Guo Wen Gui has made some previous claims that seemed outlandish at the time, but turned out to be true, such as China forcibly taking control of Hong Kong, causing protesters to flood the streets; the CCP lying/withholding information on the transmission and the origins of the virus; billionaires being kidnapped/murdered after conflict with the CCP.
I would agree that he often exaggerates, and some of his claims do turn out to be false, but I think we should recognize that he correctly predicted a series of unlikely events w/ regards to China. I think his general intuition of the inner workings of the CCP is correct.
He also continues to claim that Trump will ultimately win the presidency, that covid-19 is a bioweapon deliberately unleashed on the west, that the CCP is in collusion with (just about) every mainstream media, and financial instution, as well as controlling democrats.
He's responsible for the abomination of misinformation that is gnews and gtv which has been consistently spreading absolute bogus regarding the pandemic, the election, and politics, for a really long time.
Yes, Guo is right about some things every now and then, and yes he without a doubt knows more about the inner workings of CCP than 99.9% of people.
But let's not give him more credit than he deserves, he's not a fucking prophet. Let's not build another political cult of personality around an eccentric billionaire. If you take a look at gnews/gtv, a Guo cult of personality really is the only description you can think of.
> but turned out to be true, such as China forcibly taking control of Hong Kong
Pick a random guy from the street of Shanghai Beijing Guangzhou, any college educated person, they'll prefix the same.
> the CCP lying/withholding information on the transmission and the origins of the virus;
This was largely accepted as a fact of any government handling an emergency. CCP of course is worst at this.
> billionaires being kidnapped/murdered after conflict with the CCP
Think about it, if this is true, how Mr. Guo still milking money from his cult followers. It's either that he is producing nonsense that CCP doesn't care, or he is protected by “deep state” or Trump? You probably want to accept the fact that Mr. Guo is producing junks, otherwise you are leaving with a worse alternative...
The looting and rioting after the George Floyd incident (as a separate event from the peaceful protests) were not limited to commercial districts. Across multiple cities, government buildings and police stations were vandalized/looted. In an extreme case, in Portland, the federal courthouse was set on fire.
Also, the post-George-Floyd looting/rioting persisted for far more than a day. An example is the CHOP zone in Seattle, which lasted for 3 weeks before protesters were forcibly removed.
This doesn't absolve the Capitol Hill rioters either, but simply describing the BLM looting "looting commercial districts" downplays the amount of damage done. In my opinion, I think reasonable questions to ask are: over what period of time did the violence persist, what amount of value was destroyed, and how many lives were claimed during the looting.
> over what period of time did the violence persist,
According to BLM the violence against them has persisted since the founding of the country.
Rioting against being systemically killed for generations and destroying property because nothing else you do changes the system is absolutely fundamentally different than storming Congress because your cult leader and GOP officials have lied to you, you're dumb enough to believe it, and cause you to commit insurrection.
There is no comparing the two no matter how many times people try and draw up this false equivalence.
Can you point me to a source on how Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"?
I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incident from the peaceful protesting), those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) have meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection in their own communities, in my opinion.
I agree that Bannon does make egregious comments, but I tend to think the media blows his comments out of proportion. Due to his military background, he often uses war analogies, which make for the detestable quotes you mention. For example, in the Fauci "head-on-a-pike" comment that he made, it was clear to me that he was not suggesting for folks to literally murder Fauci. He was suggesting for an example to be made out of Fauci by removing him from power. It's similar to when athletes say they want to "kill" the opposing teams. Regardless of this, I agree with you that comments such as the one I mentioned are in bad taste.
On the other hand, left-leaning celebrities who posted picture depicting Trunp's dead body (e.g. Snoop Dogg) did not seem to face similar consequences from big tech.
> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"?
I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist.
“So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”
> last summer
Sure, there are democrats who turned too much of a blind-eye to violence over the past summer. But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. For the particular New York exception, the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city (12% budget shortfall) [0].
> head-on-a-pike
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he explained, as Media Matters for America first reported.
“You either get with the program or you’re gone ― time to stop playing games,” Bannon added. “Blow it all up.”
