Kim Jong Un ordered North Koreans to eat less food until 2025

Pet · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
Mind you, I was focusing on Xinjiang and the sanctions on companies and governmental bodies in the region, and as far as i know China is not a country with a inability to feed their people like North Korea. Therefore, the choice isn't free people starving or enslaved people being fed, its about a minority being suppressed and forced to conform and treated to appalling abuses by their government. My opposition in my recent posts is not relating to North Korean sanctions specifically but the assertion by samoyed that all sanctions are bad and should be rescinded.

Has sanctions changed anything in Xinjiang? Have they changed anything ever?

China managed to flourish despite US sanctions. The US went running back to China once corporations realized it was more profitable.

No one imposing sanctions cares about the morality of slavery when money is involved. No country where widespread sanctions were placed has "fixed" their behavior, which sometimes was human rights but more often than not just a difference in political system (anti-Communism, really). The moment it became economically profitable to ditch mass sanctions...

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

sacrament said:
I keep telling you I am OK with supplying the humanitarian aide. I think you're not really reading anything I am typing.

This is the 'thoughts and prayers' of geopolitics. You cannot, simultaneously, be 'okay with humanitarian aide' and think 'we need to keep up sanctions on DPRK', because one stance interferes with the other, they are mutually exclusive. Saying "I'm okay with aide" is useless noise, unless it translates to actionable policy. There is no meaningful policy behind "I'm okay with aide". It is like when Manchin says "I'm okay with helping the poor, by not with these handouts". They are weasel words to try to get out of committing to meaningful action while maintaining the facade of morality.

Hanzo said:
That article isn't making the point you think it is.

What do you think is the point I think it is making?

sacrament · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
This is the 'thoughts and prayers' of geopolitics. You cannot, simultaneously, be 'okay with humanitarian aide' and think 'we need to keep up sanctions on DPRK', because one stance interferes with the other, they are mutually exclusive. Saying "I'm okay with aide" is useless noise, unless it translates to actionable policy. There is no meaningful policy behind "I'm okay with aide". It is like when Manchin says "I'm okay with helping the poor, by not with these handouts". They are weasel words to try to get out of committing to meaningful action while maintaining the facade of morality.

Then we disagree. I think it's totally legit to send medicine and food to the people, while putting pressure on the regime and military through sanctions. Seems completely reasonable to not want to arm or feed the people trying to threaten its own people, or those around it while still providing what aide you can so the innocent aren't caught in the cross fire.

You're kind of all of the place here... basically opening up DPRK, with normalized everything, despite all the things you know is your only stance. It's weird - and your defense of them is weirder.

WascallyWabbit · Oct 28, 2021

Pet said:
Honestly, to me, it sounds like y'all would rather "free" people die of starvation than enslaved people fed.

Freeing or reducing the people from slavery is not an option, so it's really those two outcomes right now and honestly to me it's weird people would pick the latter.

I would rather have humanitarian aid sent but keep the sanctions (or hell , even revise them if they're hindering aid that badly), even with the hindrance of the sanctions I don't believe they should be lifted as they are there to keep the proliferation of the exploitation of the NK people by the regime and greater market forces

And yes, I do believe that the sanctions clearly have some hindrance on aid being sent, but to me that middle road is the best option

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Oct 28, 2021

Okay, so I'm really confused by what communist-era is even attempting to argue here.

How would the US lifting sanctions on North Korea for chemical weapon and nuclear weapon development help with the situation of Kim Jong-un having closed North Korea's borders to trade to avoid any risk of COVID?

What would be improved if North Korea is so worried about COVID that they refuse to trade with even China?

Why would North Korea trade with the US right now if sanctions were lifted if they won't trade with China?

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Did I say... all this? 'End the sanctions' is not 'do nothing to bad actors'.

I was already banned in that thread you quoted and sanctioned (teehee) by the mods, do you want me to be banned for it again?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of this strawman. Also.

Also:

Also:

First? Strawman? What strawman? The U.S sanctioned the heads of some Xinjiang based governmental bodies right here at this link: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0070

There is nothing strawman about the scenario you baselessly threw out. Also linking that China has decided to back off their suppression of Uyghurs after worldwide condemnation and threats of sanctions by international powers and the highlighting of abuses by the Chinese government by NGOs is like the gold bar of what people hope sanctions would do.

I would also point out that it is against anti-colonialist ideals to "ferry people" out to asylum. The minority has a right to thrive in China, and your suggestion that our help be limited to getting people out is as bad as any suggestion from sinophobes for chinese people to go back to China if they dislike how things are in the U.S.

And I don't even know what "advocate non rent-seeking policies of aid and investment" means. You mention investment, I dunno, barring U.S individuals and companies from investing in companies in Xinjiang sounds pretty non-rent seeking. You should elaborate.

Pet said:
Has sanctions changed anything im Xinjiang? Have they changed anything ever?

China managed to flourish despite US sanctions. The US went running back to China once corporations realized it was more profitable.

No one imposing sanctions cares about the morality of slavery when money is involved. No country where widespread sanctions were placed has "fixed" their behavior, which sometimes was human rights but more often than not just a difference in political system (anti-Communism, really).

samoyed has kindly pointed out that China has rolled back some of its restrictive measures on the Uyghur minority.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

sacrament said:
I think it's totally legit to send medicine and food to the people, while putting pressure on the regime and military through sanctions.

