Quote from Dissidence

Well, every party has the chance to convince the world of their ideology. If a minority's ideology fails to provide solutions to the world's problems and thus does not convince the people, the members of that minority got themselves to blame for not working out a better one. Even then they need not whine since they can still be part of a coalition.

There are too many "parties" in the world to consider. No one has the time to listen to the comprehensive ideologies of every single party in the world. How would air time or online advertising real estate be distributed amongst the groups?

Also, certain plans/solutions for the world require more time, patience, and sacrifice than others. It is inherently difficult to implement long-term plans in a limited-term democratic system. Most people are impatient and have short vision. They'll likely vote the ruling party out before a long-term plan is fully implemented.

Understandably, along with potentially greater rewards, long-term plans have greater risk.

Quote from Dissidence

If a minority's ideology fails to provide solutions to the world's problems and thus does not convince the people, the members of that minority got themselves to blame for not working out a better one.

This assumes that the people, en masse, are willing and listen to and consider the minority position... which is often not the case. Ideologies, even utterly senseless or bad ones, have a way of self-perpetuating. Have you ever noticed how ridiculous fads and trends spread through junior high schools (and elsewhere)? That which is popular attracts attention, and that which attracts attention becomes popular, often regardless of the quality of the item in question. Furthermore, many (most?) people prefer to hold on to their existing beliefs, even in the face of solid arguments or evidence to the contrary, for the sake of having a simpler life. Of course, all of this doesn't even include the problems that arise when certain individuals or organizations actively create negative opinions about an ideology with misinformation. Fallacious arguments can have a very powerful effect on those who don't understand why they're fallacious. So, don't assume that just because an ideology isn't popular, it must be of poor quality.

Quote from pumpupthevolume

yeah i really should of reworded what i said about hong kong and south korea more realistically, i made it sound like they were perfect or something lol 🤣

lol, yeah. I don't mean to say that they aren't nice. The ones I know (and maybe the ones your friends have known) have all been very polite... but you have to remember that we're probably not like "most Asians". From my experience, the way most Hong Kongers and South Koreans behave towards poorer Asians is condescending (as most richer people tend to behave towards poorer people). Hong Kong people I know outright call mainland Chinese "commoners"/"peasants". lol

and idk China, maybe the people would be okay with it but would the government be okay with it?? i mean they censor things from the outside world...

Another common misconception people have of Chinese is that their gov't is monolithic. The Chinese gov't consists of over 70 million members. Over 5% of the population. It's the largest gov't in the world.

There's no way that it behaves in a consistent, singular direction. I bet most people here can't even get along with their own family perfectly. How do you expect 70 million people to work together perfectly? lol. There are different factions. Ever since Hu Jintao and his allies have ousted the Shanghai clique, a communistic faction has been in control of the Chinese gov't. That is more nationalist than internationalist. So no, it probably isn't as friendly towards a world state as it could be.

However, overall, the Communist Party of China is a force for internationalism. (How it treats its own citizens is another matter entirely. Just focus on the role it plays in the international order for now. We don't have room to bring that other large subject into the equation yet.) The most obvious evidence is that it works actively with other countries. It is acting as one of the primary pillars holding American dollar hegemony up. The Chinese gov't understands the risks should American hegemony collapse too quickly. Their own country's stability relies on that global economic stability. Should that fail, there might be huge riots that put Chinese officials' lives in danger. They all know and fear that. Since American hegemony is considered fragile by some, many countries (China, France, Russia, Japan, etc) have begun planning a global currency that might be more stable. There are other obvious examples, but clearly, it's working in the direction of global unification, and has nothing to gain and everything to lose from an international collapse.

I don't think any major country (aside from possibly Iran and North Korea; but I don't have a strong idea what they are thinking) has much to gain from international collapse. Just by virtue of not being strong enough to fight the international order, and wanting to instead prosper in the order, they are supporting it. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.) Maybe a terrorist organization does want it to collapse. Post international collapse, perhaps enough people would be poor that a new system has a chance to take root (religious one, perhaps).