“That’s how you win the revolution,” Bannon said. “The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party. It was a civil war.”
Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
> Left leaning celebrities
I said upthread, I believe we should be moving corporate moderation etc into a local government due process. IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court. But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
> IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court.
If the content is criminal to knowingly carry, they can. (And not just “ask”, they can notify Twitter and inform them they will file criminal charges otherwise.)
If its lawful content, law enforcement at any level has no business getting involved, that’s kind of the point of the First Amendment.
But Twitter also isn’t (unless it has a contract in place obligating it to someone) required to carry any content, just because they aren’t legally prohibited from doing so. That’s also what the First Amendment is about.
First off, thank you for providing your sources. I wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech before you posted. Now, on to your points.
> But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection.
It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements that I see as insurrectionist. In many cities across the country, government buildings were vandalised/looted, the Portland Federal courthouse set on fire being an example [1]. In another example, Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the BLM organization, has referred to herself and another co-founder as "trained marxists", and cites Mao Tse-tung as political inspiration [2][3]. In another case, the BLM Chicago organizer Latrell Allen publicly supported looting, likening it to a form of reparations [4]. And, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing entirety of the BLM movement, simply the factions that have made extreme statements or engaged in violence. Would you classify these as insurrectionist as well?
> the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city
Even taking into the consideration the budget shortfall, the NYPD was defunded significantly out-of-proportion in regards to other agencies. In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall. So even though there was a budget shortfall, I would still consider the NYPD to have been intentionally defunded. FYI, here are statistics on the NYC crime rate after the budget cuts [5].
> But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
Yes, thank you, Snoop Dogg indeed doesn't hold the nuclear codes, but celebrities and Hollywood in general holds influence amongst the population, and they certainly hold the ears of politicians as well.
> Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
I don't think I'm taking the statements charitably, I'm trying to separate analogy from intent; however, I agree that such rhetoric certainly doesn't help discourse. I would even go on to say that in the ears of extremists, such rhetoric is dangerous and provocative. But, in the Bannon quotes you mentioned, I personally don't interpret him as speaking in a literal sense. As someone who occasionally tuned into Bannon's show, Bannon's ultimate objective seems to be to take down the CCP. Since we are already engaged in a political/cyber/information war with China (which hopefully doesn't escalate into a kinetic war), Bannon tends to frame everything leading up to a confrontation with China with war analogies. But again, such rhetoric will not help his cause, and I agree that it can be dangerous.
There are a few assumptions in play here that have become so ingrained in how we think politically that they may as well be laws of thermodynamics:
1. The left is generally good; the right is generally evil.
2. The goal of leftists is equality and harmony for all. The goal of rightists is to eliminate Jews/blacks/LGBTQ/etc.
3. Leftist rhetoric must be taken at face value, or at least as innocuously as possible; rightist rhetoric must be treated as a secret coded dogwhistle message that actually calls for war, genocide, or other unspeakable horrors. When a rightists uses conflict-related metaphors they are certainly to be taken at face value, whereas a leftist going on about "slicey bois" is certainly not a threat.
4. Accordingly, leftist violence must be considered either the relatively harmless or completely justified actions of a single individual or relatively small group of individuals with no coordination larger than a single cell taking place ("antifa is not a group, it's an idea"). Rightist violence must be considered to be highly coordinated, with individual attacks receiving secret coded dogwhistle instructions, directly or indirectly, from the top thought leaders on the right including the POTUS if he be Republican. ("stochastic terrorism").
5. Therefore, leftist violence is to be grimly tolerated at worst -- hopefully actively supported and encouraged as an essential step toward a more just society. Rightist violence is to be met with swift punishment not just for the offender, but their family, pets, and anyone caught displaying any sympathy for them. Anyone questioning the narrative that these are terrorist operatives taking orders from the top are to be shunned and shut out of decent society by decent people, and certainly not allowed to communicate.
I make no statements as to the truth or falsity of the above.I think it's a bit more nuanced than the extremes of either side will care to admit. But these are the rhetorical rules you have to deal with because if you don't, louder voices will drown you out and eventually shun you.
