If the only things the movie and Dan Ackerman’s book have in common are the historical facts, then I don’t understand how Ackerman’s book is being infringed on. Is there more to it than that? I haven’t read Ackerman’s book and I’ve not seen the Apple movie. Are there fictional elements or speculations in Ackerman’s book that were translated to the Apple movie?
That may be true, but I think he might have a case…
The lawsuit said that Ackerman sent a pre-publication copy of the book to the Tetris Company earlier that year. He said the company refused to license its intellectual property for projects related to his book, dissuading producers who were interested in adapting it, and sent him a “strongly worded cease and desist letter.”
So he made the book, presented it to Tetris, they rejected the idea, threatened him to sue if he did his own thing, rejected other producers, then I guess partnered with Apple and made it as if it was their idea.
Are there fictional elements or speculations in Ackerman’s book that were translated to the Apple movie?
I think so, I think it’s more a thematic kind of thing, not the history per se. But I haven’t watched the movie or read the book, so this is just my point if view from what the article says.
No idea if it works like that or if he would have a case as I’m not a lawyer, or writer, or producer, so take what I said with a pinch of salt.
IANAL, so I don’t know what are the actual legal merits involved in either having a case or not… but if someone came to me about some facts about me that they published, and they wanted me to ‘buy the rights’ to those historic facts about me, I’d feel totally justified in telling them to piss off. And if I later decided to create any form of written or video story about myself, the peddler who’d come to me earlier would already be on my blacklist of potential partners to work with.
Gizmodo? The publication that got uninvited to all Apple events due to their coverage on the leaked iPhone 4? I’m certain there are new owners of Gizmodo since then, but the irony here is pretty interesting…
They literally committed a felony, bought what at that point was a stolen prototype, damaged Apple's property, and then tried to extort Apple in exchange for returning what was, again, Apple's own property.
They didn't steal anything. He wrote a non-fiction account of a historical event. The Apple TV+ movie is a somewhat fictionalized account of a historical event with the direct support of the primary people actually involved. They don't owe him a penny. At most his contribution is an inspiration that, hey, this could make a great movie, which is not itself actually worth any money.
Apple acts really shady with small business people, I have direct experience with this. I trust the little guy. I’m sure if they lose in court, they would count it as paying for it to begin with. They’re taking a chance and may or may not “win.” How many other people are they doing this to?
The editor of Gizmodo knows very well that "Apple" gets clicks and in this case he's trying to generate free press for his obscure book. His suit doesn't quite meet the standard of "frivolous," so I don't think anybody is getting sanctioned for it, but it's certainly not filed in good faith. It's not even an issue of "trust." What he claims is inherently ridiculous. You can't copyright historical events, and presenting it as a Cold War thriller isn't some radical creative choice of "tone." The dry facts are pretty thrilling on their own, and the extra-thrilling parts (car chase) are inventions of the film.
How many other people are they doing this to?
Not stealing from? Literally billions of other people are being treated the same way by Apple every day.
Sad the voice of reason is getting downvoted because people here have this peculiar belief that Apple is 100% wrong just by virtue of being a giant company.
Gizmodo has a sorted history with Apple and have demonstrated time and time again they are trash media that lie, steal, cheat to get clicks.
No but if you wrote a musical about prohibition, submitted it to apple, but apple rejects it, discourages other producers from picking it up and then apple made a musical about the prohibition, you may have a case. I think the issue is the thematic stylistic interpretation was copied over either intentionally or unintentionally, and the court needs to decide if it’s worth a suit
I agree that, if these allegations turn out to be true, it’s pretty damned scummy. but is it copyright infringement to tell a story from a certain perspective?
I mean, I’ve seen the film, and I’ve skimmed through the book. they both focus on the most interesting parts of the story as any dramatic retelling would, and the story itself lends itself to a certain interpretation, regardless of who writes about it. Personally, I don’t see the story bing told (at least from the protagonist’s perspective) any other way and there are certainly many differences between them that are immediately evident. But it would seem to me that anyone telling a story about those events would end up with a similar story simply because they’re based on real people and historical events.
but you’re right that there’s probably enough “there there” to warrant adjudication and would depend on the interpretations of copyright law by the judge and jury, if it were to go to trial.
edit: btw, your use of a musical isn’t a great analogy since musicals have way more original material (the music) tat can be used to prove or dispute a copyright infringement claim than simply interpretation of an historical event.