Quote from N0x_

Quote from Dissidence

Well, every party has the chance to convince the world of their ideology. If a minority's ideology fails to provide solutions to the world's problems and thus does not convince the people, the members of that minority got themselves to blame for not working out a better one. Even then they need not whine since they can still be part of a coalition.

There are too many "parties" in the world to consider. No one has the time to listen to the comprehensive ideologies of every single party in the world. How would air time or online advertising real estate be distributed amongst the groups?

Also, certain plans/solutions for the world require more time, patience, and sacrifice than others. It is inherently difficult to implement long-term plans in a limited-term democratic system. Most people are impatient and have short vision. They'll likely vote the ruling party out before a long-term plan is fully implemented.

Understandably, along with potentially greater rewards, long-term plans have greater risk.

Parties of similar ideologies will have to unite to become big enough to find hearing then. Even though each of the joining parties will have to slightly alter their ideology, I believe the prospect of seeing their ideology, even if altered, fulfilled on a global scale will make them willing to do that sacrifice. Long-term-plans are possible if the time between elections is lengthened to let's say a decade.

Quote from QuasarX

Quote from Dissidence

If a minority's ideology fails to provide solutions to the world's problems and thus does not convince the people, the members of that minority got themselves to blame for not working out a better one.

This assumes that the people, en masse, are willing and listen to and consider the minority position... which is often not the case. Ideologies, even utterly senseless or bad ones, have a way of self-perpetuating. Have you ever noticed how ridiculous fads and trends spread through junior high schools (and elsewhere)? That which is popular attracts attention, and that which attracts attention becomes popular, often regardless of the quality of the item in question. Furthermore, many (most?) people prefer to hold on to their existing beliefs, even in the face of solid arguments or evidence to the contrary, for the sake of having a simpler life. Of course, all of this doesn't even include the problems that arise when certain individuals or organizations actively create negative opinions about an ideology with misinformation. Fallacious arguments can have a very powerful effect on those who don't understand why they're fallacious. So, don't assume that just because an ideology isn't popular, it must be of poor quality.

I admit my statement is simplifying the matter too much. Of course there are ignorant or misguided people who could not see an ideology's worth despite clear proof of it. But it doesn't matter why a minority is a minority, it still can't rule over a majority. Democracy is the rule of the people and not of the best ideology, and the ones to get votes are the most convincing not the most competent. Ugly flaws, I know, but it helps not to point them out since any alternate form of world governance but democracy would fail at the opposition of those left out in the decision making, I'm sure. So there's little left but to hope people will vote with reason.

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]

Quote from Dissidence

Parties of similar ideologies will have to unite to become big enough to find hearing then. Even though each of the joining parties will have to slightly alter their ideology, I believe the prospect of seeing their ideology, even if altered, fulfilled on a global scale will make them willing to do that sacrifice.

Hmm, I'll stop here, because there aren't enough details. I don't know how many branches of gov't there are. Don't know how the powers are divided/counterbalanced.

I must point out that people are different. Different people behave and think differently. For instance, Chinese are not as lawful as Americans and Canadians (I am qualified to say this, having spent significant time in each of those countries). They might have thought they made an agreement only to find out there had been misunderstandings after implementation of plans had begun.

Long-term-plans are possible if the time between elections is lengthened to let's say a decade.

As I mentioned, the greater rewards from long-term plans are offset by the greater risks.

Time between elections being extended to a decade is one example of where greater risks come from. If a plan turns out to be bad, then it's a bad plan that has 10 long years to fester.

World unification is going to happen when the anti christ rises - O - 😢

Givin it hard every day and night ;D

As far as I am concerned, a centralized government is a bad idea. This needs a vast and complex net work. I would agree with contemporary classical anarchist philosophers that our government right now is so complicated that IT now controls all of us. Meaning no one actually controls the government anymore, it LIVES lol. It's alive in the sense small changes by government officials and small changes in attitude can have drastic effects on the government itself.

Now bring it to a larger scale, that is even more terrifying.

For instance, Chinese are not as lawful as Americans and Canadians (I am qualified to say this, having spent significant time in each of those countries).

