Who Are Xi’s Enemies?(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/15/xi-congress-enemies-communist-china/
28 comments
Question, how do you guys avoid politics when looking for technology news and articles?
Read HN, but filter out all things like bbc.com, wsj.com, nyt.com, cnn.com, bloomberg.com, apple.com, microsoft.com, twitter.com, reuters.com.
If it is an msm or a software giant -- just filter it all out completely.
Everything is politics. It's a matter of how much head-burying I'm up for at any given moment.
[deleted]
Everything is politics to only those who want it to be and love arguing to feel superior.
Tech is heavily heavily impacted by politics.
If you work in a publicly traded company, you are super impacted by politics. Look at your compensation.
If you work in anything that requires access to semiconductors, you are super impacted by politics. (Tell me TSMC shutting down will only impact "those who want politics to impact them".)
If you work in a company that is trying to acquire other companies or engages in regulatory capture, politics impacts you.
If you work in a company or technology that has the interest of government, it impacts you (ask blockchain companies, ask social companies, ask tech security companies, ask app stores).
If you work in a company that depends on Section 230, GDPR, etc - politics is a huge impact on your job.
If you are part of a group that is a target of campaigns to create division, you are impacted by politics.
If you go and buy things at a grocery store, you're impacted by politics.
If you want to acquire a competitor, politics impacts you.
If you want to sell your goods to people in another country, politics impacts you.
If you work at Boeing (based on your username), you are 100% impacted by politics.
I'm going to throw it back at you, what isn't impacted by politics?
If you work in a publicly traded company, you are super impacted by politics. Look at your compensation.
If you work in anything that requires access to semiconductors, you are super impacted by politics. (Tell me TSMC shutting down will only impact "those who want politics to impact them".)
If you work in a company that is trying to acquire other companies or engages in regulatory capture, politics impacts you.
If you work in a company or technology that has the interest of government, it impacts you (ask blockchain companies, ask social companies, ask tech security companies, ask app stores).
If you work in a company that depends on Section 230, GDPR, etc - politics is a huge impact on your job.
If you are part of a group that is a target of campaigns to create division, you are impacted by politics.
If you go and buy things at a grocery store, you're impacted by politics.
If you want to acquire a competitor, politics impacts you.
If you want to sell your goods to people in another country, politics impacts you.
If you work at Boeing (based on your username), you are 100% impacted by politics.
I'm going to throw it back at you, what isn't impacted by politics?
Rather than talking past each other, why don't you share what you think I'm saying and we can take it from there?
I side with Trump for his creation of the Space Force when the media made him the object of mockery. The U.S. politics behind space technology is frienemy nasty.
You probably don't want to investigate the history of the space force then.
Everything is politics.
Happy to engage if you state the evidentiary bar that would change your mind.
Are you familiar with Hitchens's razor?
No sorry. If I don't look it up then I can feel justified in dismissing it without evidence.
You made an assertion that everything is politics, without providing any evidence. Every time someone repeats that nonsense they get called out, refuse to back it up with any shred of evidence, and then have a cute response.
Like clockwork.
Like clockwork.
Simply state the evidentiary threshold that would change your mind and I'll be happy to provide it. I've been down this dialog tree so many times before.
Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)
Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)
You haven't provided any evidence at all. So more than zero would be a start.
Politics is a critical lens with which to view the world. That's what I mean when I say everything is political. Politicization is a process. Do you wish for me to go back ad infinitum with you giving me topics, and I attempt to politicize each one? I'm guessing here that is a waste of your time and mine because we'll be arguing whether I'm sufficiently politicizing each topic to reach your standard. That's what I mean when I ask for your evidentiary standard.
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief, no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning.
So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
You can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
Hu Jintao being escorted out looked tame compared to being on the receiving end of a dramatic, "You're fired!" from the former favorite U.S. President when he hosted Apprentice on television. Who are Trump's enemies?
What ? He has no enemies. It is just "democracy in action". Of course "democracy in action" does not apply for current members of congress. /s
/s "Democracy is dishonest, I am not going to lie."
Though one is a television show and the other is valid expression of the political will of a country with deep financial troubles.
That might be a relevant comparison if President Trump had done anything of the sort in his presidential capacity, as opposed to scripted and produced television show.
Trump, Reagan are tw U.S. Presidents made recognisable to voters from earlier role in the media. The media should treat with equal favor questions of who are the enemies of a leader in their domestic context. Everything is relevant beyond six degrees of freedom separation in a model.
Yes and no. Reagan was the governor of California, so had previous political experience. And he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in the late 40s / early 50s, so he had a history of representing other people's interests.
I think it's clear the worst enemy of a leader is themselves... or the state system they are supporting. States (and businesses for that matter) are optimized for the present. As the world changes, the state (or party, or business, or ...) becomes less efficient. Political organizations have the drawback that they enforce public fealty to "the official party line" so you can never tell with certainty who does and who doesn't see the world through lenses crafted to view an older world.
Political "realities" from 50 years ago no longer hold. Republicans from the 70s would not recognize the current party. Largely true of the Democrats as well. Half-way true if you look 20 years ago.
I think it's clear the worst enemy of a leader is themselves... or the state system they are supporting. States (and businesses for that matter) are optimized for the present. As the world changes, the state (or party, or business, or ...) becomes less efficient. Political organizations have the drawback that they enforce public fealty to "the official party line" so you can never tell with certainty who does and who doesn't see the world through lenses crafted to view an older world.
Political "realities" from 50 years ago no longer hold. Republicans from the 70s would not recognize the current party. Largely true of the Democrats as well. Half-way true if you look 20 years ago.