Style isn't copyrightable, there has to be more substantive commonalities than just that.
It'll be up to the courts to decide if there is, of course. I notice that a review of the book quoted Ackerman from it:
In cases where the historical record is unclear, or when my interviews conflicted with previously published accounts, I’ve attempted to recount the most likely version of what happened, based on research and my own conversations with many of the primary participants. A certain amount of historical interpolation was required to offer a clear narrative understanding, including into the thought processes and motivations of those involved.
Which suggests that the book is partly fictionalized, so it's possible that there may be identifiable elements lifted from it. We'll see.
Aug 8 (Reuters) - Dan Ackerman, editor in chief of the tech-news website Gizmodo, filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on Monday accusing Apple (AAPL.O), the Tetris Company and others of adapting his book about the landmark video game “Tetris” into a feature film without his permission.
The book describes the Soviet history of the popular puzzle game and the fight for its global licensing rights as a “Cold War thriller with a political intrigue angle,” according to Ackerman’s lawsuit.
He said the company refused to license its intellectual property for projects related to his book, dissuading producers who were interested in adapting it, and sent him a “strongly worded cease and desist letter.”
According to the complaint, the company’s CEO Maya Rogers and screenwriter Noah Pink began copying Ackerman’s book for the “Tetris” screenplay starting in 2017.
Ackerman said the film “liberally borrowed numerous specific sections and events of the book” and was “similar in almost all material respects” to it.
Ackerman accused Apple and the Tetris Company of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and illegally interfering with his business relations.
They’re handing out crypto currency so you already know it’s a scam before you even think about the implications of gathering this kind of biometric data.
Ten Chinese air force aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defence zone . . . Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or ADIZ.
For those unfamiliar with the Air Defense Identification Zone:
Not only does it include a lot of water that isn’t part of the Strait, right off of China’s coast, it also includes a portion of Mainland China a few times larger than Taiwan itself.
People like to talk like China is flying jets over Taipei City, but you can fly a plane from one city in Mainland China to another, only passing over land, and be in this zone. Mind you, I don’t think Taiwan having this zone is bad – countries generally should be aware of air traffic nearby – but this is part of a long history of alarmist headlines by western media regarding what is often very uninteresting air traffic in the PRC.
OK, but these articles arent alerting on that type of traffic, only when military aircraft are flying near Thailand, so whats the significance of the ADIZ extending into China in this context?
Ten Chinese air force aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defence zone . . . Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or ADIZ.
This is what the original post quoted. Flying over international air space is NOT news worthy. Unless China does it, suddenly it’s news. And yes, in case you don’t understand, the median line IS international air space. In fact, that’s USA’s whole point of freedom of navigation is that anyone can fly or sail over that median line.
So if your argument that countries shouldn’t freely fly or sail over the Taiwan Strait, you agree with China, NOT Taiwan.
My argument is that you shouldn’t fly military aircraft so close to a country in their ADIZ after stating you don’t believe they’re a country and that you will take them over with violent means if necessary.
Ah classic, your all for rule of law until there’s an actor you don’t like following rule of law. Suddenly the law should change just for them. Hypocrite.
So Chinese bots are on lemmy too now. You obviously didn’t read the article - “Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or ADIZ.”
In international relations, militaries have defined and at times unspoken rules of engagement. This was NOT routine flight over mainland China that you are making out to be, but was a clear breach of said protocols. Thus Taiwan sent its fighter jets to observe the Chinese military aircraft.
I literally quoted the part that you just also quoted, which specifies that some of the craft were merely in the ADIZ, the one thing I was talking about in my comment
Like 6ish years ago we all, liberals and leftists together, were creeped out by the right’s sudden proliferation of “NPC” memes, correctly pointing out how dehumanizing it is and conjecturing darkly about what exactly this kind of rhetoric was priming these people for. Now, the overton window’s so fucked that the we’ve normalized deploying the exact same invective against anyone who speaks up on behalf of humanity and against a US-dominated world. I’ve driven past the ruins of the Japanese concentration camps out in the miserable desert, and to know that so many people around me who act self-righteous but stand for nothing would rebuild those camps at the snap of a finger, or the running of an op-ed, or a scary news story…well, these people may haughtily object to being called blue MAGA, but that sure doesn’t stop them from doing absolutely fucking everything they can to earn the label.
Amazing how comfortable you are being racist on a public forum.
