason the PRC didn't sanction the US after China in the last few years broke up CIA spies, re : executed them. I know someone is going to say, its different when the US does it, we don't steal intellectual property, except from the British empire.

No one's saying that, at least not here. Of course the US spies.

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

Intellectual property theft utterly pales in comparison to the atrocities committed against the First Nations. Nonetheless "Someone else did something bad too" is not and will never be a legitimate defense to doing something bad. You should be able to argue your point without immediately defaulting to the moral bankruptcy of Whataboutism.

You know it's going to be good when they phrase it as "Communist China." I'm not sure how to describe the PRC in one word, but I'm pretty sure communist isn't it.

True enough.

Neither Russia nor China is Communist. China is a bog-standard nationalist authoritarian state, and Russia is a mix of fascism and kleptocracy (much like the United States under Trump, really).

[loomer]

Once again, aerius never fails to be the first on this board to defend a dictatorship.

The comparison in the title was a poor one, though, if (as I presume) it was meant to imply that China is the victim of a Western frame-job. Given that Kremlin election interference (and assassination campaigns) were proven and validated time and again, and even the Trump administration's own investigation acknowledged that the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia was justified and not due to partisan bias.

I wonder if it could have anything to do with how for the last few years the title of 'biggest threat to law enforcement, democracy, and generally good vibes' was awarded to Russia? Probably not.

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

Intellectual property theft utterly pales in comparison to the atrocities committed against the First Nations. Nonetheless "Someone else did something bad too" is not and will never be a legitimate defense to doing something bad. You should be able to argue your point without immediately defaulting to the moral bankruptcy of Whataboutism.

I'm not sure you understand what whataboutism actually is, to be totally blunt with you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Once again, aerius never fails to be the first on this board to defend a dictatorship.

The comparison in the title was a poor one, though, if (as I presume) it was meant to imply that China is the victim of a Western frame-job. Given that Kremlin election interference (and assassination campaigns) were proven and validated time and again, and even the Trump administration's own investigation acknowledged that the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia was justified and not due to partisan bias.

I wonder if it could have anything to do with how for the last few years the title of 'biggest threat to law enforcement, democracy, and generally good vibes' was awarded to Russia? Probably not.

The comparison was likely meant to invoke a "fake" propaganda campaign against China, since that's how he consistently portrays criticisms of and investigation into the Russian government and Russian collusion.

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

Intellectual property theft utterly pales in comparison to the atrocities committed against the First Nations. Nonetheless "Someone else did something bad too" is not and will never be a legitimate defense to doing something bad. You should be able to argue your point without immediately defaulting to the moral bankruptcy of Whataboutism.

I'm not sure you understand what whataboutism actually is, to be totally blunt with you.
[/quote]

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Ie, responding to "the US government accuses China of stealing intellectual property" with "But the US is on stolen land."

Of course the US government engages in hypocrisy (who doesn't?). That doesn't actually disprove their allegations against China, however- it just tries to change the topic by replying to accusation with accusation. Its a logical fallacy, a particularly poisonous and insidious one in that it attempts to justify utter amorality (everything is okay because somebody else did bad things too) in the name of being fair or consistent. And frankly, there are better arguments Gandalf could make on this topic.

[loomer]

Stealing intellectual property is bad, says country built on stolen land.

Intellectual property theft utterly pales in comparison to the atrocities committed against the First Nations. Nonetheless "Someone else did something bad too" is not and will never be a legitimate defense to doing something bad. You should be able to argue your point without immediately defaulting to the moral bankruptcy of Whataboutism.

I'm not sure you understand what whataboutism actually is, to be totally blunt with you.

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Ie, responding to "the US government accuses China of stealing intellectual property" with "But the US is on stolen land."

Of course the US government engages in hypocrisy (who doesn't?). That doesn't actually disprove their allegations against China, however- it just tries to change the topic by replying to accusation with accusation. Its a logical fallacy, a particularly poisonous and insidious one in that it attempts to justify utter amorality (everything is okay because somebody else did bad things too) in the name of being fair or consistent. And frankly, there are better arguments Gandalf could make on this topic.

