Developing a mutually beneficial relationship with China will not be easy. But we can do better than a new Cold War.
There's some dumb stuff in this piece, but I'm glad SOMEONE in Washington with influence is speaking out against the emerging consensus. Hooray for Succdem Grampa
That's not remotely what I'm describing and you know it. You wrote a page-long screed about this elsewhere in this thread; put a fraction of that effort into considering another opinion.
C'mon really, what's more useful to open people's eyes?
Saying everything they think they know it's true
Saying they have been lied to, exactly like all the other times the WhiteHouse+CorporateMedia did
No matter who you are, repeating propaganda isn't helping.
Take, idk, Roger Waters, he is a very famous person who has nothing to lose and he just tells the people a lot of cool real things that goes against all the shit the US say [idk what did he say about China tho] and that's way more helpful than saying "oh yes, all the shit the TV say is true, but I disagree in a tiny detail".
Do I viscerally hate Bernie? No. Do I think he could be way more helpful than right now? Yes.
The main point is that there's a difference between being right and being persuasive. If you're right but not persuasive, nothing changes. Roger Waters can be right on all sorts of issues, but he's not persuading anyone of anything, so what has he really done? The goal isn't to simply be right; the goal is to change how the world works.
When people are dug in on an idea -- and most people are dug in on China due to the pervasiveness of anticommunist propaganda -- telling them they're wrong on all counts isn't persuasive. Think of a topic where you're really confident that you have the right take. If I tell you that everything you think you know about that topic is wrong, are you going to take that under serious consideration? Or are you going to hear two or three or four points that you strongly disagree with and write the whole thing off? Look at how you responded to my original comment.
Now think again about that topic where you're really confident you have the right take. If instead I tell you that I agree on X, Y, and Z, but that there's one point I think you have wrong, are you more likely to take that seriously? And if I manage to change your mind on that one point, would you be willing to listen to me about another?
That's not remotely what I'm describing and you know it. You wrote a page-long screed about this elsewhere in this thread; put a fraction of that effort into considering another opinion.
No, I'm bussy being angry at things
Sounds productive
C'mon really, what's more useful to open people's eyes?
No matter who you are, repeating propaganda isn't helping.
Take, idk, Roger Waters, he is a very famous person who has nothing to lose and he just tells the people a lot of cool real things that goes against all the shit the US say [idk what did he say about China tho] and that's way more helpful than saying "oh yes, all the shit the TV say is true, but I disagree in a tiny detail".
Do I viscerally hate Bernie? No. Do I think he could be way more helpful than right now? Yes.
C'mon just look at this:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/727012094674731008/855828848145858580/x0q5ahrhl3671.png
Fucking WaPo rando has more balls than Bernie
The main point is that there's a difference between being right and being persuasive. If you're right but not persuasive, nothing changes. Roger Waters can be right on all sorts of issues, but he's not persuading anyone of anything, so what has he really done? The goal isn't to simply be right; the goal is to change how the world works.
When people are dug in on an idea -- and most people are dug in on China due to the pervasiveness of anticommunist propaganda -- telling them they're wrong on all counts isn't persuasive. Think of a topic where you're really confident that you have the right take. If I tell you that everything you think you know about that topic is wrong, are you going to take that under serious consideration? Or are you going to hear two or three or four points that you strongly disagree with and write the whole thing off? Look at how you responded to my original comment.
Now think again about that topic where you're really confident you have the right take. If instead I tell you that I agree on X, Y, and Z, but that there's one point I think you have wrong, are you more likely to take that seriously? And if I manage to change your mind on that one point, would you be willing to listen to me about another?