It is zero sum. I have posted enough studies and literature on this. If sanctions harms 1 civilian and aide reaches 1 civilian, what have you accomplished?

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
It is zero sum. I have posted enough studies and literature on this. If sanctions harms 1 civilian and aide reaches 1 civilian, what have you accomplished?

What would lifting sanctions right now achieve if North Korea has completely closed border?

Coyote Starrk · Oct 28, 2021

The country that is already starving itself to death needs to "eat less food"?

What?

StarStorm · Oct 28, 2021

They were already starving before so guess they're starving more now?

WascallyWabbit · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
It is zero sum. I have posted enough studies and literature on this. If sanctions harms 1 civilian and aide reaches 1 civilian, what have you accomplished?

I would disagree that it's zero sum, from the study you posted

Findings

So they missed their target and for every 5 civilians aid got to, 1 was harmed, which really fucking sucks and we should do better. But aid even given the sanctions clearly is not zero sum

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
First? Strawman? What strawman?"

This is the strawman:

ChippyTurtle said:
your saying "fuck it, let them kill and hurt people and do immoral things cause what happens if we let these sanctions wound innocent people"

And your supporting policy to essentially handwave a minority being suppressed for what? Aren't you anti U.S imperialism? Aren't you a leftie?

If you can quote the places where I said these things, that would be great. Otherwise it is a strawman of my stance here, whch is against continued US sanctions on the DPRK, and tangentially other countries, and in general sanctions as a tool of IR diplomacy. Anything else you want to read into it is beyond the scope of this topic.

ChippyTurtle said:
And I don't even know what "advocate non rent-seeking policies of aid and investment" means. You mention investment, I dunno, barring U.S individuals and companies from investing in companies in Xinjiang sounds pretty non-rent seeking. You should elaborate.

No. I have spent enough time on this bullshit. It is not worth it, and I detect I'm being baited into another ban and/or wasting my time. I'm calling it a day here. If you or anyone are interested in what I said there wrt economics I recommend reading:
Unequal exchange; A study of the imperialism of trade.
False Nationalism False Internationalism
The Law of Worldwide Value

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
This is the strawman:

If you can quote the places where I said these things, that would be great. Otherwise it is a strawman of my stance here, whch is against continued US sanctions on the DPRK, and tangentially other countries, and in general sanctions as a tool of IR diplomacy. Anything else you want to read into it is beyond the scope of this topic.

No. I have spent enough time on this bullshit. It is not worth it, and I detect I'm being baited into another ban and/or wasting my time. I'm calling it a day here. If you or anyone are interested in what I said there wrt economics I recommend reading:
Unequal exchange; A study of the imperialism of trade.
False Nationalism False Internationalism
The Law of Worldwide Value

Okay so how would the US dropping sanctions at this moment help the situation described in the article that this topic is about?

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

WascallyWabbit said:
I would disagree that it's zero sum, from the study you posted

So they missed their target and for every 5 civilians aid got to, 1 was harmed, which really fucking sucks and we should do better. But aid even given the sanctions clearly is not zero sum

Zero sum does not mean "net outcome is zero". It means "one side's loss is another side's gain", and in the case of sanctions vs aide, one person harmed by sanctions cancels out one person helped by aide. IE if I deliver 5 units of aide and 1 unit of sanctions, and the net result is 4 people aided, 1 person missed, then I can stop the sanctions to bring the score up to 5. That is to say, sanctions are directly responsible for inefficiencies in aide and creates avoidable harm.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Okay so how would the US dropping sanctions at this moment help the situation described in the article that this topic is about?

According to a 2018 UNICEF report, 200,000 North Korean children already suffer from acute malnutrition, and sanctions put 60,000 of these vulnerable children at risk of starvation due to the disruption in the availability of humanitarian supplies caused by tightening sanctions.

Unilateral US sanctions delay or outright block vital humanitarian shipments to the North Korean people. One NGO recently reported that it took them over a year and a half to ship 16 boxes of beans to the DPRK.

Sanctions passed in 2017 prohibit the transport of any metal goods, significantly hampering the shipment of basic medical supplies. A shipment of reproductive health kits was subjected to significant delay because it contained aluminum steam sterilizers —the most important part of the kit.

The Humanitarian Impact of Sanctions on North Korea - Korea Peace Now!

Since North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, the UN Security Council has imposed nearly a dozen sanctions against the country, adding to unilateralU.S. sanctions. While advocates of sanctions may regard them as a peaceful alternative to military action, there is evidence that...

koreapeacenow.org

B-Dubs · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
First? Strawman? What strawman? The U.S sanctioned the heads of some Xinjiang based governmental bodies right here at this link: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0070

There is nothing strawman about the scenario you baselessly threw out. Also linking that China has decided to back off their suppression of Uyghurs after worldwide condemnation and threats of sanctions by international powers and the highlighting of abuses by the Chinese government by NGOs is like the gold bar of what people hope sanctions would do.