Anyway, people should look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JADIZ_and_CADIZ_and_KADIZ_in_East_China_Sea.jpg and take note of how far Taiwan’s ADIZ extends into Fujian province of mainland China and the open ocean (which is the southwest corner the PRC’s airplanes were supposedly encroaching on). These articles are obviously published to make China seem more aggressive than it really is. Meanwhile the US, with the most powerful navy in the world, parades its warships through the Taiwan strait, which for some reason is not seen as a threat or provocation. Also Taiwan claims the mainland as its own territory. Oh, poor little Taiwan. Lol, get off it.
“How am I being racist? I’m just assuming anyone who disagrees with me must be a certain ethnicity and/or bot.”
This really isn’t too complicated. Stop using Chinese as a pejorative and “bot” as a thought terminating cliche. It prevents any meaningful discussion, and yes, it’s also very racist.
The term isn’t being used as a pejorative. The term is being used as an adjective to a pro-chinese social media commentator. Mister Doi Doi with NO history in lemmy.
The term isn’t being used as a pejorative. The term is being used as an adjective to a pro-chinese social media commentator. Mister Doi Doi with NO history in lemmy.
Chinese refers to the people who live there or who’s families emigrated from there, not randos online who don’t support the rabid NATO line. your racism is showing.
Didn’t take long for that one to come out, accused of being racist and immediately compares the leader of China to a yellow cartoon bear lmao. Incredible
What’s wrong with Winnie the Pooh anyways? Who doesn’t want to live the rest of their life eating honey and being a loving, caring member of their community?
That is one of the top all time posters over on hexbear. I’m not sure why you keep thinking that established posters are new bot accounts, but it’s absolutely not helping you to look less ridiculous
The instance I’m a part of (hexbear) just federated with Lemmy dot ml a week ago. So I don’t have many comments on here obviously. I am unfortunately addicted to the internet and have way more comments than that on my accounts main instance. I wish this was my only comment in 3 years lol. Could have got so much done instead of wasting time on my phone.
Imagine going off on people for the age of their account when you’ve been here for 2 months (reddit refugee) lmao. You don’t have the highground here and your feigned elitism makes you look like a clown.
Sir or Ma’am, I am a US citizen of Chinese descent and I assure you that you are being a cracker, and you can stop any time.
My bias is towards peace and against interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. Taiwan is part of China, this was settled in 1972. It’s only in recent years that the US has taken a hostile stance against the PRC since its peaceful economic rise has started to threaten US hegemony. This is not my fight, it’s not your fight, it is the fight of the US ruling class—its political establishment and its financial oligarchs. China and the US should be allies, and we should be putting our combined labor into decarbonization, healing the ecosphere, reparations for the global south, and preparing communities for the effects of climate change.
Also, my family immigrated from Hong Kong before it was released from British rule, so by your logic I should be against China, which I’m not, because I’m capable of critical thinking.
Yes, the ADIZ includes part of China, but this article is mainly about jets crossing the median line of Taiwan Strait. Also I don’t think Taiwan gets mad over any jets intruding the “overclaimed” part of the ADIZ.
You both quoted the same exact piece of text. You said they didn’t read the article but you didn’t even bother to read their comment?
You are calling a human being a bot, literally dehumanizing them, because they don’t have the same hatred of China as you. You should really check yourself. You are full of hatred and ideological poison. It is clear from your comment that you have limited literacy skills and understanding, you should check out some other perspectives and try to broaden your horizons. Here is one. This is also another incredible resource with a lot of essays and information with a different perspective
No no never engage their statement on it’s alleged merits. Kick them in the [redacted] and then ask them why they can’t walk while laughing. It is the weirding way.
Beep boop I have been programmed to make really fucking cool historical dramas beep boop (This is my stereotype about China idk what else happens there I just really like Three Kingdoms adaptations did y’all see 2008’s Red Cliff it was dope af! John Woo directing!)
I mean, it was made solely for your benefit (though I did like reading it). For your convenience, here it is again.
They are mocking you because they have assessed you as not interested in really engaging with people. If you were more unassuming, the response would be different. It sucks to be dogpiled-on, it has happened to me – with this very group no less – but it’s good to try to have some perspective of the limits of the implications of such behavior.