Your central error is in assuming that sarcastically commenting on an issue of IP theft allegations from a country that exists only on the back of an active, ongoing project of systemic theft (and, for bonus points, one in which a significant industry's backbone is itself built on the appropriation of the collective intellectual property of the Indigenous peoples of that land) is an attempt to deflect the criticism. I didn't see Gandalf say 'so it's fine for China to steal' (weirdly, that was actually you when you mentioned not being upset about rampant IP theft because it's aimed at bad companies) or 'so who cares what China does', let alone 'and therefore all morality is a lie'. It's a comment on the innate hypocrisy and the comic irony of it, and shockingly, it's possible to make that comment without attempting to discredit the veracity or legitimacy of the position being commented on.

Basically, TRR, it's not whataboutism to laugh at someone crying foul about something they do themselves. It's only whataboutism if it's an active attempt to derail the conversation and to discredit the opposing side's standing to raise the issue at all. That's a crucial distinction, and it's one you really need to learn to make before you start crying about whataboutism, because every time you raise it when it doesn't apply, you look like a complete fucking moron. In the same way that not every attack on a personal attribute is an ad hominem, not every post pointing out hypocrisy in the actions of states alleging a wrong is whataboutism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Intellectual property theft utterly pales in comparison to the atrocities committed against the First Nations. Nonetheless "Someone else did something bad too" is not and will never be a legitimate defense to doing something bad. You should be able to argue your point without immediately defaulting to the moral bankruptcy of Whataboutism.

I'm not sure you understand what whataboutism actually is, to be totally blunt with you.

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Ie, responding to "the US government accuses China of stealing intellectual property" with "But the US is on stolen land."

Of course the US government engages in hypocrisy (who doesn't?). That doesn't actually disprove their allegations against China, however- it just tries to change the topic by replying to accusation with accusation. Its a logical fallacy, a particularly poisonous and insidious one in that it attempts to justify utter amorality (everything is okay because somebody else did bad things too) in the name of being fair or consistent. And frankly, there are better arguments Gandalf could make on this topic.

Your central error is in assuming that sarcastically commenting on an issue of IP theft allegations from a country that exists only on the back of an active, ongoing project of systemic theft (and, for bonus points, one in which a significant industry's backbone is itself built on the appropriation of the collective intellectual property of the Indigenous peoples of that land) is an attempt to deflect the criticism. I didn't see Gandalf say 'so it's fine for China to steal' (weirdly, that was actually you when you mentioned not being upset about rampant IP theft because it's aimed at bad companies) or 'so who cares what China does', let alone 'and therefore all morality is a lie'. It's a comment on the innate hypocrisy and the comic irony of it, and shockingly, it's possible to make that comment without attempting to discredit the veracity or legitimacy of the position being commented on.

Basically, TRR, it's not whataboutism to laugh at someone crying foul about something they do themselves. It's only whataboutism if it's an active attempt to derail the conversation and to discredit the opposing side's standing to raise the issue at all. That's a crucial distinction, and it's one you really need to learn to make before you start crying about whataboutism, because every time you raise it when it doesn't apply, you look like a complete fucking moron. In the same way that not every attack on a personal attribute is an ad hominem, not every post pointing out hypocrisy in the actions of states alleging a wrong is whataboutism.

Typical attacks on my intelligence and character aside, I see your point. That said- I'd be less inclined to call Whataboutism (or ad hominem) if "But the US does bad things too!" wasn't the go-to response immediately raised nearly every damn time these topics come up.

Like, there's a real discussion to be had here about the ethics of international espionage, or of intellectual property laws designed to benefit corporations, or of who really represents the biggest threat in the world today and how best it should be responded to (I'd argue that the biggest threat is international Neo-fascism, which is being pushed/funded by the Kremlin but figure-headed by Trump). All of which frankly seem like more relevant and interesting points. But maybe that's just me.

[mr friendly guy]

Once again, aerius never fails to be the first on this board to defend a dictatorship.

The comparison in the title was a poor one, though, if (as I presume) it was meant to imply that China is the victim of a Western frame-job. Given that Kremlin election interference (and assassination campaigns) were proven and validated time and again, and even the Trump administration's own investigation acknowledged that the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia was justified and not due to partisan bias.

That's not his intent. He is saying China is at least equally bad vs Russia, so applying the same standards, the West should also sanction China. He pretty much stated that in another thread. Ignoring a moment that China holds a bigger economic stick than Russia (and for that matter the Soviet Union ever did), which awards it some protection, there are a few other things to note. Namely that Putin has as much subtlety as a bull in a ahem China shop, but the PRC itself has been able to do things less overtly and hence avoid some Western response. If anyone disagrees just point out Russia smacking down Georgia in 2008, and supporting military force against Ukraine to this day. The PRC by contrast in the SCS uses what analysts call the "sliced salami" approach, a much more gradualist response and has even got former critics like the Phillipines to take a more soft approach by simply waiting for a new president to arrive.

