The unspoken implication there was credible people. Generally one can assume things like that, if they’re discussing in good faith. It’s like how I didn’t point out you’re so unfamiliar with this topic that you can’t even spell realpolitik right - it’s a minor concession made to ease conversation that costs me nothing. “The benefit of the doubt”, as it were.
“Whataboutism” isn’t a real thing and if it was, this isn’t one.
Affecting a condescending tone is not a substitute for having an argument or positions with any basis in reality.
Oh buddy, no. Just no.
Oh buddy, yes. Just yes.
It’s literally made up, it has no logical basis and is just a tool to shut down people pointing out relevant and important context for the purpose of propaganda and controlling the conversation. Or in this case, it’s not even shutting down context, it’s shutting down points that are directly related to the topic of discussion, which is why I said, even if it were a thing, this isn’t it.
I’ll take it you don’t have the source I requested, btw, meaning that you just made that claim up and it’s complete bullshit.
The first link is the only one that’s at all relevant. That data shows that the US spent more than China, but only in ODA (official development assistance) spending. As one of the sources for the China number notes, “the bulk of Chinese spending focused on other official flows (OOF), which is primarily intended for commercial projects, AidData said.” It seems that the numbers provided exclude the bulk of China’s massive BRI investments. Please note that you said, “Additionally, you know the US has been the world’s largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right?”
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point and the rate of China’s investments has been growing, if I’m not mistaken. Either way, even if the US is narrowly ahead, it’s a richer country and it’s a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China, so my characterization of their approaches is still broadly accurate.
I have no idea what the second link is supposed to be showing.
The third link, as I addressed, is completely irrelevant.
I have no idea what the fourth link is supposed to be showing.
Do you notice when you’re doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you’ve been batted down over the last one, rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared? Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you’re trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
All those links are highly relevant here (I admit #2 requires you to scroll a little, and #4 is a database frontend so maybe it was unfair to assume you’d be able to interact with it), arguably the third link most of all (it shows a ton of things in that very compact table, individual donations yes and it’s a fine example of how China’s restrictions on extraterritorial charity affect their potential impact.)
Look I get it, you’re pro-china, but you’re just assuming I’m opposed to you. It’s… I mean, it’s the stereotypical reason why so many people dislike .ml users, you’re constantly coming in here and intentionally provoking interactions that you comfortably know the dance steps to. You personally are persecuting yourself, and it’s kinda embarrassing. Gladhandedly dismissing the other party, focusing only on the things you support, never reflecting on anything that’s actually said in favor of attacking in kind.
even if the US is narrowly ahead, it’s a richer country and it’s a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China
(edit:) Look you did it again. “Even if you were right, it doesn’t matter and anyways I’m still right”
Anyways, here’s a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
Oh, you edited it:
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point
Which data on that time period wouldn’t be pretty old?
characterization of their approaches
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I’m a nice person so you’re free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
Do you notice when you’re doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you’ve been batted down over the last one
I haven’t done that even once this conversation. That would require me first to have been batted down on anything this conversation. Point me where I’ve done what you’re accusing me of, even once.
However…
Here, a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
Also, whataboutism.
rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared?
Haven’t done that either. In fact, I just spent time investigating the data you sent me, and conceded the possibility that you may be right on the relevant point, even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you’re trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
That’s very relevant to the point being discussed. What I said was that the war in Ukraine was contributing US overextension and decline, and the focus on military conflicts over peaceful development is causing it to lose ground to China. Did you lose the train of the conversation? My whole thesis is that the money spent in Ukraine would be better spent on peaceful economic investments, either at home or abroad. I don’t recall making any arguments about “the moral relativity betwix the US and China,” only comparing the facts of their spending and their general approaches to geopolitics.
See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
All those links are highly relevant here
One of those links is a fucking search bar. That’s like if I sent you a link to www.google.com and then asserted that it was “highly relevant,” with no further explanation connecting it to anything. Clown shit.
Edit:
Which data on that time period wouldn’t be pretty old?
That’s… the point. The time period is pretty old.
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I’m a nice person so you’re free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China’s approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
(Apologies that this response took a minute, there were scythe-related hijinx)
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
While it’s not really a whatabboutism (since I’m not trying to deflect the conversation to an unrelated topic, I don’t actually want to talk about the Uyghur right now), you’re otherwise 100% correct. Explicitly, even! That’s the whole reason I said it, to provide an (ironic) example and to point out your response in a way that is personally unimpeachable. How did you react to it when you read it?
