• 12 Posts
  • 142 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 19th, 2023

help-circle




  • The Taiwan issue has exactly to do with the fact that sending official diplomatic representatives to it means recognising its legitimacy and sovereignty. Even though most Western countries already believe this, sending the representatives would be to express that they believe this which is what upsets the Chinese government. China doesn’t care what people think as long as they keep it to themselves. It’s when they get “embarrassed” on the world stage that Chinese leadership thinks it demands action.


  • It’s not about “reforming” him. I’m talking about the fact that if he will at least consider whether a proposal is popular before he does it. If it’s within the margin of error or at least close enough to cover it up and pretend, it won’t stop him, but if it’s overwhelmingly unpopular it will cause him to think twice, but it is not guaranteed to change his mind. Again, this is based on past behaviour which is not necessarily indicative of the future.


  • There is a small difference though. Musk has shown in the past that it is possible to shame him into changing his mind. He is at least somewhat receptive to what the public thinks of him. Trump, on the other hand, has absolutely no shame and doesn’t care if 90% of the country is against him as long as the 10% who are with him are enough to fill a rally room.

    Musk is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency so if we were to come to power then he’d probably assume some newly-made office created just for him. They’d probably make a new prime minister-like role where he has the power to “advise” (i.e. dictate) policy decisions to the president.

    That being said, power changes people. Hard to say whether a hypothetical Imperial Chancellor Musk would act much differently from King Trump I. I wager not substantially. Trump, at least, creates a lot of funny memes with his ridiculous fuck-ups. I fear Musk would be far more competent.




  • The whole system of formal diplomatic recognition needs to die. Right now, “recognising” a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people. This is a very obstructive and unproductive system. It doesn’t matter whether you “recognise” a government and it also doesn’t matter what you decide to call your representatives to it. Refusing to recognise a government doesn’t mean that group of people doesn’t hold power or doesn’t actually control territory. It just prevents you from engaging with them in a constructive manner. It’s just a head-in-the-sand approach to intergovernmental relations.

    If there’s a group of people calling themselves a government that holds power over a group of people or a piece of territory that you are interested in, it shouldn’t have to result in this whole game of charades. You should be able to send official representatives to that group without having to worry about offending everyone else. The whole concept of “recognition” is just nonsense.









  • I agree with that generally, but what “methods that work” do you suggest?

    Edit: To add, the protest spoilt ballots and low turnout in Hong Kong did exactly what they were supposed to do. It convinced other Hongkongers that the elected Legislative Council is not legitimate and was installed, not elected. This is particularly troublesome for the Government, because Hongkongers have a famous tendency to protest, and sometimes rather intensely.


  • I’m trying my best not to call you names here, but the point of that exercise was not to exert democratic power but to cause embarrassment for the Government. The Government tried their hardest to make it look like a legitimate election but got utterly humiliated instead with low turnout and large numbers of spoiled ballots.


  • No, because the spoiled ballots are, in many cases, actually counted. This is what people did in Hong Kong when the Government imposed electoral reform designed to prevent pro-democracy and localist groups from winning. Since it was illegal to tell people to not vote (pro-democracy groups had urged a boycott), people showed up to cast spoiled ballots. That election had among the highest numbers of spoiled ballots in the region’s history.