Also hexbear is just a little excited to have liberals to use as punching bags via federation, so there’s definitely a bit of a hair trigger. I generally prefer to stick to my own ways of talking with people for various reasons, but I struggle to find serious fault with them when I am essentially doing the same thing in my own way with others, and OP seriously brought this upon themselves by posting such a stupid, misleading, and alarmist article (see the comments about the Taiwan ADIZ from myself and others).
Edit: also I checked back and yeah, you were picking a fight. Liberal complains about “brigading,” socialist A criticizes them, socialist B riffs on socialist A’s comment, then you come and reply to socialist B with “You seem upset,” which I would struggle to read as anything other than condescending and terse. I misread
It’s not like you said “Hey, what about the Taiwan Strait part?” and got people screaming “HOG OUT OR LOG OUT!”
I don’t think I’ve expressed any liberal sentiments here at all.
I legitimately don’t care either way tbh. All this does is once again reinforce the idea that leftist spaces on the Internet are hostile to anything besides a very narrow set of ideas which makes up a very small and myopic subset of leftist thought. I am not here to cure anyone’s ignorance. I am engaging earnestly with you because you are actually making an effort to converse instead of just posting literal pig shit.
I read GS’s thread, what do you want me to say? I have more personal, firsthand experience with China than anyone commenting there? I have family there? I speak the language? I have an actual stake in Chinese society? I think we’ve seen conclusively that none of that matters if you do a wrongspeak.
GS even admits that the brigading is obnoxious then goes on to defend it. Like I said, this is well beyond my ability to truly care, I was just really hoping that lemmy would be a place people could discuss these topics instead of just trolling, and then having double standards when someone else gently pushes back.
GS even admits that the brigading is obnoxious then goes on to defend it.
Dogpiling and brigading are two different things. Brigading is (at least loosely) coordinated, dogpiling is something people do when they are there, coordinated or not. The algorithm just happened to put this thread near the top on Hexbear, which is only federated with a handful of instances, as can be seen by the fact that I was the very first person to comment on it (next was op, then myself again, iirc). It is categorically false to my knowledge that this thread was “brigaded,” a bunch of people with similar opinions on this issue just all saw the thread.
And it is obnoxious, but “obnoxious” doesn’t mean “evil,” especially when you were speaking so derisively about the people you had to have seen made up the bulk of the thread when you made your first comment. Honestly, what did you expect? In most political communities you’d get a very similar reaction, and I’d prefer a single emote to a “Crimes of China” copypasta filling up my inbox.
Scare quotes are used for discussing definitions, as in, uh . . . “socialism” is not “when the government does stuff”. I was not meaning to convey that you used a word that you plainly did not, just highlighting that me agreeing to something being obnoxious does not mean agreeing to it being seriously wrong (which in common parlance might be called “evil”).
Whoops, I misread the reply chain pretty severely, you can ignore the edit. You were picking a fight, but not along the lines I wrote there.
I don’t they’ve expressed any liberal sentiments here at all.
Neoliberal is a subset of liberal (in the traditional philosophical sense, not American vernacular), and there is a very clear divide in the thread between neoliberal and socialist.
I legitimately don’t care either way tbh.
With due respect, you’re just a little Not Mad, but let’s not belabor the point. I’ve been Not Mad too, it’s not a sin.
All this does is once again reinforce the idea that leftist spaces on the Internet are hostile to anything besides a very narrow set of ideas which makes up a very small and myopic subset of leftist thought
There are a bunch of things wrong with this, starting with that the article was misleading dogshit and deserves to be mocked. Beyond that, the cultural clique of Hexbear can be myopic, but I think that it does not compare negatively to modern neoliberals in this respect. It is much more interested in international perspectives rather than the perspective of the “international community” (i.e. the EU + the Anglosphere + the most convenient elements of Taiwan, Japan, and SK). They quite frequently read neoliberal writing and listen to neoliberal speeches and so on, while neoliberals are usually content to hear about anything to do with their opposition exclusively through second- and third-hand reporting by their own media.
Which leads me into my next point, that “tankies” etc. are readily called fringe by liberals on the internet, but internationally represent a very common set of opinions (or a strong overlap therewith). It is itself myopia to dismiss the opinions of Chinese and many other people in the imperial periphery and consider only the opinions of the imperial core when evaluating what people think and what “leftist thought” consists of. You could not serious believe, for example, that the Collected Writings of Chairman Mao are important to only a “small subset of leftist thought,” right? Sure, you are unlikely to know anyone – or even to have ever met anyone in your real life – who regards such a thing positively, but your personal experiences are not the world.