[The Romulan Republic]

Once again, aerius never fails to be the first on this board to defend a dictatorship.

The comparison in the title was a poor one, though, if (as I presume) it was meant to imply that China is the victim of a Western frame-job. Given that Kremlin election interference (and assassination campaigns) were proven and validated time and again, and even the Trump administration's own investigation acknowledged that the FBI investigation into collusion with Russia was justified and not due to partisan bias.

That's not his intent. He is saying China is at least equally bad vs Russia, so applying the same standards, the West should also sanction China. He pretty much stated that in another thread. Ignoring a moment that China holds a bigger economic stick than Russia (and for that matter the Soviet Union ever did), which awards it some protection, there are a few other things to note. Namely that Putin has as much subtlety as a bull in a ahem China shop, but the PRC itself has been able to do things less overtly and hence avoid some Western response. If anyone disagrees just point out Russia smacking down Georgia in 2008, and supporting military force against Ukraine to this day. The PRC by contrast in the SCS uses what analysts call the "sliced salami" approach, a much more gradualist response and has even got former critics like the Phillipines to take a more soft approach by simply waiting for a new president to arrive.

Hmm, alright then, taking that at face value:

I go back and forth a bit on sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, but my general view on sanctions is that broad economic sanctions are generally unethical and ineffective, as they tend to hurt the civilian populace more than those in power, but that targeted sanctions on specific companies, products, or individuals (ie travel bans or seizing of assets of certain government officials) can be an effective tool when a punitive response or means of containing a threat short of outright war is called for.

I'd support narrowly-targeted sanctions against Chinese officials involved in the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Uighurs. This may be naive of me, but I honestly don't feel strongly enough about intellectual property theft to start a sanctions war over it.

It should go without saying that any actual response is almost certainly going to be heavy-handed, idiotic, inconsistent, and likely counter-productive, given current US... ahem... "leadership".

[loomer]

Ie, responding to "the US government accuses China of stealing intellectual property" with "But the US is on stolen land."

Of course the US government engages in hypocrisy (who doesn't?). That doesn't actually disprove their allegations against China, however- it just tries to change the topic by replying to accusation with accusation. Its a logical fallacy, a particularly poisonous and insidious one in that it attempts to justify utter amorality (everything is okay because somebody else did bad things too) in the name of being fair or consistent. And frankly, there are better arguments Gandalf could make on this topic.

Your central error is in assuming that sarcastically commenting on an issue of IP theft allegations from a country that exists only on the back of an active, ongoing project of systemic theft (and, for bonus points, one in which a significant industry's backbone is itself built on the appropriation of the collective intellectual property of the Indigenous peoples of that land) is an attempt to deflect the criticism. I didn't see Gandalf say 'so it's fine for China to steal' (weirdly, that was actually you when you mentioned not being upset about rampant IP theft because it's aimed at bad companies) or 'so who cares what China does', let alone 'and therefore all morality is a lie'. It's a comment on the innate hypocrisy and the comic irony of it, and shockingly, it's possible to make that comment without attempting to discredit the veracity or legitimacy of the position being commented on.

Basically, TRR, it's not whataboutism to laugh at someone crying foul about something they do themselves. It's only whataboutism if it's an active attempt to derail the conversation and to discredit the opposing side's standing to raise the issue at all. That's a crucial distinction, and it's one you really need to learn to make before you start crying about whataboutism, because every time you raise it when it doesn't apply, you look like a complete fucking moron. In the same way that not every attack on a personal attribute is an ad hominem, not every post pointing out hypocrisy in the actions of states alleging a wrong is whataboutism.

Typical attacks on my intelligence and character aside, I see your point. That said- I'd be less inclined to call Whataboutism (or ad hominem) if "But the US does bad things too!" wasn't the go-to response immediately raised nearly every damn time these topics come up.

