15 ms·
It's the difference between iterated and one-time games. Shum has a decision to Publish or Not Publish (P or NP). CCP has the decision to Retaliate or Not Reta
by sio8ohPi 5y ago
It's the difference between iterated and one-time games.
Shum has a decision to Publish or Not Publish (P or NP). CCP has the decision to Retaliate or Not Retaliate (R or NR). In a one-time game, Shun chooses P and CCP chooses NR, because P/NR > P/R for CCP.
A one-time game may be a good model if there's only one thing you wish to keep out of the public eye (e.g. photos of Barbara Streisand's house). But CCP will play this game many times: establishing that they're able and willing to harm their critics, even at cost to themselves, has value. It encourages future critics to never publish in the first place.
- silexia 5y agoWhich is exactly why everyone must oppose dictatorships with maximum possible force.
- drekipus 5y agoCommunism is in with the kids nowadays, and society is largely not unified in anything, so I think this is going to be here to stay.
- loonster 5y agoAllowing our kids to be taught by communist was not such a bright idea.
- Haga 5y agoSuch unruly youth not to respect the king from God's grace and the shareholder nobility,god bless them. Moonism it is, I tell you. Feudalism is the natural order. Capitalism only ever played nice at socialist gunpoint, how dare this youth wanting that part of the past back.
- alasdair_ 5y agoOn you go then. Or did you just mean other people?
- iammisc 5y agoThe united states pulls these tricks all the time and claims to not be a dictatorship
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Ekaros 5y agoI don't understand why we should let some countries get away with horrible things just because they call themselves democracy...
- arcturus17 5y ago> claims to not be a dictatorship Is it?
- iammisc 5y agoSome days it's difficult to tell which organization is truly in charge of the united states. Nominally for example, the state governments are in charge of things like medical care regulation, but increasingly unelected national business men threaten retaliation whenever the legislature passes law they don't like.
- vkou 5y agoAllright. I'll bite. How many millions of people are you ready to kill in this mission of opposing dictatorships? How many of them your own countrymen, and how many of them foreigners? Just looking for an order of magnitude estimate, here. I'd like to see the ethical calculus on this, before joining in on this maximum use of force. Or, did you mean that everyone should talk a big game about opposing dictatorships? We're already doing that. Talk is cheap, as is foreign oil and other goods.
- silexia 5y agoMost dictatorships are paper thin. A few people with guns, tanks, and fighter jets can hold down millions of others without those. Those few people are easily defeated when facing a superior external force though, even if they have millions of supposed troops (these are willing to surrender immediately). Examples include Iraq, Afghanistan, etc in frontal battle with foreign troops. Even if the fight IS hard and kills many people, it is worth it right? Or do you want your wife to disappear for four years and be kept in a black prison? Or do you want to watch millions of ethnic minorities being murdered in concentration camps? It's better to fight, risk death, and be free than to cower in fear while your loved ones are tortured and murdered.
- toss1 5y agoWhich is exactly why anyone who treats the CCP or any member or advocate as anything other than an illegitimate, brutally dishonest, murderous, expansionist authoritarian state is a fool, or willing to tolerate such for their own temporary gain.
- swiley 5y agoAnd of course they’re called racist by the CCP propaganda machine.
- trainsplanes 5y agoWhat’s with people calling governments they don’t like illegitimate? People do the same with North Korea all the time. Those governments may be distasteful and do things you don’t like, but they’re very real and have been for nearly a century now.
- noduerme 5y agoThe legitimate government of China is in Taipei. If Vichy France had existed for 40 years, rather than 4, it still wouldn't have been the legitimate government of France. Other examples abound.
- trainsplanes 5y agoThey’re entirely separate governments ruling over different countries. There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise. It always comes off as childish, really.
- noduerme 5y ago>> There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise Then I guess John Cena can retract his apology...
- eloisius 5y agoThe government seated in Taipei would gladly disagree with you if it didn't imply missiles would be incoming.
- koolba 5y agoWell said. This is the classic, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. It might seem like a local maxima in one instance to give in to fear and consequence, but it only feeds repeated instances. China is betting on the reverse and honestly I think they’ll win. The sheer force of will needed to cut them off from the global economy is just not there.
- tehjoker 5y agoIsn't this what the US and UK did to Julian Assuage?
- dbsmith83 5y agoPerhaps, but that's off-topic what aboutism. What does that have to do with the story?
- chc 5y agoI think it is relevant here because it provides evidence on whether other countries are likely to put their foot down against China over things like this.
- dbsmith83 5y agoThe Assange situation is very different than this one on many levels. I can't see much similarity. It came across as a poor attempt to defend the CCP with the old "America is no better" trope
- Chris2048 5y agowhataboutism usually refers to irrelevant things. Given Assange is recent (and ongoing) why is it not relevant?
- dbsmith83 5y agoAnd relevant usually refers to something that relates to the topic. Again, I ask, what does it have to do with the story?
- sandworm101 5y ago>> It encourages future critics to never publish in the first place. No. It is meant to encourage others to never write such things in any context. This then leads to the masses not thinking such things, after which the censorship will be unnecessary as such thought patterns will not exist. This is Orwell manifest.