There is a categorical difference between looting your local big box store and attempting to overturn the results of a national democratic election through violence. Did you see the videos of the crowds shouting “hang mike pence” at the capital? The elected democratic mayors of the cities begged the crowds and the police to deescalate violence, and they sent help when called. The elected president of the US escalated conflict, was pleased when he heard initial reports of the capital being breeched, and he refused to send in the national guard to disperse protestors. The first back up that showed up to protect the capital police arrived despite trump, who had told the national guard to stand down. The call came from one of Mitch McConnell’s staffers who knew some folks in the justice department. These aren’t remotely equivalent situations. In BLM, the elected leaders made tough choices, suffered, and worked to end the conflict. Does it not reach you that the maga protests as a violent movement matter because (1) they have express the support of the president and the political power that entails and (2) they are quit literally a coup attempt, however farsical and unrealistic, aimed at the core democratic functioning of our governance structure? And (3) these weren’t isolated instances, similar events happened at like 6 state houses, earlier this year a right wing militia planned to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
The power matters, burning down the government is different than burning down a Wendy’s.
An important distinction I've also noticed is that the burning down and looting done in riots this summer was an act of spontaneoud anger and rage, not a planned event in order to create fear.
No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance, and this is a really large difference being a riot representing the (unproductive) language of the unheard, and an insurrectionist plot.
> No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance
The nightly riots in Portland and other cities were planned and organized in advance through messaging and social apps as well as with physical posters. You can find the screen caps and photos online if you look. There were also several instances where groups of people were arrested after crossing state lines to attend riots. Both sides have bad actors and no one is absolved. The main contention here seems to be that many people rightly want the law applied equally to both sides but there is a clear bias evidenced by the amnesia or blindness that people seem to be suffering regarding the last year.
I would love a screencap of people organizing to specifically loot or damage one store specifically weeks or days in advance. I haven't seen any.
If people just went to a protest expecting some possible light violence, I don't see how that's comparable. Would you make OWS or G7 protests illegal because people going there rightly expect tear gas and batons?
No. Incorrect, because those riots came from the left. Again, leftist violence is always a spontaneous eruption of justified anger. Rightist violence, even from the lone-wolfiest of lone wolf attackers, is always planned and coordinated from above by coded messages from Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or even Trump himself.
I'm not saying the Capitol Hill rioters should be absolved from their actions. Those who breached the capitol violently should be charged accordingly w/ the federal crimes they violated. I personally think Trump is also responsible for inciting the angry mob, and should face the according consequences.
However, while there certainly were some riots in the summer done out of spontaneous rage, there certainly were planned events as well. For example, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, which lasted 3 weeks:
As for the peaceful protesters on Capitol Hill, I think they tend to be a bit misunderstood as well. These folks often get grouped into the extreme right, but in reality, they are moreso moderate people who face a harsh economic reality caused by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the automation of jobs, and losing jobs to regulations. They also seem to be the population most affected by the Opioid epidemic. However, the left-wing media has an agenda that is increasingly focused on identity politics, and not the economic realities that they face. Instead, these folks are constantly painted as racist, uncultured, and extreme by the left-wing media. So lots of them are left with no choice but to support Trump in spite of his delusions, not for them. So I personally don't paint the entirety of the MAGA crowd as the enemy; many are reluctant supporters.
But again, the insurrectionists and the violent protesters at Capitol Hill should be punished. But for sake of consistency, perhaps we should also be also outraged at the riots that occurred this past summer, especially the ones that caused loss of life and/or damaged government buildings?
> those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department)
This is facilitating illegal insurrection?
And NYC is your example...
Surely this could have nothing to do with covid and the whatever else but a 112% increase in shootings must be the consequence of a budget cut of a bit more than 1%....
Have you perhaps considered who it is that is registering this uptick in crime and drawing the connections?
Why it was the insanely high to begin with. Like what? Do their janitors earn a million yearly?