See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
Again, you’re not wrong and this was the explicit point. That’s what all that lampshading I did was about.
[...]even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
I’m not sure I strictly disagree here - I’m curious why you think the US is overextending itself? In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I’m not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war? I won’t argue that China isn’t making great strides geopolitically, that is patently true, but the gains they are making are mainly at the Russian Federation’s expense - China has moved in to support many regions that were once staunch bastions of Russocentric influence.
That’s not to say they’re not gaining ground against the US, but the US and China’s economies and development are closely tied together. Example: China is the #1 home country for foreign students studying in the US, in every university system with which I am familiar (which is west coast and ivy league I admit, I don’t know much about student populations in the flyover states except to say that Earlham and OSU both follow this trend the last time I checked) and we sponsor thousands upon thousands of our graduate researchers to Chinese universities in kind. The US has as well entrusted a great deal of technological advances, even licenses for silicon design technology and other secrecy-order technologies like ultra-high-yield solar panels (rumored 45% efficiency) (this is the only S.O. technology I know of to be acknowledged) to China, and that wasn’t even done for entirely hubristic or greed-based reasons. Realistically, China is the only near-peer power to the US, and (aside from that little whoops about russia) that’s been true for a long damn time.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world. If we can both clear up our issues with homegrown fascists, and oligarch worship we might actually be able to get a whole lot of good done for the world, especially now that Russia has effectively removed itself from the world stage (and now stands impotently in the shadows, trying to be menacing). Joint US/China projects are already some of the most influential in the world, extending this would be to everyone’s benefit.
Sorry, things are getting… dumb… here but I think that hits your major points. I don’t like to do full point-by-point breakdowns, since it just spirals into longer and longer walls of text if both parties take to it, and I already spend enough of my time bickering with well-meaning randos on this website. This seems like a decent response to your overall thesis, though?
Ah and the edit points:
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China’s approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
I think we might both be confused here; to my mind, bringing up the age of the data which is being used to address a historical point seems almost ontological. Why are we arguing about it?
The unspoken implication there was credible people. Generally one can assume things like that, if they’re discussing in good faith. It’s like how I didn’t point out you’re so unfamiliar with this topic that you can’t even spell realpolitik right - it’s a minor concession made to ease conversation that costs me nothing. “The benefit of the doubt”, as it were.
Oh buddy, no. Just no.
Affecting a condescending tone is not a substitute for having an argument or positions with any basis in reality.
Oh buddy, yes. Just yes.
It’s literally made up, it has no logical basis and is just a tool to shut down people pointing out relevant and important context for the purpose of propaganda and controlling the conversation. Or in this case, it’s not even shutting down context, it’s shutting down points that are directly related to the topic of discussion, which is why I said, even if it were a thing, this isn’t it.
I’ll take it you don’t have the source I requested, btw, meaning that you just made that claim up and it’s complete bullshit.
Lmao, just hush dude
Lmao you mean you were talking about donations from individuals? Now that’s a “whataboutism.” I thought we were talking about policy.
Didn’t notice there were multiple links, I take it?
No, I didn’t.
The first link is the only one that’s at all relevant. That data shows that the US spent more than China, but only in ODA (official development assistance) spending. As one of the sources for the China number notes, “the bulk of Chinese spending focused on other official flows (OOF), which is primarily intended for commercial projects, AidData said.” It seems that the numbers provided exclude the bulk of China’s massive BRI investments. Please note that you said, “Additionally, you know the US has been the world’s largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right?”
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point and the rate of China’s investments has been growing, if I’m not mistaken. Either way, even if the US is narrowly ahead, it’s a richer country and it’s a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China, so my characterization of their approaches is still broadly accurate.
I have no idea what the second link is supposed to be showing.
The third link, as I addressed, is completely irrelevant.
I have no idea what the fourth link is supposed to be showing.
Do you notice when you’re doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you’ve been batted down over the last one, rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared? Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you’re trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
All those links are highly relevant here (I admit #2 requires you to scroll a little, and #4 is a database frontend so maybe it was unfair to assume you’d be able to interact with it), arguably the third link most of all (it shows a ton of things in that very compact table, individual donations yes and it’s a fine example of how China’s restrictions on extraterritorial charity affect their potential impact.)
