The process cant, but the knowledge can be. You seem to be arguing against dogma, not a mythopeotic view. And fair call, religious power structures do a lot of harm.
I made (no longer working on it); https://github.com/justinmcp/taper, which is essentially, react + "redux on server" - so still rendering on client, but logic in server.
It's definitely an interesting space to explore, I will take a look @ caldera, seems like an interesting project!
> Cries of "Tyranny!" and "Give me liberty or give me death" are imported concepts that don't resonate quite as well here in Australia.
Maybe literally with those sayings, but up until sometime in the 80s, "its a free country" was a common refrain, which was rooted in the culture and expectations of the people.
>therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it.
>they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.
Because the goal is not to expose ideas, the goal is to change the conversation so they can be hidden.
>I really don't. I am failing to see it and you clearly cannot explain it well enough or simply are saying it without any concrete reasoning behind it. Either way, you haven't explained why it matters.
Well, thanks for the criticism, you are probably right, I'll work on it. Have a good life.
>For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of >the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
But it does, don't agree? OK.
>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.
>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is
>a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.
> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.
Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.
It's a pretty typical tactic - but whether it was done because they want to boost the CCP or wether they just aren't good or careless at understanding or expressing themselves? I don't know.
Being genuine; the field of human interaction isn't some philosophical paper; if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again - not evaluating each thing they say on its merits is a rational choice.
If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
> Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.
Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.
>> That democracies have corruption
> But it's not corruption. That's the issue.
Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.
> It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an
> astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public ?
> legitimacy.
There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.
> Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's
> own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.
I'm not American.
All this cycles round to what I was saying. You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters. There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.
One of the most interesting things about China related discussions is the flood of people who will arrive and post points/arguments with various levels of false equivalency with "western" law/practise/etc. _Not_ that you are doing that, maybe, but thats one of the challenges in these conversations, who is being genuine and who is not?
China _is_ authoritarian, denying that is ridiculous. The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.
That democracies have corruption or vested interests (whether "positively" motivated or not) influencing laws does not make the process or the results equivalent.
It's also not in anyway a counter to the necessity of forming a union.