That sounds racist and biased....You are generalizing a nation of 1.3 billion people based on your personal experience with a few bad apples. Honestly, I been to China a couple of times, and you rarely even see cops on the streets. Yet China's Crime rate is almost half of that of the USA crime rate per year. So there you have it, you have an opinion, and so do I, they are all based on personal observations, not some social statistical analysis. So no, you aren't qualified to say this.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Quote from BoxBox

For instance, Chinese are not as lawful as Americans and Canadians (I am qualified to say this, having spent significant time in each of those countries).

That sounds racist and biased....You are generalizing a nation of 1.3 billion people based on your personal experience with a few bad apples. Honestly, I been to China a couple of times, and you rarely even see cops on the streets. Yet China's Crime rate is almost half of that of the USA crime rate per year. So there you have it, you have an opinion, and so do I, they are all based on personal observations, not some social statistical analysis. So no, you aren't qualified to say this.

That is not racist. I am ethnic Chinese myself and quite proud of that. What I said was at best nationalist, as I was talking about differences between nationalities, not differences between ethnicities/races. I'm very offended that you mislabel me as a racist. I hate how the term "racist" is thrown around carelessly. It's misused way too often and it has lost all meaning.

I'm also offended that you or others would report me when I haven't tried offending any one individual. I've been trying to be as polite as possible while discussing the topic at hand in a productive manner. Please don't pull the topic off on a tangent, intimidate me with pomo shaming language, or invoke your populist censorship on me.

And I am perfectly qualified to talk about Chinese lawlessness, not merely from my own "experience with a few bad apples". Considering that I speak Mandarin fluently and can read and write Chinese (can you?), have family and friends living there, worked with numerous Chinese offshore employees, and have been to China numerous times (not just "a couple of times" like you)... I think I might be more qualified than you.

If we want to argue objectively and not get all pomo politically correct, then we need to recognize that not all people, languages, cultures, etc, are the same.

Just because I say that Chinese are, on average, not as lawful as Americans, doesn't mean that I think Chinese individuals are not "civilized". I am referring to "legalism". It doesn't mean that I think Chinese are thugs.

Chinese in general prefer direct, interpersonal relationships... Their communication and contracts are person-to-person, and direct, not through mediums like a legal system or any other intermediary. That is why only in the past couple of years have they significantly used the WTO (an intermediary) to voice complaints about international commerce/trade. Before, it's mostly been Western countries using that system to force the Chinese to comply.

In stark contrast, America is mired in legalism. Did you know that lawyers contribute twice as much to the US national GDP as its automanufacturers do? This may have something to do with economy. Economy is divided into "services" (including law and enforcement), "manufacturing", and agriculture. In a developed country, services contribute more than the other two combined. In China and other developing countries, manufacturing tends to contribute more than service contributions. Most Chinese themselves say that China is a "developing country", not a "developed" one. Underdeveloped countries, like Africa and India, have economies rely a lot on agriculture. Economy plays a huge role in the prevalence of in legalism in society.

Something else to consider is language.
Romance languages (like English, French, German, etc) are alphanumeric, taxonomic, and legalistic. East Asian languages are not nearly as much so. Romance languages are more conducive to constitutional governance and law, while East Asian ones tend to promote holistic thought/perspective. I can say this with high confidence as an expert of logical structures of languages (I am a software engineering manager). For more details on how East Asians and Westerners differ, you can start by studying the works of Professor Richard E. Nisbett, a top expert in this field.

Taking this into consideration, and taking in consideration the actions of Asian governments, can you honestly say that the Chinese gov't follows its constitution as closely as the American one does? The American gov't doesn't always follow its constitution, but it sure as heck does more so than Chinese gov't does (and yes, I've read the vaguely written Chinese constitution when even most people in China have not).

@N0x: English is not a romance language. It's Germanic, and although there are similarities, they are not the same thing. So, right there I'd really question your expertise in that particular field of study. While there is some truth to your statement from a sociological perspective (though your argument is far too black and white), you have to quote some really radical black sheep academics to back it up from a linguistic perspective. (Nisbett is also really not the person to start with. There are piles of academics who have been studying that subject with much more prestige and success and from dozens of other angles.)