As an aside, the “bot” rhetoric that the liberals so often display is not really helping your case about the tankies being especially closed-minded.
I am not here to cure anyone’s ignorance.
Do you see how most people would not be interested in talking with someone who says things like this? That level of condescension rarely produces anything other than scorn.
“You are being condescending to me too!”
Sure, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable view (though not my intention), but I am nonetheless explaining and substantiating my differences rather than merely denouncing what you say as “ignorant,” and even if we nonetheless accept my fault, that just results in a criticism towards both of us rather than solely towards me.
I am engaging earnestly with you because you are actually making an effort to converse instead of just posting literal pig shit.
I would not have replied at all if I didn’t recognize your username. You hadn’t been saying anything in this thread that someone would normally think merits a serious response. You were derisive right out of the gate. To act this way and then complain about other people not turning the other cheek and speaking patiently to you is silly.
I promise you that if you make an alt (preferably with a different username in case people are grumpy with the interaction here) and post a thread on asklemmygrad or askchapo to the effect of “Hey, I’m a [whatever you call your flavor of liberalism], but I want to learn about what you believe on various topics and what you think of certain criticisms . . .” you will get mostly responses that are earnest. If you expect people to be polite and unassuming towards you when you begin by being aggressive and presumptuous, you will almost exclusively be disappointed, and I don’t just mean that for interacting with commies.
Ignorance, once again, being the idea that ML orthodoxy is the only “true socialism.” We’ve been over this already and I’m not sure there’s much point in carrying on this conversation if you are going to intentionally misrepresent politics I have articulated to you a number of times.
And to be honest, it sounds like you are the one doing a lot of speaking for the Chinese while making a lot of assumptions about my relationship with Chinese society. I don’t really feel the need to justify any of this to you or trade cultural credentials. That honestly feels offensive and chauvinist.
I do appreciate the discussion though. I hope we can continue this in a different setting somehow.
Ignorance, once again, being the idea that ML orthodoxy is the only “true socialism.”
That is not the hexbear line and not even relevant to the thread. Being an anarchist or whatever you like doesn’t mean believing western smears of China – like this incredibly poor article that you keep talking around.
We’ve been over this already and I’m not sure there’s much point in carrying on this conversation if you are going to intentionally misrepresent politics I have articulated to you a number of times.
I remember now from that conversation a week ago that you insist on being some type of socialist but I am pretty sure you never specified.
And to be honest, it sounds like you are the one doing a lot of speaking for the Chinese
It’s not an unfounded opinion that the CPC has strong popular support. That doesn’t mean the majority of China is ML in any serious way – plainly, they don’t seem to be – but it does support the view that articles like this are a completely bullshit characterization of the PRC - RoC situation and most people in China (and many other countries in the imperial periphery) would agree.
while making a lot of assumptions about my relationship with Chinese society. I don’t really feel the need to justify any of this to you or trade cultural credentials.
Reading another comment you made in this thread: Whoops, I guess you probably have met a Marxist or two. That wasn’t terribly important to my argument, I was merely speculating on how you might have developed you false opinions. Given this new information, I don’t have a new guess.
I don’t care about your life and wasn’t attempting to initiate some identity game, I merely try to understand things in terms of how ideology is downstream from personal circumstances, and how an ideology that is well-suited to one’s personal circumstances can nonetheless lead them to have a distorted view of the world outside their experience. I support your inclination to not discuss these details with me but invite you to reflect on them to yourself in this context.
Yeah, obviously it’s a glorified puppet state but there’s no point in arguing from that standpoint here. If a country is to exist, it should know about local air traffic, that’s all I’m saying.
The PRC wants a peaceful reunification, which would not be aided by them continuously flying military jets over the island. I, too, would prefer peaceful reunification, which means some level of cooperation and tolerance is necessary.
The RoC won’t give up their holdings in the interest of human benefit, but liberalism shows us that there are countless ways to skin a cat. The RoC is not autarkic and is very dependent on its NATO friends and its trading partners. As the US wanes and third world nations stand up, the support for Taiwanese nationalism will surely dwindle, and RoC leadership may be put in a position where their best offer is clearly to reunify.