Not having a slightly less mindblowing budget is not meaningfully facilitating illegal insurrection it's slightly more sane fiscal policy
It’s a good point, NYPD defunding itself can’t be tied directly to insurrection, but certain factions of the movement can be, as I detail in another response in the parent thread.
To me, the crime is high due to the unfortunate realities of inner city gang culture. Yes, historical factors cannot be ignored, and yes, police misconduct also does exist. Police reform is necessary, but a $1 billion budget cut ignores the reality of urban crime, and seem to cause a greater net amount of deaths, and the victims will unfortunately be mostly black/brown. Listening to a few of the chart-topping, yet violent rap songs should give an unfortunate indication of the current state of gang culture, and why the police provide an imperfect-yet-needed check to gang members.
But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder? I could understand if there was an uptick in robberies, but from the data I’ve seen, the uptick is in shooting and murder.
>But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder?
The related lockdowns and such could play a role. I wasn't putting it forward as the sole factor but to me it seems more likely that this among other things like the police reporting differently because they're mad playing a bigger roll in a bloody 112% increase. That's a whole lot you realise that right?
Which brings me back to some of those questions left unanswered:
How do you tie a bit more than 1% decrease in budget to a 112% increase in shootings?
Do you have any reasonable argument for that?
Why do they spend such a ridiculously insane amount per employee, in total or however which way you want to calculate it?
And yet heavy policing has not solved those problems. It's almost like you should take care of underlying issues that cause these things (community disinvestment etc etc).
Great to see other Martial arts enthusiasts on HN. At its core, martial arts is problem solving, similar to the other topics that appear on this forum. I have found that in addition to increasing physical confidence, BJJ also improves spatial thinking and visualization capabilities.
No (and yes). I think that if foreigners are motivated to integrate in the local society and culture, they will find a way to do fine. If that motivation isn't there, I doubt any of these cultural courses and workshops will help much. On the other hand, I do think many if not all people do know that integrating is hard, so a course/workshop/self-help book/whatever will be attractive. Therefore, yes, here lies a business opportunity.
I think that points out the whole fallacy of PC culture: that Americans only will be ethnically thoughtful when being pressured into. For better or for worse, Asians get mocked simply because we are conditioned to deal with mockery with silence. I don't know whether we can just attribute that to Asians dealing with it well. But I definitely share your hopes that this quality will benefit us in the long run.
One of my white roommates who mocked me in the story was actually a hardcore Bernie supporter who stood up for black culture at the drop of a dime, so I found it curious that he viewed people of my culture so negatively.
Isn't this just the perceived difference in source? i.e. mocking someone for what you believe is a positive character trait is generally seen as okay (the aforementioned "study a lot"). Another vein this happens in is with regards to Germans ("being precise").
I don't think you could say that there's a similar vein of humor with African-American culture that's developed, and that's principally historical: America's slave holding history is still an open-wound today, and its social concepts around African-Americans were widely based on making sure they were viewed as lesser.
EDIT: This isn't to say either is ultimately good. There's a pretty important difference between occasional good humor that transitions into something of more malevolent intent, but how people perceive them appropriateness very much matters.
Very good point. I do think the hardships that the African-American community have endured are far more severe than the ones Asians in America have. But my people did endure their share of hardships as well; the first Chinese immigrants in San Francisco were used as slaves to build the railways, many working to their deaths on the tracks. The conditions were extreme, but I guess the scale was much smaller than the African-American slaves.
But do people even know the types of hardships Asian Americans had to endure?
How many people know about the Chinese Massacre of 1871 in LA?
If we really are going to compare suffering, wouldn't Native Americans be on the top of the list? And yet their suffering isn't really something that is focused on.
Native Americans are probably the most unfortunate group. To put it in business terms, I think certain ethnic groups have just been more successful in their marketing than others ;)
Really, in the USA? I wouldn't have guessed from the literature or movies. I'm a European, I've never actually visited the USA, so this is genuine question about whether these kind of jokes would be considered "politically correct".