I would also point out that it is against anti-colonialist ideals to "ferry people" out to asylum. The minority has a right to thrive in China, and your suggestion that our help be limited to getting people out is as bad as any suggestion from sinophobes for chinese people to go back to China if they dislike how things are in the U.S.

And I don't even know what "advocate non rent-seeking policies of aid and investment" means. You mention investment, I dunno, barring U.S individuals and companies from investing in companies in Xinjiang sounds pretty non-rent seeking. You should elaborate.

samoyed has kindly pointed out that China has rolled back some of its restrictive measures on the Uyghur minority.

Has anyone actually read that article? It's a story about two trips for the AP and an official trip led by the state where the people of the region were literally told what they were allowed to say in front of the reporters. And said reporter being followed around the entire time. Totally normal stuff guys, totally normal.

In one village we stop in, an elderly Uyghur man in a square skullcap answers just one question – "We don't have the coronavirus here, everything is good" – before a local Han Chinese cadre demands to know what we are doing.

He tells the villagers in Uyghur, "If he asks you anything, just say you don't know anything."

and then there's

Within Xinjiang, Han Chinese and Uyghurs live side by side, an unspoken but palpable gulf between them. In the suburbs of Kashgar, a Han woman at a tailor shop tells my colleague that most Uyghurs weren't allowed to go far from their homes.

"Isn't that so? You can't leave this shop?" the woman said to a Uyghur seamstress.

Down the street from the tailor shop, I spot Lunar New Year banners with slogans in Chinese characters like "The Chinese Communist Party is good" plastered on every storefront. An elderly Han Chinese shopkeeper tells me that local officials printed the banners by the hundreds, handed them out and ordered them put up, although Uyghurs traditionally celebrate Islamic holidays rather than the Lunar New Year.

and then there's "protecting the native language" by relegating it to an "ethnic minority language section"

In bookstores, Uyghur language tomes are relegated to sections labeled "ethnic minority language books". The government boasts that nearly a thousand Uyghur titles are published a year, but none are by Perhat Tursun, a lyrical modernist author, or Yalqun Rozi, a textbook editor and firebrand commentator. They, like most prominent Uyghur intellectuals, have been imprisoned.

On the shelves instead: Xi Jinping thought, biographies of Mao, lectures on socialist values, and Mandarin-Uyghur dictionaries.

Many Uyghurs still struggle with Mandarin, from young men to elderly grandmothers. In recent years, the government has made Mandarin the mandatory standard in schools.

On the state tour, a headmaster tells us that the Uyghur language continues to be protected, pointing to their minority language classes. But all other classes are in Chinese, and a sign at one school urges students to "Speak Mandarin, use standard writing."

and the detainment camps which were just replaced with more permanent facilities more out of the way

After global outcry, Chinese officials declared the camps shuttered in 2019. Many indeed appear to be closed.

On the state-led tour in April, they took us to what they said was once a "training center", now a regular vocational school in Peyzawat County. A mere fence marks the campus boundaries — a stark contrast from the barbed wire, high watchtowers and police at the entrance we saw three years ago. On our own, we see at least three other sites which once appeared to be camps and are now apartments or office complexes.

But in their place, permanent detention facilities have been built, in an apparent move from makeshift camps to a long-lasting system of mass incarceration. We encountered one massive facility driving along a country road, its walls rising from the fields, men visible in high guard towers. At a second, we were blocked by two men wearing epidemic-prevention gear. A third ranks among the largest detention facilities on earth. Many are tucked away behind forests or dunes deep in the countryside, far from tourists and city centers.

and the ending sequence

Officials dodge questions about how many Uyghurs were detained, though statistics showed an extraordinary spike in arrests before the government stopped releasing them in 2019. Instead, they tell us during the tour that they've engineered the perfect solution to terrorism, protecting Uyghur culture rather than destroying it.

One night, I was seated next to Dou Wangui, the Party Secretary of Aksu Prefecture, as well as Li Xuejun, the vice chairman of the Xinjiang People's Congress. They are both Han Chinese, like most of Xinjiang's powerful men.

Over grilled lamb and yogurt, we watched grinning Uyghurs dressed in traditional gowns dance and sing. Dou turns to me.

"See, we can't have genocide here," Dou said, gesturing to the performers. "We're preserving their traditional culture."

Like, I dunno how anyone can read this and go "Yup, all good now. Nothing to see here. No bad stuff going on anymore."

It feels like everyone read the title, the first few paragraphs and then ignored the rest.

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
What do you think is the point I think it is making?

Well you are arguing that sanctions don't work and the article mentions this:

It's hard to know why Chinese authorities have shifted to subtler methods of controlling the region. It may be that searing criticism from the West, along with punishing political and commercial sanctions, have pushed authorities to lighten up. Or it may simply be that China judges it has come far enough in its goal of subduing the Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim minorities to relax its grip.

What B-dubs said above.

WascallyWabbit · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Zero sum does not mean "net result is zero". It means "one side's loss is another side's gain", and in the case of sanctions vs aide, one person harmed by sanctions cancels out one person helped by aide. IE if I deliver 5 units of aide and 1 unit of sanctions, and the net result is 4 people aided, 1 person missed, then I can stop the sanctions to bring the score up to 5. That is to say, sanctions are directly responsible for inefficiencies in aide and creates avoidable harm.