Let's see, typical attacks on your intelligence... Well, I suppose I did say you look like a complete fucking moron. But you'll note there's a crucial qualifier in there, which is look like. I did not say you are a complete fucking moron, though just for the sake of completeness, I'll do that now: If you think that saying 'you're saying dumb shit and it makes you look dumb' constitutes a 'typical attack on your intelligence' because you can't tell the distinction between 'looks like' and 'is' in this context, then you are in fact a complete fucking moron. This distinction is between appearance and actual quality: It is possible for something to appear to possess a quality without actually doing so (and thus, someone doing something that makes them look like a complete fucking moron does not necessarily entail that they are a complete fucking moron.) Unless you think my saying that I don't think you understand what whataboutism actually is (which I believe has been established as being accurate - certainly to my satisfaction) is an attack on your intelligence?

Second, typical attacks on your character... Oh, would that be where I pointed out that your own comment was that you don't have an objection to theft when it's directed towards entities you dislike? If pointing out your own comments is an attack on your character and you aren't a complete fucking moron, this leads us to only one viable conclusion: That your own comments are of such poor moral quality that the average person would, reasonably, believe the person who made them is of low moral quality or otherwise poor character. The alternative is that you view commentary on your misapprehensions about whataboutism as an attack on your character, which I suppose is valid, as 'knowing what words mean' does form part of some peoples characters.

Buddy, you know that thing I said about you saying stupid shit that makes you look like a complete idiot? You're doing it again. I get that you think you're a clever cookie with a way with words, but you really aren't, because I can do this and I'm dumb as a sackful of hammers. Every time you throw in something like the freshly dismantled 'attacks on your intelligence and character', you make yourself look like a complete idiot who can't help but furiously masturbate at the opportunity to try and outbig someone. It's especially dumb on this site because you seem to think crying about it is going to do anything but get the pitbull savaging your leg to bite harder. It just makes us want to take the piss even more.

As to the latter? I'll be blunt with ya, buddy: The US has fuck-all sympathy from most people because it does all sorts of shady shit, and there is a natural skepticism whenever it makes any announcement as to whether the motive is one of political propagandism or not. You know that churning feeling in your stomach whenever Trump does, well, anything? That's how a lot of people feel about anything the US does. This doesn't mean that comments pointing it out are saying 'well, the US did a bad thing too, so who cares what China does'. It's just the nature of political commentary: Dubious actors get taken with a grain of salt as to their motivations.

Like, there's a real discussion to be had here about the ethics of international espionage, or of intellectual property laws designed to benefit corporations, or of who really represents the biggest threat in the world today and how best it should be responded to (I'd argue that the biggest threat is international Neo-fascism, which is being pushed/funded by the Kremlin but figure-headed by Trump). All of which frankly seem like more relevant and interesting points. But maybe that's just me.

No one is stopping you from engaging in them. You could kickstart an argument on them pretty easily, if you think there's a real discussion and you aren't a complete fucking moron (you seem to feel you aren't), but instead, chose to start screeching about whataboutism (over a comedic shitpost, no less), how you don't mind the theft of IP from bad companies, and how aerius is just so very eager to slobber all over dictator dick. You want the better conversation? Start it.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, its funny how you mock and deride me and call me "a complete fucking moron" (among other things) for suggesting that people on this board routinely attack my character and intelligence... in a lengthy tract entirely dedicated to attacking and trashing my personality and intelligence.

Don't worry, I'm sure no one else will notice or care. If anything, you'll get brownie points for "calling out" that nasty TRR, and I'll get warned or banned for it.

Edit: Don't pretend like this shit isn't deliberate though, or that there isn't a pattern where any thread were I dare question or criticize a non-Western dictatorship is promptly derailed with personal attacks on me (thus conveniently switching the topic off the actual arguments being made).

[loomer]

You know, its funny how you mock and deride me and call me "a complete fucking moron" (among other things) for suggesting that people on this board routinely attack my character and intelligence... in a lengthy tract entirely dedicated to attacking and trashing my personality and intelligence.

Don't worry, I'm sure no one else will notice or care. If anything, you'll get brownie points for "calling out" that nasty TRR, and I'll get warned or banned for it.

I mock and deride you for suggesting my post contained any significant* attacks on your character and intelligence, yes. Why is it, TRR, that you feel comfortable making that claim but then start to cry when I criticize it with the level of respect it deserves (none whatsoever)? Is it perhaps because you began your very first post in this thread with an attack on another poster's character? Is it perhaps because you condescendingly quoted wikipedia to try and show that you understand whataboutism - a move that I can only suppose you took because you yourself thought I was too stupid to have ever googled this 'whataboutism' thing before suggesting your grasp on it is somewhat lacking?

