u/comfy — comfy

This is what democracy looks like, and it should be respected.

Why should it be respected? Should we respect it any more than the US democracy which elected a thug? A system isn't automatically respectable just because it's one type of democracy.

They weren't bragging. They stated their situation and experience because it's relevant to the article, which is about academics.

Europe and China have *already succeeded* in poaching scientists that way, so not sure why it'd make you laugh.

I see plenty of typical* Americans on the streets who can barely plot their own country on a world map. At some point, it is an actual lack of information, ignorance, whether by their environment or their own disinterest, rather than some racial or nationalist prejudice. It's offensive and stupid, and shouldn't be excused, but sometimes I think it isn't even racism. Or, at least, *their own* racism - it's still the effect of a nationalist exceptionalist government and culture, so racism is still relevant to their ignorance *regardless* of what their own opinions, morals and character might be.

Now, all that said, there are millions who are just racist pieces of shit who know better. So fuck them.

• I know the country isn't homogeneous and there is no typical American, but I'm not talking about just super rural folk or the centers of cities

Just look at the results. I'd describe the bourgeois reaction as 'terrified'.

Also, they downed one and damaged another, why did they cross of three?

(See existing replies)

Good point, if they were already shot down then it's possible.

The reddit thread proposes it could have been a lie for propaganda.

The mindset reminds me of their infamous wargame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

I have a soft spot for new planes being shot down by "outdated" technologies.


translations, copypasted, so you don't have to visit [the source on reddit]

::: spoiler translations:

>- "Sorry, your plane is on fire"(rhymes in Serbian)

>- "Mine is visible, but doesn't crash!"

>- "Airplane junkyard: 'We have F-117 parts!'"

>- "The ground suddenly got in his way"

>- "Missed the Surčin airport"

>- "Look, daddy, no hands!"

>- "What's going to happen with the White House? I'm going to set it on fire!"

>- "Give us another one... I need a roof for my pig pen!"

>

Followed by three more phrases which don't translate well.

>

>- "Like a child knows what is invisible"

>- "We'll fuck, NATO, my bro!"

>- "Short but 'effective' "

:::

Your post implied that all countries outside of the west sided with China when this is clearly not true.

I didn't mean to imply all countries, and it's my mistake for phrasing it like that, sorry.

Even in Africa there is a lot of pushback among the population (not necessarily the elites) against Chinese imperialism. Sri Lanka is another example where there is a measures of opposition to jingoistic Chinese meddling.

That's true. It's also important to note, at least with Africa, that there is also pushback against ongoing European imperialism, so when it comes to a "do you prefer US or China more" situation like OP, they might still pick one of them while also giving pushback.

please don’t shuffle blame away as if there was some giant institutional force preventing them from voting

My point isn't that the giant institutional force prevented people from voting (although voter suppression is, incidentally, a huge issue too).

*All* the US federal elections are a popularity contest, where rich people have ludicrous amounts of power to determine which politicians even end up as viable options on the ballot, through tools such as lobbying parties, mass media ownership, flak and advertising wikipedia: [further reading] to influence the exposure and framing of candidates. How many candidates does the typical citizen even learn about from the news or pop culture? Probably a number between 1 and 4, and only two will be endorsed by the major parties and therefore viable options in practice. That's the institutional power in action. One can't look at Clinton, Biden and Trump in 2016 and 2020 and pretend any were the best (or even decent) choices for a country's leader. These candidates rise to the top because of institutional pressures, hence, pay-to-win - the owning class decide on the options that citizens can vote on.

IIRC, Australia (I'm assuming you're from there because of your instance?) has a voting system where at least the minor parties are a viable option and independent candidates have a real chance. That's not the case in the US federal election. There's no option but the big two, the parties beholden to billionaires and mega-millionaires through tools like lobbying and mass media needed to win the popularity contest.

Obviously the PRC also has major influence over which candidates citizens can vote for, and they don't have direct federal elections for party leaders (they're elected by the local members who are elected by citizens), but the main difference is that it's not a popularity contest where celebrities like Trump, Reagan and Schwarzenegger end up as political decision makers partly due to name recognition rather than credentials and trust, or where money decides the available options.

Left wing voters didn’t show up

I find it hard to believe that Gaza protest votes were anywhere near enough to sway the election, we're talking IIRC about a 15 million drop. The Democrats weren't delivering. Voter turnout from both parties went down.

Many countries in Asia have suffered from invasions and conflicts with China.

Yes, that's a reason why some don't side with China.

Africa and the Middle East and South America and other Asian countries didn't have conflicts with China (in fact, they're typically invaded by European countries and/or the US) and so have tended to side with China.

I don't see where we're disagreeing or how what I said was any more simplistic than your reply.

On the other hand, this isn't exactly news to them. Countries outside of the Western world and Asian neighbors have been siding with China over the US for a while now, probably due to all the invasions and coups.

The PRC has a pretty clear ideological basis. Many of its leaders have written theoretical works about economics and governance. The direction might veer one way or another over the years but it's the same party running the show. So at the end of the day, one thing they have going for them is consistency. You can know what to expect. From an international perspective, they're an appealing trade partner.

The US ran a pay-to-win popularity contest to give the keys to a reality show failed-businessman backed by a weird mix of alienated mega-millionaire and billionaires who clearly have little idea of how the levers work, alongside the vicious selfish bigots who ally with them. It was already an inconsistent system for a long time, but now there's no more facade of professionalism to keep them half-rational. It's pretty much the 1930s all over again.

*"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."*

fwiw, Hong Kong protestors were protesting about their own home, rather than these universities protesting in international solidarity against their university's investments and policies. I'd kinda expect the Hong Kong ones to be defended more viciously.

The Zionist Regime is amazingly out of touch. I know on some level they don't care, but even their propaganda targeted at populations of allied countries is bizarre and making their audience second-guess them.

Maybe they can still congratulate Trump for dodging the draft and insulting the troops.

IIRC they call it the "Resistance War against America" (*Kháng chiến chống Mỹ*), and I think the small phrasing difference is important.