But the sanctions are there to prevent avoidable harm as well, which is to stop the regime from profiting off the slave labor that props up their resource industry and thus proliferating the use of more slave labor.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

Hanzo said:
Well you are arguing that sanctions don't work and the article mentions this:

No. That is not why I posted the tweet. And to fully explain why would take more effort than I stand to gain, so I will refrain. Bad ROI.

WascallyWabbit said:
But the sanctions are there to prevent avoidable harm as well

They don't do this, they say they do this, and people want to believe they do this, but it is the old 'good in theory not in practice' yarn everyone here should be familiar with.

which is to stop the regime from profiting off the slave labor that props up their resource industry and thus proliferating the use of more slave labor.

There are non-sanction sources of leverage, I posted one of my preferred strategies here: https://www.resetera.com/threads/ki...s-food-until-2025.506826/page-2#post-76070307

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Zero sum does not mean "net outcome is zero". It means "one side's loss is another side's gain", and in the case of sanctions vs aide, one person harmed by sanctions cancels out one person helped by aide. IE if I deliver 5 units of aide and 1 unit of sanctions, and the net result is 4 people aided, 1 person missed, then I can stop the sanctions to bring the score up to 5. That is to say, sanctions are directly responsible for inefficiencies in aide and creates avoidable harm.

The Humanitarian Impact of Sanctions on North Korea - Korea Peace Now!

Since North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, the UN Security Council has imposed nearly a dozen sanctions against the country, adding to unilateralU.S. sanctions. While advocates of sanctions may regard them as a peaceful alternative to military action, there is evidence that...

koreapeacenow.org

So why would NK trade with a non-China nation right now if they're refusing to trade with China over COVID fears?

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

Hanzo said:
Well you are arguing that sanctions don't work and the article mentions this:

Also:

It may be that searing criticism from the West, along with punishing political and commercial sanctions

If you want to read that as "sanctions definitely work and are good and we should do more of them", that is your prerogative, but "may be" is not good enough for me when it comes to humanitarian efficiency.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
So why would NK trade with a non-China nation right now if they're refusing to trade with China over COVID fears?

What the fuck? Are you doing this on purpose?

Unilateral US sanctions delay or outright block vital humanitarian shipments to the North Korean people. One NGO recently reported that it took them over a year and a half to ship 16 boxes of beans to the DPRK.

If you try to make up shit again, I will cease replying to you. I do not know why or how you got the idea I was talking about trade with DPRK (I do care about this, but that is a different topic).

Netherscourge · Oct 28, 2021

Literally the fattest guy in North Korea telling his starving citizens to starve harder.

Kenai · Oct 28, 2021

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
So why would NK trade with a non-China nation right now if they're refusing to trade with China over COVID fears?

I am all for doing anything we can to make sure there's humanitarian efforts to keep people from going hungry, but this was my immediate thought as well. If they aren't accepting help from China because of COVID concerns then the same should definitely apply to us in the US with far higher cases.

That being said, it's highly likely that there's a lot more going on and this is just Kim making excuses like normal

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Also:

If you want to read that as "sanctions definitely work and are good and we should do more of them", that is your prerogative, but "may be" is not good enough for me when it comes to humanitarian efficiency.

Don't put words in my mouth.

The sanctions in Xinjiang don't target regular people they only target the ones responsible and profiting from the genocide and oppression. I'd say that's a good thing.

You act like all sanctions are the same.

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Also:

If you want to read that as "sanctions definitely work and are good and we should do more of them", that is your prerogative, but "may be" is not good enough for me when it comes to humanitarian efficiency.

What the fuck? Are you doing this on purpose?

If you try to make up shit again, I will cease replying to you. I do not know why or how you got the idea I was talking about trade with DPRK (I do, but that is a different topic)

Humanitarian Exemption Requests | United Nations Security Council

I. Relevant Security Council resolution and Implementation Assistance Notice No. 7 The comprehensive humanitarian exemption mechanism as established by the 1718 Sanctions Committee to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is...

www.un.org

NGOs can apply for exemptions for humanitarian and food aid. UNICEF, the WFP and others already have exceptions to send aid such as food and medical supplies to NK. Italy even got an exception for a

Shipment of agricultural machinery and equipment to the DPRK by AGROTEC SPA, an Italian company which was contracted by the European Commission to export the abovementioned machinery and equipment for the purpose of improving food security in the DPRK.

North Korea wants sanctions eased on metal, fuel and ‘liquor and suits’ to restart US talks

Amid economic crisis, Kim Jong-un wants restrictions relaxed on necessities as well as luxury goods, South Korea lawmakers say

www.theguardian.com

As a precondition to reopen talks, North Korea argues that the United States should allow mineral exports and imports of refined oil and necessities.

"I asked which necessities they want the most, and they said high-class liquors and suits were included, not just for Kim Jong-un's own consumption but to distribute to Pyongyang's elite," he said, referring to North Korea's leader.

Sure sounds like the NK regime has the best interest of the NK people at heart when they ask for removing the sanctions.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

Hanzo said:
NGOs can apply for exemptions for humanitarian and food aid. UNICEF, the WFP and others already have exceptions to send aid such as food and medical supplies to NK. Italy even got an exception for a

Yes, it is all because NGOs don't know how to apply for exemptions, you figured it out. It is those dumb NGOs for not understanding international law. All the literature that says "sanctions are bad and create inefficiencies" just never heard about the exemptions.