I note that this post of yours contains not one rebuttal. You don't show me where the vicious attacks I made on your character and intelligence are, or why they were inaccurate. I again note that the 'attack on your character' was nothing more than referring, accurately, to your own words, and that the attack on your intelligence in fact presupposed that you only looked like an idiot, and thus, were not in fact one. Instead of addressing anything, all you have to offer is to just cry about your persecution complex after launching in on people with attacks yourself. Have some fucking guts rather than spitting the dummy when someone sees you take a swing at someone and punches you harder.

(*: Significant, in this context, meaning an attack above and beyond the usual queensbury rules of SDN debate, where calling someone or something an idiot is not, in and of itself, a significant attack so much as a rhetorical device. I grasp that you may have some difficulty with this concept.)

Edit: Don't pretend like this shit isn't deliberate though, or that there isn't a pattern where any thread were I dare question or criticize a non-Western dictatorship is promptly derailed with personal attacks on me (thus conveniently switching the topic off the actual arguments being made).

I would never dream of suggesting that anything I post isn't deliberate. Yes, TRR, I deliberately suggested you didn't understand whataboutism very well because, well, I don't think you do. I even deliberately dismantled my purported 'attacks on your character and intelligence' as, you having invoked them, I felt I had the right to explain my reasoning and justify them. I even deliberately took to you with the written equivalent of a smack upside the head in this latest post for spitting the dummy, because it's an annoying habit of yours.

As to any broader pattern? I don't really follow it close enough to see, but I'll be blunt: If they're anything like this one (and the ones I have seen usually are) you start things off by attacking people, demonstrate a poor grasp on concepts, then cry when someone smacks you for saying dumb shit or the people you launch in to attack bite you back. You are the one who comes in and starts screeching about whataboutism and how people love dictatorships, rather than the more interesting conversations you say you want to have.

[aerius]

That's not his intent. He is saying China is at least equally bad vs Russia, so applying the same standards, the West should also sanction China. He pretty much stated that in another thread. Ignoring a moment that China holds a bigger economic stick than Russia (and for that matter the Soviet Union ever did), which awards it some protection, there are a few other things to note. Namely that Putin has as much subtlety as a bull in a ahem China shop, but the PRC itself has been able to do things less overtly and hence avoid some Western response. If anyone disagrees just point out Russia smacking down Georgia in 2008, and supporting military force against Ukraine to this day. The PRC by contrast in the SCS uses what analysts call the "sliced salami" approach, a much more gradualist response and has even got former critics like the Phillipines to take a more soft approach by simply waiting for a new president to arrive.

Correct. It's been known for decades that China has been engaged in organized state supported IP theft & espionage in the the US and other countries, along with influence peddling with US politicians and making monetary contributions & other things of questionable legality. Pretty much everything Russia was accused of doing except on a much larger scale and arguably more effective as well, just not as visible. One could argue that it's been so successful that the US continues to cozy up to China more & more despite what the PRC is doing, can you say "infiltrated and bought the fuck off"?

The other interesting part to me is timing. This is a thread I posted around half a year ago. I noted that the anti-Russia hysteria seemed to be cooling off. Oh yes, and that editorial also pointed to China as the new threat to the US.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=168427

So here we are in February and all the investigations & impeachment against Trump have been exhausted, which makes Russia obsolete as the Evil Empire. And just like that the FBI and DoJ hold a press conference saying that China is the New Big Enemy of Freedom. If the media goes in hard on this and pushes anti-China hysteria to the point where it catches on with the public, well, that's when things get interesting.

[madd0ct0r]

That's not his intent. He is saying China is at least equally bad vs Russia, so applying the same standards, the West should also sanction China. He pretty much stated that in another thread. Ignoring a moment that China holds a bigger economic stick than Russia (and for that matter the Soviet Union ever did), which awards it some protection, there are a few other things to note. Namely that Putin has as much subtlety as a bull in a ahem China shop, but the PRC itself has been able to do things less overtly and hence avoid some Western response. If anyone disagrees just point out Russia smacking down Georgia in 2008, and supporting military force against Ukraine to this day. The PRC by contrast in the SCS uses what analysts call the "sliced salami" approach, a much more gradualist response and has even got former critics like the Phillipines to take a more soft approach by simply waiting for a new president to arrive.