Just curious, did you perceive a certain level of malice with their mocking, or was it more lighthearted? I can't speak for Americans, but here in Australia, mocking from your friends is a sign of acceptance and mateship. It's a way of indirectly indicating that you're comfortable enough with someone to knock them around a bit, it's a complimentary way of saying "I know you're strong enough to handle it".
I don't want to risk sidelining your experience, but is there a chance they may have seen you as one of the boys?
Yeah, we also love to give our friends shit here in America :) But to clarify, the group text began before they met me. They only told me about the texts after realizing I was Americanized and deciding I was "one of them". However, I do conclude that there was a degree of malice to their jokes. This is because while they were telling me about the texts, they voiced their legitimate concerns about living with asian people( But credit to them for being 100% honest and opening up discussion). A couple of my roommates even went on to say that the international students were ruining the social climate of the university, and ruining their chances of having a traditional, party-boy college lifestyle, and that colleges were accepting way too many Asians. (FYI I attended UC San Diego which had 50% asian people).
However, after this episode, we maintained great relationships as roommates, and yes, they still made fun of my driving, my small eyes etc., but at that point, I knew it was all in good spirits :)
Some of this is just kids being dumb, but some is Americans have a weird relationship with their Empire.
On one hand their parents and student loans are paying more money to fund the foreign exchange students and every foreign exchange student present is quite literally one local taxpayer who isn't getting an education yet is somehow supposed to pay for the system without an educated-level job. Even if the school accepts everyone, that just means the local taxpayers are on the hook for capex to make huge buildings that wouldn't be necessary without the demands of the Empire.
That sounds like a horrific deal for the local taxpayer, and it is, but Empires always suck at some level or another for pretty much everyone involved. However from a foreign aid and propaganda perspective that money is well spent, who else gets to propagandize the entire world's youth for practically no cost compared to military expenses? Its a lot cheaper to indoctrinate the world's kids at an American school than to wave expensive F-35 fighters at them in a threatening manner a decade later. In typical American corruption we officially spend like 0.1% of our federal budget on foreign aid and then bury things like state Uni budgets in the individual state budgets to pretend our Empire spends roughly nothing on foreign aid, but we really do spend lots of money on the Empire, for which we're theoretically running a profit, or if not "we" at least someone is running a profit.
I'd estimate the total cost to the GDP of empire has got to be something like 5% but its cheaper than the alternative, or so the people getting rich off the empire insist.
At any rate, my point is some of it is just kids being dumb, yet some of it is knowing for federal level foreign policy reasons their old high school buddy named XYZ can't go to college with them, despite his having to pay for it in taxes, because a foreigner is there in his place and supposedly everyone is better off for it, yet fundamentally on a personal level they still miss their old high school buddy XYZ.
> On one hand their parents and student loans are paying more money to fund the foreign exchange students and every foreign exchange student present is quite literally one local taxpayer who isn't getting an education yet is somehow supposed to pay for the system without an educated-level job.
A vast majority of foreign college students are not "exchange". They are just foreign students who pay full out-of-state tuition and don't qualify for any financial aid. That's why colleges are actively courting them as they bring in way more revenue.
Are you okay with being treated differently for being Asian though? I don't see how being silent to mockery helps us at all. Americans are well aware of how African-Americans feel about stereotypes and racially charged language, but can casually mock Asian-Americans because of the subservient attitude a lot of us display. Please don't just take mockery with silence, let people know how you feel because they won't know otherwise.
I don't think its the best solution, but I do think it is better than the way certain minority groups are using PC culture as a means to harass anyone with the different opinion. At least with the current Asian culture of remaining silent, we encourage there to be honest dialogue. Yes we will be mocked sometimes, but at least Americans won't act all polite and PC in front of us, then let all the beans spill we aren't listening.
OP here. The hardships can definitely be turned into a strength, one that is hard for mono-cultured people to grasp. I also had a rough childhood, and I somewhat held a grudge on my parents for it. But now, I feel like I am reaping those cognitive benefits you so speak of :)
I would agree that he often exaggerates, and some of his claims do turn out to be false, but I think we should recognize that he correctly predicted a series of unlikely events w/ regards to China. I think his general intuition of the inner workings of the CCP is correct.