Humanitarian food and medical assistance is much needed in the North, and it could be a useful step as the Biden administration seeks to engage with North Korea. Two issues will make it extremely difficult, however. First, paranoia about COVID-19 could well make Kim Jong-un unwilling to permit the kind of on the ground monitoring that would be necessary to meet legal requirements. Without such monitoring, it will be difficult to get Congressional support necessity to carry out an assistance program.

A second legal requirement in U.S. law is that humanitarian aid be given without political strings attached. Assistance is to be given based on need, the ability to monitor delivery, and the net availability of funding to meet demand for assistance in all countries in need. Humanitarian assistance cannot be a quid-pro-quo for nuclear negotiations. Aid must be based on need, not politics.

Robert R. King is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America. He is former U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea Human Rights. The views expressed here are his own.

Sir! Sir, but did you consider the exemptions?

Hanzo said:
Don't put words in my mouth.

You first.

Hanzo said:
That article isn't making the point you think it is.

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
This is the strawman:

If you can quote the places where I said these things, that would be great. Otherwise it is a strawman of my stance here, whch is against continued US sanctions on the DPRK, and tangentially other countries, and in general sanctions as a tool of IR diplomacy. Anything else you want to read into it is beyond the scope of this topic.

No. I have spent enough time on this bullshit. It is not worth it, and I detect I'm being baited into another ban and/or wasting my time. I'm calling it a day here. If you or anyone are interested in what I said there wrt economics I recommend reading:
Unequal exchange; A study of the imperialism of trade.
False Nationalism False Internationalism
The Law of Worldwide Value

samoyed said:
They're exercising their agency. People here just dislike confronting the simple fact that social repression is also agency. They choose to do repression because they believe the socio-economic outcomes are worth the costs. The use of cost-benefit analyses to guide policy is "agency" in the economic sense.

"Agency" is not "we'll meekly follow the ethical standards set by foreign rivals even if they are economically inferior for us" but is actually "fuck all of y'all we're doing it live".

It seems to me people dislike it when China deviates from Western mores, which is understandable, but do you guys really think imposing your ethical standards on 1.4 billion people is respecting their "agency"? This is a joke, right? If you believe richer "enlightened" nations should dictate/determine the behavior of poorer "backwards" nations, at least have the honesty to be up front about it instead of calling it "agency".

Imperialists, imperialists, imperialists, none of you are free from imperialism.

You cannot assert being for minority rights and then turn around and respond to criticism of suppression of minorities by the Chinese government by asserting that its imperialism for people to be outraged because its a non-Western power doing the suppression. You are literally saying China has the right to enforce their norms on their minorities, free from complaint, and I've seen you complain about the suppression of minorities in the U.S, it is actually bordering on the absurd. What is the difference between China forcing the Uyghur language to be banned, and the U.S forcing Native Americans into reservations and suppressing their languages? There isn't any damn difference and it is appalling you can defend it, under the guise of "agency" and "imperialism".

Let me inject with a personal note, whenever my Chinese born and lived mother was asked by me concerning authoritarian abuses in China, I could make the connection between her responses defending it (including her opposition to imposing Western norms), to her racism, to her openness to voting for Trump and Republicans, to historical suppression of minorities in the West, and how the offenders defended their actions. How can you say that supporting minority rights in China is asserting Western ethics on China and turn around and say the West is wrong for suppression of their minorities? Unless your only goal is the promotion of Chinese nationalism?

Which is fine, nothing wrong with Chinese nationalism, but acting like China has a built in reserve of oppression its allowed to do to make up for imperialism is just wrong.

BringBackSonics · Oct 28, 2021

So glad that my grandparents fled from NK to SK. I feel horrible for the people of NK

PtM · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
You cannot assert being for minority rights and then turn around and respond to criticism of suppression of minorities by the Chinese government by asserting that its imperialism for people to be outraged because its a non-Western power doing the suppression. You are literally saying China has the right to enforce their norms on their minorities, free from complaint, and I've seen you complain about the suppression of minorities in the U.S, it is actually bordering on the absurd. What is the difference between China forcing the Uyghur language to be banned, and the U.S forcing Native Americans into reservations and suppressing their languages? There isn't any damn difference and it is appalling you can defend it, under the guise of "agency" and "imperialism".

Is this argument based off the book titles?

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

PtM said:
Is this argument based off the book titles?

I edited my post for the quote i was referring to.

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Yes, it is all because NGOs don't know how to apply for exemptions, you figured it out. It is those dumb NGOs for not understanding international law. All the literature that says "sanctions are bad and create inefficiencies" just never heard about the exemptions.

What are you talking about? Where did I say or even imply that anything close to that?

Maybe you should be asking yourself why doesn't NK take advantage of these exceptions and get aid and medical supplies for it's people.

You act as if these sanctions come out of nowhere and as if the NK regime doesn't have any responsibility.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
acting like China has a built in reserve of oppression

You are still butt mad over those posts I was already banned for! But I will humour you here.