Taiwan is a rump state of the despotism that existed before the Maoist revolution. When the government fled to the island, the US backed them up and prevented the revolution from purging them from power and uniting the whole country under one flag. They exist today as they are because of western intervention, and is therefore a puppet state. I disagree with ‘glorified’ considering it’s taboo internationally to even call them a state.
I started writing out a timeline but I don’t know what position you’re asking from so I will say for the sake of brevity that the US kept the KMT from being run out of all of China so that the US could us the island as a threat against China – as it also attempted to do in Korea when it had more-or-less complete control of the southern half. Taiwan spent about 40 years as a military dictatorship killing tens of thousands of dissidents, native Formosans, and others (this was called the “White Terror”), while their patron the US looked the other way while it pumped resources into the country (for the ruling class, mind you) to use the island as a sweatshop site in the interim. This legacy and its connections to fellow US puppet South Korea and US ally Japan go a long way to explaining its current capacity in manufacturing, which make up its other value to the US besides geographical position.
Both Taiwan and SK have made various attempts to assert themselves (with some success in both cases), but with the pathetic diplomatic position of the former and the continued military occupation of the latter by the US, I think “puppet state” is a fair title for them, perhaps as much as Israel, but that’s its own can of worms.
I didn’t really intend on getting into litigating this topic, but I’m happy to discuss it as best I can.
I started writing out a timeline but I don’t know what position you’re asking from so I will say for the sake of brevity that the US kept the KMT from being run out of all of China […] which make up its other value to the US besides geographical position.
Yes, I know about its not-so-glorious past and the White Terror. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed. It was terrible. However, I must respectfully disagree with you on the “puppet state” part. I don’t think that Taiwan is a puppet state. The US sponsoring Taiwan is a thing of the past. Neither is a pathetic diplomatic position a good reason for being a puppet state.
if US support dropped overnight, reunification with the mainland would become inevitable. it’s a puppet state in the sense that it’s propped up by the might of the US/NATO military.
It’s kind of a weird way to define a puppet state IMO, because you could make the same case for a lot of countries. Like the US supports the Mexican government, and would have likely already been overthrown by the Sinoloa Cartel without US support. So is Mexico a puppet state?
Hey now that you mention this, it does kind of make less sense. But I think I should be taking a break from this horrible post. There is no use arguing with someone that is completely unwilling to change their mind. Look at my comment history. I’ve already wasted hours.
I didn’t see this reply before. The other commenter has it right that the relevance of its pathetic diplomatic position is that it is being propped up by the US/NATO and ultimately depends on them to exist apart from the PRC, which makes it very difficult to oppose them. Incidentally, does the US not sponsor Taiwan? Even just recently there was this, which sure seems like sponsorship to me.
I could have formatted it better, but the rest was focused on the puppet part and then I prefaced the sponsorship part with “Incidentally” to indicate changing over to an adjacent subject.
Not only did the US turn a blind eye to the White Terror, but they were positively gleeful about it, as a key target of it was of course not only indigeneous-politics based, but fundamentally anti-communist.
Indeed a basic presupposition of the US providing you such extensive economic support, as a forward base in Asia against communism, is that you crush any opposition to its ‘proper’ functioning as such an economic and military asset. That supposes that you will crush any radical, labor, trade-union, let alone explicitly socialist or communist activity which appears to challenge the state.
Do you even know why the pro-independence party (DPP) lost so badly in the local election for mayors? Because the people were disappointed in what DPP had done with the economy, not because they didn’t agree with the foreign policies DPP was pushing! (Please note that I’m not saying most people agree.) In local elections, people are going to choose whoever they believe would be the best for the city/county, not the one whose views on China they agree with.
Additionally, if you look at the latest opinion poll for the presidental election next year, you’d be surprised to find out that the candidate from the pro-independence party is leading.
Source: am Taiwanese
ps. you made a typo in your comment. it was the 2022 local election, not 2020.
i am sure the success or failure of those domestic policies were not in the least contingent on international political conditions. the economic policies of an island that imports 97% of its energy with a food self sufficiency rate of around 30% and exports accounting for 70% of gdp can in no way be considered to be overexposed or at risk to trade fluctuations and even if that were the case, i am sure that foreign policy would not play an outsize role in determining the magnitude or periodicity of said trade fluctuations.
Because a poll asking a direct question is a hell of a lot more accurate in gauging how the population feels about the issue.
Political parties can lose elections for their stances/actions outside their main one – which seems to have been the case per the actual person from Taiwan that responded to your comment. It doesn’t matter what a party is called or what their main goals are if they’re bad at their job.