Correct. It's been known for decades that China has been engaged in organized state supported IP theft & espionage in the the US and other countries, along with influence peddling with US politicians and making monetary contributions & other things of questionable legality. Pretty much everything Russia was accused of doing except on a much larger scale and arguably more effective as well, just not as visible. One could argue that it's been so successful that the US continues to cozy up to China more & more despite what the PRC is doing, can you say "infiltrated and bought the fuck off"?

The other interesting part to me is timing. This is a thread I posted around half a year ago. I noted that the anti-Russia hysteria seemed to be cooling off. Oh yes, and that editorial also pointed to China as the new threat to the US.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=168427

So here we are in February and all the investigations & impeachment against Trump have been exhausted, which makes Russia obsolete as the Evil Empire. And just like that the FBI and DoJ hold a press conference saying that China is the New Big Enemy of Freedom. If the media goes in hard on this and pushes anti-China hysteria to the point where it catches on with the public, well, that's when things get interesting.

Counter argument - with the impeachment failed the FBI and DOJ need to hedge their bets against trump's second term. Continuing to pursue Russia publically will win them no internal politics, while trump supporters (and the lack of fallout over the failed trade war) have already indicated that China is a suitable target for public xenophobia and fear fuel for military-industry complex.

It's also not really a new thing. They've been banging on about this for years. Russia as bogeyman was a recent flashback and during that period they were suggesting heavily to UK not to let Huawei run our mobile network.

[Straha]

You know it's going to be good when they phrase it as "Communist China." I'm not sure how to describe the PRC in one word, but I'm pretty sure communist isn't it.

A number of my friends (including a bunch who taught in China for a while) are convinced that the Chinese leadership have effectively renounced Maoism and become full on traditional Marxists (with, perhaps, a mild twist of Leninism) and believers in the mass construction and accumulation of capital which can then be used to transition into an international socialist world construction. Along with the (largely state-owned) mass construction in China they also tend to point out just how much of Chinese foreign investment is a little head-scratchy if you think about it as simply a for-profit investment, or even as a tool to ensure international trade with China, but makes tons of sense if it's in the context of 'What could you use to engage in local strikes and enable worker revolts?' It also goes hand-in-hand with internal reforms in education and a re-emphasis on traditional Marxism in Universities that would seem to be geared toward that.

I'm on the fence about a lot of this, especially because it doesn't seem to account for the revival of Chinese nationalism that seems to be ongoing, but I think there's at least something to it.

You know, its funny how you mock and deride me and call me "a complete fucking moron" (among other things) for suggesting that people on this board routinely attack my character and intelligence... in a lengthy tract entirely dedicated to attacking and trashing my personality and intelligence.

Don't worry, I'm sure no one else will notice or care. If anything, you'll get brownie points for "calling out" that nasty TRR, and I'll get warned or banned for it.

Edit: Don't pretend like this shit isn't deliberate though, or that there isn't a pattern where any thread were I dare question or criticize a non-Western dictatorship is promptly derailed with personal attacks on me (thus conveniently switching the topic off the actual arguments being made).

[mr friendly guy]

Correct. It's been known for decades that China has been engaged in organized state supported IP theft & espionage in the the US and other countries, along with influence peddling with US politicians and making monetary contributions & other things of questionable legality. Pretty much everything Russia was accused of doing except on a much larger scale and arguably more effective as well, just not as visible. One could argue that it's been so successful that the US continues to cozy up to China more & more despite what the PRC is doing, can you say "infiltrated and bought the fuck off"?

The other interesting part to me is timing. This is a thread I posted around half a year ago. I noted that the anti-Russia hysteria seemed to be cooling off. Oh yes, and that editorial also pointed to China as the new threat to the US.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=168427

So here we are in February and all the investigations & impeachment against Trump have been exhausted, which makes Russia obsolete as the Evil Empire. And just like that the FBI and DoJ hold a press conference saying that China is the New Big Enemy of Freedom. If the media goes in hard on this and pushes anti-China hysteria to the point where it catches on with the public, well, that's when things get interesting.

Mayabird commented here more than a decade ago, that China was being made out to be Soviet Union Mark II. I started a thread about BBC bias using Chinese examples vs other nations and even you who has no love for the PRC admits it changes the perception of the story. Western media have been demonising China for a long time from Chinese debt traps (what with only 10% of Sri Lanka's debt, and INDIVIDUAL western allies /institutions holding more) to colonising Africa because they invest heavily there (I hate to think what they will describe Belgium's genocide in the Congo or Germany's genocide of the Herero people). But for some reason Russia managed to temporarily take over the headlines from China.