Do you know why I criticize the US here more than I do the bad nations? It is a very straightforward calculation.

I am a civilian living in an ostensibly democratic country in the Anglo sphere, my ability to affect the world is limited to the reach of my voice, my wallet and my ballot. There is nothing to be gained in repeating, ad nauseum, that the CCP/DPRK/Cuba/Maduro are bad for the umpteenth time. They do not have access to my voice. It cannot reach them, and even if it could, they would not understand me. And even if they could understand me they would not obey me.

However, my voice can reach other people in the Anglo sphere. And presumably I can vote for politicians aligned my views and direct capital where I believe it should go. With those three tools, I attempt to make myself felt across the world. If it is a civilian in need of aide in Xinjiang or Venezuela or DPRK, etc. I can try to send them money and nudge US policy ever so slightly to be kinder and more humanitarian.

This is why I don't go around condemning despots like everyone else, I consider condemnations largely useless except for signaling that you're part of the good guys. Every post I make, every word I type, is either: 1) increasing my personal entertainment or 2) nudging Western society in the direction I want it to go. Condemning tyrants does not achieve either result. Criticizing sanctions does. It is purely an EV calculation. If you disagree with my calculus, fine, sure, okay, but if you want to convince me my utility calculation is wrong you're going to have to do a lot better than repeating mainstream sound bites.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

Hanzo said:
You act as if these sanctions come out of nowhere and as if the NK regime doesn't have any responsibility.

Ah, the old "you brought this on yourself". "Just follow orders, don't resist" as applied to geopolitics.

Sure they are responsible for violating international law. So? Why does that justify the sanctions against them?

Law follows from ethics. Ethics do not follow law. I am the sole judge, in my worldview, of whether of not sanctions are ethical. I do not care one bit what the law says, I only care about outcomes, and I consider the outcomes of sanctions indefensible for the benefits they produce. If you do not want to subscribe to this worldview, okay! That is fine. I respect the validity of your worldview. But do not expect me to adopt it without a damn good reason or expect that I would hold back my critique.

TripaSeca · Oct 28, 2021

Bolsonaro did the same in Brazil. Also told people to go pick up gas at the refinery to pay less.

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
You are still butt mad over those posts I was already banned for! But I will humour you here.

Do you know why I criticize the US here more than I do the bad nations? It is a very straightforward calculation.

I am a civilian living in an ostensibly democratic country in the Anglo sphere, my ability to affect the world is limited to the reach of my voice, my wallet and my ballot. There is nothing to be gained in repeating, ad nauseum, that the CCP/DPRK/Cuba/Maduro are bad for the umpteenth time. They do not have access to my voice. It cannot reach them, and even if it could, they would not understand me. And even if they could understand me they would not obey me.

However, my voice can reach other people in the Anglo sphere. And presumably I can vote for politicians aligned my views and direct capital where I believe it should go. With those three tools, I attempt to make myself felt across the world. If it is a civilian in need of aide in Xinjiang or Venezuela or DPRK, etc. I can try to send them money and nudge US policy ever so slightly to be kinder and more humanitarian.

This is why I don't go around condemning despots like everyone else, I consider condemnations largely useless except for signaling that you're part of the good guys. Every post I make, every word I type, is either: 1) increasing my personal entertainment or 2) nudging Western society in the direction I want it to go. Condemning tyrants does not achieve either result. Criticizing sanctions does. It is purely an EV calculation. If you disagree with my calculus, fine, sure, okay, but if you want to convince me my utility calculation is wrong you're going to have to do a lot better than repeating mainstream sound bites.

Maybe you believe this but you aren't fooling anyone here. If you maybe listened to all people calling you out on your nonsense you'd know that.
The moment you are unable to condem the actions of these regimes you lose all credibility and nobody will take you seriously or listen to you. So you undermine yourself and you don't even see it.

tsmoreau · Oct 28, 2021

That is some heavy imperialist simping from such a happy dog

Edit: Ooooh, "increasing my personal entertainment" so he was just trolling, got it

Beer Monkey · Oct 28, 2021

bionic77 said:
It is in America

But remember they hate us for our freedom!

They hate us for our Freedom Fries.

Thordinson · Oct 28, 2021

demosthenes said:
What about the EU, United Nations, Australia, Japan, even Russia?
But why should we reward their government?

It's not about "rewarding" the government, it's about not further hurting a population that is already hurting.

The NK regime is abhorrent. I just don't agree with punishing the starving citizens.

Granted, I'm not well-versed enough in all of this to fully articulate what I mean.

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
You are still butt mad over those posts I was already banned for! But I will humour you here.

Do you know why I criticize the US here more than I do the bad nations? It is a very straightforward calculation.

I am a civilian living in an ostensibly democratic country in the Anglo sphere, my ability to affect the world is limited to the reach of my voice, my wallet and my ballot. There is nothing to be gained in repeating, ad nauseum, that the CCP/DPRK/Cuba/Maduro are bad for the umpteenth time. They do not have access to my voice. It cannot reach them, and even if it could, they would not understand me. And even if they could understand me they would not obey me.