If and when the people of Taiwan decide they want reunification, it will happen. Thankfully Beijing isn’t going to be allowed to force the issue.
The majority of Taiwanese people has always wanted to remain status quo, as indicated by the two triangle data lines in the plot. Since declaring independence is basically asking China to attack and that peaceful reunification is not desirable (for >90% of the population) either, the majority are of course pro-status quo. It does not line up with how DPP ate shit last year.
peaceful reunification is not desirable (for >90% of the population)
Again, this was “forced” reunification in that poll, i.e. military takeover. Of course people oppose that. I think at least the plurality opinion is against peaceful reunification under the PRC too, but it’s not by as high a margin.
No, it was NOT “forced” reunification. The two reunification choices in that poll were “unification as soon as possible” and “maintain status quo, move towards unification,” neither of which is forced.
Like asking yankoids what they want to do with “their land”, the question is pointless and only serves to legitimize a faulty preposition.
The ROC also still claims to be the legitimate government of all of China (plus Mongolia and a sizable chunk of Russia) so its not like they’re just sitting there minding their own business either.
The ROC also claims the South China Sea as its own and has build naval bases in there. Even the DPP doesn’t want to give up those naval bases. So, it’s the Republic of Taiwan to stick it to the Mainland commies, but “akctually, we’re the Republic of China, and the South China Sea is part of Chinese naval waters, so we get to build as many naval bases as we want” to Vietnam and Indonesia.
There’s been both “China Best” and China being shady posts. We’ll never know for sure in this age of fake information. Might be that they’re trying to follow the Russia model.
Good on ya, assuming I’m American (I’m not). Also, classic use of US bad, therefore Russia/China good. Two countries can be overmilitarized imperialists at the same time.
They’re only a global superpower that is constantly causing problems for everyone around it, no big deal or anything. Definitely not newsworthy at all, no.
Capitalism and the neoliberalism that supports the aristocratic hierarchy funneling wealth from developing nations is destroying the world. But go ahead, focus on China while the housing crisis and inflation fuels fascism inside western countries destroying them from the inside.
Developing fascism is the understatement of the century lmao the US has slavery enshrined into the 13th amendment. Henry kissenger is literally still alive.
When white people do it, it’s “difficult history but ‘workable’” but when China superficially resembles it (taking Chinese history at face value), it’s “unforgivable capitalist dictatorship imperialist empire big brother”
There’s more to China’s political system than “just a dictatorship” but I won’t disagree with you that it’s not a dictatorship if you see one party rule as emblematic of one.
What I am arguing is that even well intentioned comments like the one I was responding too still misrepresents history and is to the benefit of the American political establishment (that being Washington and its business oligarchs). The person I was responding too wasn’t blatantly wrong, but the diction at use here is deserving of criticism. “Developing fascism” is an easy way to conflate both the Western European fascist culture and aesthetics and the historically unique proto-fascist (before fascism was defined academically) culture of the USA.
Neoliberal bootlickers like Johnny (“sell-out to the WEF”) Harris exploit this heavily to great effect on large for-profit social media sites: trading historical nuance for sensationalism. This isn’t a moot point it’s whats happening now.
Fair enough. I can see how the phrase “developing fascism” might mask the severity of the existing and growing problems within the U.S. To be honest, I wasn’t really aware of such differences, and think that myself and a lot of other people could learn a lot from that message. I’d be happy to discuss what we both think of as Fascism to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
But also, that wasn’t really my main point. I’m not trying to minimize the faults of the US or demonize the Chinese political system. I of course know that there are a lot of forces contributing to the state that it’s in, and that there are a lot of factors that keep it that way. And I’m not even especially criticizing the idea of one-party rule.
But the fact is that there are many, varied human rights and freedoms being suppressed in today’s China, and those problems have been perpetuated or worsened under the control and direction of a single dynasty of leaders. I’ve read and watched a lot of accounts of political events in 2021/2022 from people who live inside and outside of China, and I’m forming my opinions on those. Stuff like the inhumane conditions during lockdowns, constant nucleic acid testing, corruption and negligence leading to huge wastes in the housing markets, etc. And I know that a lot of these phenomena were spun up due to how quickly China industrialized as a nation. But too many of them were brought about under the direct orders of Xi.