Heaven forbid I agree with the box for once, but your statement can quite easily be taken as racist in the correct manner, despite your own ethnicity- or are you going to say that a person cannot be inherently biased towards their own race? Obviously the causality behind your logic is different, but read it again and it's pretty easy to see that it can be misconstrued.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Quote from Crenshinibon

@N0x: English is not a romance language. It's Germanic, and although there are similarities, they are not the same thing. So, right there I'd really question your expertise in that particular field of study. While there is some truth to your statement from a sociological perspective (though your argument is far too black and white), you have to quote some really radical black sheep academics to back it up from a linguistic perspective.

Ok, I was oversimplifying that. English is sometimes thought of as a creole of semi-Romance ancestry. My point about English and other European languages Romance and otherwise as being alphanumeric, taxonomic, legalistic stands. My expertise in data modeling, design patters, procedural and behavioural programming linguistics is technical and in engineering, but relevant nonetheless. I don't know what "particular field of study" you were thinking of.

From what I know of the Chinese language and software engineering, programming with Chinese would be difficult without a radical new system of programming (naming conventions, namespace standards, and so on). This is also based on heavy experience. Chinese engineers try but usually relegated to using "chinglish" for heavier technical terms/jargon and communication. It is also their professional opinion that Chinese language is not as equipped for taxonomy/classification. Learning Chinese may have other advantages over English (which I won't go into), but technical precision isn't one of them.

Obviously, I didn't go into the details. If you want those, we'd need to consult the works of numerous different experts like Nisbett (who aren't black sheep academics), who did studies like testing the classification methods of East Asians and Westerners.

I could have added more than linguistic causes in the differences between Chinese and Americans, but I stopped after editing economics considerations into the post above (re-read if you missed). This is a public forum. You can't expect me to copy-paste 30 page theses I've browsed here. I thought this would be a shortcut to avoid posting even more pages of event-by-event examples of legalism in China vs legalism in the US, or even worse, recounting dozens of East v West stereotype.

• 情理法 vs 法理情
• "rule of man"/"respect for authority" vs "rule of law"/"respect for law"
  -- Compare Chinese history (built by emperors, rulers, party; highlighted by consolidations of power) to US history (founded by constitution and limitations on central authority)
  -- Compare adherence to PRC constitution vs adherence to US constitution
  -- frequency of constitutional amendments / alterations
• Chinese judiciary branch of gov't is considered a joke by Chinese themselves (even those in gov't)
• fundamentally, Confucianism promotes ritualism over legalism as a means to impact people's behaviour
  ...

Instead of simply saying "your argument is too black and white" (a bit vague, don't you think?), why not go into details about the well-established works of different experts on this topic (start with Nisbett) and/or counter my point about US economy being better equipped for facilitation of legalism in its culture... and then we'll still have to go through dozens of other points.

At best, all I can tell by your "black & white" remark is that my statements have been too strong. Well, yes. I'm making a strong point that I feel confident about. Thank you. Obviously, everything comes with moderation and there are exceptions to every rule (that's given for almost any subject), but in these cases, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, and I have you to provide them if you want to.

Heaven forbid I agree with the box for once, but your statement can quite easily be taken as racist in the correct manner, despite your own ethnicity- or are you going to say that a person cannot be inherently biased towards their own race? Obviously the causality behind your logic is different, but read it again and it's pretty easy to see that it can be misconstrue.

"Can easily be taken as racist in the correct manner" is not the same as "being racist". It's not even a "correct manner" of interpretation. It's a hypersensitive interpretation, encouraged by pomo-ism.

Did I even say which country was "better"? No. I simply stated the fact that the US is far more lawful/legalistic than China. That isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, I am often annoyed with all the legalism. People are suing each other over the most trivial slights. If this goes on, I would be sued in the future for saying something that "can easily be taken as racist in the correct manner".