However, my voice can reach other people in the Anglo sphere. And presumably I can vote for politicians aligned my views and direct capital where I believe it should go. With those three tools, I attempt to make myself felt across the world. If it is a civilian in need of aide in Xinjiang or Venezuela or DPRK, etc. I can try to send them money and nudge US policy ever so slightly to be kinder and more humanitarian.

This is why I don't go around condemning despots like everyone else, I consider condemnations largely useless except for signaling that you're part of the good guys. Every post I make, every word I type, is either: 1) increasing my personal entertainment or 2) nudging Western society in the direction I want it to go. Condemning tyrants does not achieve either result. Criticizing sanctions does. It is purely an EV calculation. If you disagree with my calculus, fine, sure, okay, but if you want to convince me my utility calculation is wrong you're going to have to do a lot better than repeating mainstream sound bites.

I am not butt mad, I am sad that you cannot see that the oppression of Uyghurs is as valid as any abuses caused by imperialist or western powers. The reason why I'm replying back to you, is I think you actively wish to minimize the actions of the Chinese government, beyond just explaining or framing their state of mind, into realms of ignoring their actions and stances in favoring of casting the U.S as the sole bad actor.

Why? I dunno why, nor do I mind you voicing your perspective being voiced, but as a minority, I'm not going to let you get away with minimizing the same sort of actions you criticize the West for, that as a minority, you and I know have occurred in the U.S. You have repeatedly cast doubt on the severity of Chinese government suppression in Xinjiang over a long time on this forum, and that linked post I quoted from you? You asserted something pro-China defenders do all the time, that China and its majority Han population have the right to handle their internal affairs without criticism, due to the history of imperialism, due to chinese ethics being different than Western ethics.

You have a post here where you assert a defense of China authoritarian structure in a common defense that China's economic rise justifies authoritarian suppression. So when you try and limit your topic to this urging of the ceasing of sanctions in a manner stating all sanctions are bad, all sanctions are useless, and when you say Xinjiang sanctions are bad, useless, nonsensical despite the much more targeted nature of them vs Korea, I have to question if you really aren't not only justly advocating humanitarian relief or also just taking the opportunity to cast doubt on Xinjiang.

You have stated this: 2) nudging Western society in the direction I want it to go.

Your posts that I have linked go beyond not criticizing China, they go into the realm of minimizing China's abuses. So I firmly believe your goal, despite you saying "China bad" every so often (in usually a mocking manner), is definitely not to engage in just nudging people in Western society to a better direction but also defending Chinese nationalism. Your utility calculation is not wrong at all, its your own measurement of your goals, but you're definitely not being entirely truthful to your sentiments on tyrants.

Maquiladora · Oct 28, 2021

I guess this applies to the ruling elite in the North Korea too? Lol....

Spending most of your money on propping up the lifestyle of a magical superhuman dynasty + extremely expensive nuclear weapons is gonna put a pretty big dent in your budget....

Deepwater · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Ah, the old "you brought this on yourself". "Just follow orders, don't resist" as applied to geopolitics.

Sure they are responsible for violating international law. So? Why does that justify the sanctions against them?

Law follows from ethics. Ethics do not follow law. I am the sole judge, in my worldview, of whether of not sanctions are ethical. I do not care one bit what the law says, I only care about outcomes, and I consider the outcomes of sanctions indefensible for the benefits they produce. If you do not want to subscribe to this worldview, okay! That is fine. I respect the validity of your worldview. But do not expect me to adopt it without a damn good reason or expect that I would hold back my critique.

Bringing up Uyghurs in a thread about North Korea is the biggest bunch of sea lioning bullshit I wouldn't even continue to try to reason with these sickos. This shit all a game to them. Thats some shit you would bring up in a fucking high school debate cause you ran out of arguments. None of them reply to substance. They lie and bring up irrelevant topics and never respond directly to arguments.

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

Deepwater said:
Bringing up Uyghurs in a thread about North Korea is the biggest bunch of sea lioning bullshit I wouldn't even continue to try to reason with these sickos. This shit all a game to them. Thats some shit you would bring up in a fucking high school debate cause you ran out of arguments. None of them reply to substance. They lie and bring up irrelevant topics and never respond directly to arguments.

I would like to point out I brought it up in the context that samoyed was arguing for the end of all U.S sanctions and then he offered clarification on other U.S sanctions other than North korea. He wasn't arguing for just relief on sanctions on North Korea, but all U.S sanctions worldwide.

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

Deepwater said:
Bringing up Uyghurs in a thread about North Korea is the biggest bunch of sea lioning bullshit I wouldn't even continue to try to reason with these sickos. This shit all a game to them. Thats some shit you would bring up in a fucking high school debate cause you ran out of arguments. None of them reply to substance. They lie and bring up irrelevant topics and never respond directly to arguments.

Which lies exactly?

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
I am not butt mad, I am sad that you cannot see that the oppression of Uyghurs is as valid as any abuses caused by imperialist or western powers.

Every post I make, every word I type, is either: 1) increasing my personal entertainment or 2) nudging Western society in the direction I want it to go.

Explain to me, in your own words, the chain of causation that starts from "me validating Uyghur oppression" to "Uyghurs are freed from oppression". I do not see it, I need some assistance here.

Also.