So when people see criticisms of China being challenged, whether or not they disagree with the idea of a dictatorship, they see it as a denial that those injustices are happening. I think more productive than arguing with someone who you perceive to be misunderstanding something, would be to ask them questions, see where their misunderstanding lies, and to offer information or sources that could educate them or help them educate themselves. When you go into the interaction assuming that someone is trying to paint with a broad brush and accuse them as such, then you’re going to get a lot of people to shut down, and then they’ll never receive your message.
control and direction of a single dynasty of leaders
What does dynasty mean in this context? Because Xi Jinping is not related to his predecessors in office. If you meant political cliques or political in-groups then sure? The CCP is not a dynasty/monolith and has over 98 million members. This is also to reference that provinces also have their own local governmental bodies as well. Plenty of criticism can be made for political delegation but dynasty-ism isn’t one of them.
The best way to help the Chinese people is to also understand why China is the way it is today, and understand one’s own role in this discussion. A lot of people are going to be shut down in these threads because these articles aren’t for us working class people. It’s for politicians: www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/…/text
Fearmongering always causes damage no matter how many of us are have good intentions.
It’s a good point. You clearly have a lot more knowledge about the situation than the average joe. Just remember to be empathetic with ignorant people like me when sharing it
Shitty things like… Flying within China’s ADIZ that happens to overlap with Taiwan’s ADIZ because Taiwan refuses to use the median line as their ADIZ boundary like China does?
Just so you know, when you insult someone like that without explanation. You push them away from your position. I will now make it my mission to learn everything I can about tankies to prove you wrong. 😃
You’re defending a dictatorship that pretends to be communist. China is closer to fascism than most of the world. Which you’d understand, if you weren’t a fucking tankie.
I’m not defending China, or Russia, or America. I’m just looking at media with a clear perspective. Which you would understand, if you had a skeptical mind.
Taiwan, which China claims as its territory, has repeatedly complained of Chinese military activity near it over the past three years, as Beijing steps up pressure to try to force the island to accept its sovereignty.
Taiwan’s defence ministry said that starting at around 9 a.m. (0100 GMT), it detected a total of 25 Chinese aircraft engaging in operations out at sea, including J-10 and J-16 fighters, as well as H-6 bombers.
The ADIZ is a broad area Taiwan monitors and patrols to give its forces more time to respond to threats, and Chinese aircraft have not entered territorial Taiwanese air space.
China staged war games around Taiwan in April after President Tsai Ing-wen returned home from a visit to the United States where she met U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Taiwan Vice President William Lai leaves for the United States this week on his way to Paraguay on what is officially only a transit but which has angered China.
Taiwan’s democratically elected government rejects China’s sovereignty claim and says only the island’s people can decide their future.
The mercury could also rise to 40 C in the Basque Country in northeastern Spain, an area less accustomed to such high temperatures, the state weather agency AEMET said.
Southern European countries have been grappling with record-breaking temperatures this summer, prompting authorities to warn of health risks, particularly for the elderly and those with medical conditions.
Temperatures in some areas in the southern half of Spain remained above 27 C on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, AEMET spokesperson Ruben del Campo said.
“Wednesday will be the most intense day in terms of extension and temperatures,” Del Campo said, adding that the heatwave will continue until the weekend.
Tourists said they were keeping to the shade, drinking lots of water and eating ice cream to stay cool.
The Cryosphere, a scientific journal focused on frozen water and ground, published a peer-reviewed paper on Tuesday showing how the Aneto Glacier, the largest in the Pyrenees, is melting and could disappear altogether.
When Rio Tinto blew up Juukan Gorge, it blew up a site that had been in continuous use for 46,000 years. For reference Stonehenge is only 5,000 years old.
One of the Juukan Gorge artefacts was a 4,000 year old human hair bracelet that has been DNA matched to living descendants.
This is the heritage of Aboriginal people who are traditional owners and at this point it's also our heritage as a species.
It is completely creepy. Think about who is behind Open AI. That’s a mixture of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel (Palantir), Microsoft and others. A right-wing, anti democratic, anti-human and purely profit oriented group. The name “Tools for Humanity” is complete sarcasm. What they do with Worldcoin smells like a modern attempt of colonization. Collecting biometry, subverting critical infrastructure (financial systems), making fake promises, blinding poor people with shiny metal balls and a little bit of money in some cases.
This can be stopped though! The Kenyan government apparently banned the project - for good.
reuters.com
Hot