Look I get it, you’re pro-china, but you’re just assuming I’m opposed to you. It’s… I mean, it’s the stereotypical reason why so many people dislike .ml users, you’re constantly coming in here and intentionally provoking interactions that you comfortably know the dance steps to. You personally are persecuting yourself, and it’s kinda embarrassing. Gladhandedly dismissing the other party, focusing only on the things you support, never reflecting on anything that’s actually said in favor of attacking in kind.
(edit:) Look you did it again. “Even if you were right, it doesn’t matter and anyways I’m still right”
Anyways, here’s a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
Oh, you edited it:
Which data on that time period wouldn’t be pretty old?
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I’m a nice person so you’re free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
I haven’t done that even once this conversation. That would require me first to have been batted down on anything this conversation. Point me where I’ve done what you’re accusing me of, even once.
However…
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
Also, whataboutism.
Haven’t done that either. In fact, I just spent time investigating the data you sent me, and conceded the possibility that you may be right on the relevant point, even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
That’s very relevant to the point being discussed. What I said was that the war in Ukraine was contributing US overextension and decline, and the focus on military conflicts over peaceful development is causing it to lose ground to China. Did you lose the train of the conversation? My whole thesis is that the money spent in Ukraine would be better spent on peaceful economic investments, either at home or abroad. I don’t recall making any arguments about “the moral relativity betwix the US and China,” only comparing the facts of their spending and their general approaches to geopolitics.
See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
One of those links is a fucking search bar. That’s like if I sent you a link to www.google.com and then asserted that it was “highly relevant,” with no further explanation connecting it to anything. Clown shit.
Edit:
That’s… the point. The time period is pretty old.
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China’s approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
(Apologies that this response took a minute, there were scythe-related hijinx)
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
While it’s not really a whatabboutism (since I’m not trying to deflect the conversation to an unrelated topic, I don’t actually want to talk about the Uyghur right now), you’re otherwise 100% correct. Explicitly, even! That’s the whole reason I said it, to provide an (ironic) example and to point out your response in a way that is personally unimpeachable. How did you react to it when you read it?
One of those links is a fucking search bar.
Damn, sorry about the OECD link - I didn’t catch that it was loading a cached page when I followed it. Public entity webdesign, what a charming thing. This one should be fixed. It’s a great site to get familiar with in general, really. An invaluable source for a great many topics.
See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
Again, you’re not wrong and this was the explicit point. That’s what all that lampshading I did was about.
[...]even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
I’m not sure I strictly disagree here - I’m curious why you think the US is overextending itself? In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I’m not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war? I won’t argue that China isn’t making great strides geopolitically, that is patently true, but the gains they are making are mainly at the Russian Federation’s expense - China has moved in to support many regions that were once staunch bastions of Russocentric influence.
That’s not to say they’re not gaining ground against the US, but the US and China’s economies and development are closely tied together. Example: China is the #1 home country for foreign students studying in the US, in every university system with which I am familiar (which is west coast and ivy league I admit, I don’t know much about student populations in the flyover states except to say that Earlham and OSU both follow this trend the last time I checked) and we sponsor thousands upon thousands of our graduate researchers to Chinese universities in kind. The US has as well entrusted a great deal of technological advances, even licenses for silicon design technology and other secrecy-order technologies like ultra-high-yield solar panels (rumored 45% efficiency) (this is the only S.O. technology I know of to be acknowledged) to China, and that wasn’t even done for entirely hubristic or greed-based reasons. Realistically, China is the only near-peer power to the US, and (aside from that little whoops about russia) that’s been true for a long damn time.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world. If we can both clear up our issues with homegrown fascists, and oligarch worship we might actually be able to get a whole lot of good done for the world, especially now that Russia has effectively removed itself from the world stage (and now stands impotently in the shadows, trying to be menacing). Joint US/China projects are already some of the most influential in the world, extending this would be to everyone’s benefit.
Sorry, things are getting… dumb… here but I think that hits your major points. I don’t like to do full point-by-point breakdowns, since it just spirals into longer and longer walls of text if both parties take to it, and I already spend enough of my time bickering with well-meaning randos on this website. This seems like a decent response to your overall thesis, though?
Ah and the edit points:
Oh come on, you’re better than resorting to middleschool-tier baiting. We both know it’s more complicated than you’re presenting even if there’s no chinese boots on the ground.
I think we might both be confused here; to my mind, bringing up the age of the data which is being used to address a historical point seems almost ontological. Why are we arguing about it?