And yes, people can be racist against their own race... but I have nothing against Chinese nationals, and I'm both proud to be of Chinese ethnicity and proud to have been born there. In the "Do you love your country?" thread, I clearly and proudly stated that "I love my countries, China, Canada, and the USA". That doesn't mean I will lie, feign ignorance, or avoid meaningful discussion. Do I have to say that when I say anything that might remotely "be taken as racist in the not-so-correct manner"?

I've read it again, but I don't appreciate being admonished for trying to engage this topic in a productive manner. I'm sure the OP started this topic with the expectation of heavy arguments/discussion. You can't exactly discuss this profound topic without talking about the differences between peoples.

Quote from N0x_

... I'm sure the OP started this topic with the expectation of heavy arguments/discussion. You can't exactly discuss this profound topic without talking about the differences between peoples.

Discussion is appreciated and the differences between peoples are of relevance to the topic.
But, apparently, basing claims about a people on personal experience makes little sense, as these personal experiences are subjective and different for everyone, which makes disagreement inevitable.
These claims would hold a much greater validity if they were based on something objective instead like statistics or surveys or at least information generally considered as fact.

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]

Quote from Dissidence

Quote from N0x_

... I'm sure the OP started this topic with the expectation of heavy arguments/discussion. You can't exactly discuss this profound topic without talking about the differences between peoples.

Discussion is appreciated and the differences between peoples are of relevance to the topic.
But, apparently, basing claims about a people on personal experience makes little sense, as these personal experiences are subjective and different for everyone, which makes disagreement inevitable.
These claims would hold a much greater validity if they were based on something objective instead like statistics or surveys or at least information generally considered as fact.

I'm not sure what that "apparently" meant in that context. (Highlight emphasis, mine.)

"Lawlessness" is a qualitative measure, not a quantitative one, so I'm not sure of what precise statistic you want. That China is more lawless than the US is generally considered a given by scholars on both sides of the Pacific. A lot of it is personal experience, but most of it is also well-known and studied (I urge you to actually start by reading Nisbett's works specific to East Asians vs Westerners; just look at the structure of Chinese gov't, the power structure and where the judicial branch stands; read the PRC constitution and compare it with the US).

Lawlessness (especially in the lesser developed half of China) is something Chinese officials themselves reiterate is a major problem in China, not to even mention opinions of Americans who've been there. I shouldn't even need to be arguing this, and I didn't think I was. I thought I was merely giving possible explanations, not evidence of this.

Actual evidences used by social engineers are very mundane, like the average amount of time it takes for the average citizen to become aware of a change in a traffic law (under half a year in the USA, and a few years for urban Chinese).

Damn, you guys write a lot.

I'm going to have to agree with N0x_ in that it's impossible to judge something not quantitative without bias.

Anything measured qualitatively will have bias no matter how impartial the measurer tries to be.

Therefore calling a view subjective is redundant when we're talking qualitatively.

Quote from Dafat-MKII

Damn, you guys write a lot.

I'm going to have to agree with N0x_ in that it's impossible to judge something not quantitative without bias.

Anything measured qualitatively will have bias no matter how impartial the measurer tries to be.

Therefore calling a view subjective is redundant when we're talking qualitatively.

Thanks for the backup... I think. lol

But I can honestly say that I am trying to be as unbiased as possible. Note that I am the only one attempting to argue and back my arguments with experience, evidence, and logic, because I don't want this to just be about "personal opinion". I am the one on my way to writing a freaking thesis, because people keep repeating "oh you're generalizing, oh what you're saying is subjective" without countering with any arguments/evidence of their own.

Consider that when another member wrote that from what he knew Asians tend to be condescending towards one another... except South Koreans and Hong Kongers... no one except me disagreed with that (in good humor, of course; it wasn't a big deal). No one felt the strong urge to correct him in that generalization or say that it is too subjective. No one cared.

In contrast, I say something qualitative but well-established and accepted, and I'm accused of being biased and possibly racist, and others jump to agree with that assessment. I think there's a bit more bias against me than in favour.

I admit it is probably the tone I take. People tend to be more biased against overconfident tones.

I happen to come from Hong Kong and I agree with you.

Funny how that works.
Now we need a discussion about whether being racist is 'racist' (in a derogatory manner) when the stereotype in question is true.