Apropos of nothing, since apparently this is what the audience wants.
CCP BAD
CCP BAD
CCP BAD
UYGHUR GENOCIDE
WINNIE THE POOH
TIENANMEN SQUARE
CCP BAD
With the moderators' permission I will post this bit in all future China threads so as to remind the good people here that CCP BAD, cause they forget it so easily. BTW when are we banning Genshin Impact? I'm uncomfortable seeing Western gamers deceived by cute anime ladies (and guys) into funding genocide.

I notice GI is still unbanned and gaming devices still source Chinese slave labor. Very problematic.

ChippyTurtle · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Explain to me, in your own words, the chain of causation that starts from "me validating Uyghur oppression" to "Uyghurs are freed from oppression". I do not see it, I need some assistance here.

Also.

I notice GI is still unbanned and gaming devices still source Chinese slave labor. Very problematic.

I asked you why you considered sanctions against officials and companies operating in Xinjiang to be a undue burden on the general population, you referenced a post where you broadly stated that sanctions would be aggressive economic warfare. You pointed out a method of economic non-investment but than ignored me asking for specifics. I suggested a scenario where the targeted sanctioned companies would have trouble accessing U.S based financial sources, and your only response was to again broadly state that damage was too big a target vs the general population of China.

Considering that China, is not a scenario where it hovers near economic collapse, nor a scenario where the Chinese economy is being heavily burdened with U.S sanctions, I want to ask why you think the targeted sanctions against the Xinjiang companies and officials are unduly affecting the general population of China.

You are asking me how you validating Uyghur oppression frees Uyghurs from oppression, but thats not what I'm asking, I'm asking you why you think U.S sanctions are useless/too harmful in the particular instance of sanctions against China, after you stated you were opposed to U.S sanctions worldwide.

ajoshi · Oct 28, 2021

lol, same fucking two actors as usual. You can form an argument against sanctions in context of all the dynamics going on without derailing thread to "let's talk only about West cutting off banking to a hostile state the UN is technically at war with because wink wink I can only influence people in West therefore absolving me of any intellectual honesty on role of red-painted fashie govt in famines" gymnastics

Shouldve been straight to ignore list first time one of yall equated criticism of Xinjiang ethnicide with belief in Adrian Zens conspiracies, and the other one said a Western nation can be said to be a failing democratic project on neglect/abuse of its minorities, but China can't be held to same standard because 'all Chinese workers uniformly had lives improved' or w/e. Of course no one is gonna take this "we can only talk about sanctions" shit seriously after that gaslighting mess.

samoyed · Oct 28, 2021

ChippyTurtle said:
I asked you why you considered sanctions against officials and companies operating in Xinjiang to be a undue burden on the general population

Literature supports that interpretation.

I suggested a scenario where the targeted sanctioned companies would have trouble accessing U.S based financial sources, and your only response was to again broadly state that damage was too big a target vs the general population of China.

Free market theory of disciplining of bad actors with financial consequences to stop bad behavior. It is the ideal of capitalism but it doesn't work. See: Facebook (now Meta) and misinformation, Uber and prop 22, Exxon and climate, Amazon and employee rights, etc

Your scenario is neoliberal nonsense but I wanted to avoid the n-word in this thread, as it is about the DPRK and not the PRC. Your derail has been odd and unproductive.

I want to ask why you think the targeted sanctions against the Xinjiang companies and officials are unduly affecting the general population of China.

Literature supports that interpretation.

I'm asking you why you think U.S sanctions are useless/too harmful in the particular instance of sanctions against China, after you stated you were opposed to U.S sanctions worldwide.

Literature supports that interpretation.

Jeffapp · Oct 28, 2021

Eat less rocks signed dear leader

sacrament · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Literature supports that interpretation.

Free market theory of disciplining of bad actors with financial consequences to stop bad behavior. It is the ideal of capitalism but it doesn't work. See: Facebook (now Meta) and misinhformation, Uber and prop 22, Exxon and climate, Amazon and employee rights, etc

Your scenario is neoliberal nonsense but I wanted to avoid the n-word in this thread, as it is about the DPRK and not the PRC. Your derail has been odd and unproductive.

Literature supports that interpretation.

Literature supports that interpretation.

What "literature"?

Deleted member 48201 · Oct 28, 2021

samoyed said:
Literature supports that interpretation.

Free market theory of disciplining of bad actors with financial consequences to stop bad behavior. It is the ideal of capitalism but it doesn't work. See: Facebook (now Meta) and misinformation, Uber and prop 22, Exxon and climate, Amazon and employee rights, etc

Your scenario is neoliberal nonsense but I wanted to avoid the n-word in this thread, as it is about the DPRK and not the PRC. Your derail has been odd and unproductive.

Literature supports that interpretation.

Literature supports that interpretation.

I'd like to see that literature.

Ramsay · Oct 28, 2021

Sure, you first.

The issue with giving humanitarian aid to North Korea is that unless you can physically get officials into North Korea so that they can verify where the food is going to, it is completely pointless as any and all humanitarian aid will end up going to Kim and his military. The starving North Koreans who actually need it invariably get nothing regardless of how much aid is sent.

Kim Jong Un ordered North Koreans to eat less food until 2025

More helpful than the IRS

"This guy are sick"

That's some catch, that catch-22

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure