9 ms·

What I find most dangerous about the United States bending to the will of China via their corporations is that it's affecting our story telling. The stories we

• pradn 5y ago
  The Battle at Lake Changjin was the first time a non-Hollywood film was the highest grossing film worldwide since like the 1910s or 1920s. (We don't have good records before then, when a bunch of French silents were popular.)
• baq 5y ago
  the job of the regulator is to make the marketplace fair. why not tax income from china for movies made in us so that incentives aren't as twisted?
• defaultprimate 5y ago
  It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's how effective their global propaganda, cultural warfare, and data harvesting techniques are. You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the population however you want. Even better because they gave you this information voluntarily
  • bredren 5y ago
    This is why I suspect the attack on the 2016 US election was the most cost-effective intelligence operation in history.
    • defaultprimate 5y ago
      Are you referring to the response to the election results and the years long investigations?
  • bboylen 5y ago
    Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? I don't think it would come to that at any rate, at least not in an all out war sense
    • defaultprimate 5y ago
      >Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? By CCP propagandists and agency leaders trying to retain or increase their funding, sure lol. China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience, or quality tech necessary to challenge the US in direct conflict. They have virtually no original military R&D. It's just poorly reverse engineered tech from incomplete stolen plans. Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. Any time you find out about some "new" scary Chinese military capability, just remember it's decades old stolen garbage from a nation that is better off holding its cards close to its chest.
      • dpark 5y ago
        > China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience… You mean the country that manufacturers virtually everything Americans buy can’t handle supply chain logistics? > Remember China has an interest in trying to convey how "good" its military tech is on the global stage. The US does not. You seriously don’t think the US has an interest in impressing the rest of the world with its military might? Why do you imagine we keep building aircraft carriers?
• AnotherGoodName 5y ago
  Another example amongst many: Musk is really 'edgy' on Twitter. He won't say shit about china though. He has a car plant there.
  • jimbob45 5y ago
    That's fine but China's ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. "If they're not talking about you to your face, they're talking twice as much behind your back". No one is vacationing to China, no one is immigrating to China, no one willingly invests in China when alternatives are present. They're only going to prosper until they can no longer bully the world around economically and then they'll be post-Soviet Russia 2.0.
    • AlwaysRock 5y ago
      No one is vacationing to China? Some Americans who might have picked China in the past are no longer vacationing to China. Massive amounts of people of Chinese descent still vacation to China. The difference between them and Soviet Russia is people. There are a billion and a half Chinese people. There was less than 300 million people in Soviet Russia. You don't need tourism or immigration when you have a billion+ people with now a healthy middle class.
      • revnode 5y ago
        > There are a billion and a half Chinese people. How long is that going to last? Populations fluctuate. They shot themselves in the foot with their one-child policy. India is also quite populous, but doesn't seem to exert the same kind of influence.
        • AlwaysRock 5y ago
          Indias middle class makes up a much smaller percent of their population when compared to China. They will likely have similar influence if they continue to expand their middle class, as China spent the last 20 years doing.
    • 5y ago
• hwers 5y ago
  Wow, I had no idea about that movie. The trailer and its popularity really makes it clear they are mentally preparing their population for war with the US in a big way.
  • kerneloftruth 5y ago
    They're very advanced in that effort. Their relationship with US media is deep, and the messaging US audiences see and hear is very soft on China and the CCP. Where is the Hollywood movie that criticizes their behavior at all? I can think of none. Xi has great ambitions outside China, whereas our attentions have turned inward. With us seeing the adversary as being within our own ranks, he has a distracted and weakened opponent.
• random314 5y ago
  Or the fact that Dr. Strange trains in Nepal, instead of Tibet. Just mentioning Tibet is verboten.
• 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  i am not an american or chinese so a third party. here is my question. does "America has lost the narrative and the Chinese have gained it without question" this mean till now it was america who was defining what the rest of the world saw and remembered, making history for "everyone" not just for themselves. remember rambo and the mujahideen? america has for long used its power to influence narrative across the world. asl a random person on the street anywhere in the world about iran and "anti-israel muslims, evil" would be the answer 7/10. why was that? because american hollywood has made boogeyman out of american military enemies. now china is doing the same so why is this a big deal? why can't americans live with this? uh, "destroying our freedom of expression " more like free market with power and tested capability to use as a propaganda tool because "hey. we support freedom of expression so anything we say is correct". i am not criticizing you personally. just saying americans should come down a step from their self proclaimed high horse of world saviors and be like the rest of the folk.
  • educaysean 5y ago
    It's not an America vs. China struggle as you put it. The "rest of the folk" around the world are not content with China's deliberate attempt to conceal, twist, and even completely rewrite the history either. Yes, America has enjoyed its massive worldwide influence over the past few decades and it has definitely gotten away with abusing it's power at times. Much of it was because the flow of information wasn't as free back than as it is today, but it was also because America, for all its faults, really did at least try and do a lot of good as a "self-appointed world leader". My opinions aren't exactly unbiased having grown up in South Korea (recipient of lots of good will from the US), but the situation isn't simply that America has lost its edge over China and is complaining - it's more that Chinese government is really aggressive in promoting their agenda and are much more willing to sacrifice certain ideals (freedom of expression, etc) to get there. I can say this as a person who have attended a secret Christian worship meeting in China: Say what you will about the US, but it's not China.
    • 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
      sure. i have my hands full you know. i currently live in a place where posting a video or tweeting is seen as a threat to the country and journalists are being arrested left and right. just yesterday. https://thekashmirwalla.com/kashmiri-journalist-charged-for-criminal-conspiracy-arrested/ https://thekashmirwalla.com/kashmiri-journalist-charged-for-... i remember a time when religious folks used to feverently talk against "communism" as if it was a plague and all those dried up once ussr collapsed. turns out usa was funding anti-ussr sentiments in my hometown because why not. sure. i do not enjoy "freedom of expression", living in a similar place like china. i get your point. china is pushing their agenda aggressively but the way i have seen it in the last 40 odd years, 20 with the whole "war on terror" and "wmd" and even "gaddafi" and "arab spring", i find america just as dirty. you may not like it but remember, gaddafi wanted to trade in gold and not in american dollars and he was killed for that. same for saddam. i personally believe having seen some action, no country, india, china, usa, france is willing to uphold "freedom of expression" if it threatens its interests, business interests. thats a simple fact. unless you face that
• ishikawa 5y ago
  This is indeed a hard problem, when you have a country like China, with a long term strategic plan and control over its companies and a country like US in which companies are more focused on keep Wall Street and media happy.
  • nonethewiser 5y ago
    The US government has long had the authority to limit trade with China. Can't blame companies for acting rationally, but you can blame the government for failing to tackling national security threats.
• ravenstine 5y ago
  Is it possible that this "highest grossing film" figure is inflated? I actually found a copy of the film and watched it over a month ago. While there were no subtitles for English, based on the production quality, I don't think it's a form of entertainment that would pass for "great" in the west or many other countries. Not that it's poor quality, but there are aspects of it that were cheap-ish. I'm talking explosions and artillery impacts that clearly look like squibs going off on cue, which is something most mainstream entertainment has either moved beyond or done a better job of making look realistic. The acting in some parts appeared over the top, while on the other hand they clearly struggled to find good White actors who could speak English and wanted to appear in this film. To be fair, I the film appears to be of decent effort and wasn't the sort of disaster I was expecting it to be. If you're a Chinese citizen and your dear leaders want you to see this film, are you not going to see it? And if you're in another country like Russia, wouldn't The Battle at Lake Changjin be at least a neat curiosity in that there's finally a film where the Americans aren't just the good guys? Even then, should we not also suspect some form of shenanigans? I don't have evidence for it, but the CCP isn't really known for being not corrupted. They certainly have an interest in making sure its population is on board with a conflict with the United States. All that to say that I think we should keep these things in perspective. There was a time when a film being the highest grossing meant something. Does it still mean the same thing in the streaming era? Does it mean the same thing in China as it does in the US?
• alienbeast 5y ago
  Here's another perspective: My wife is Chinese, and my son is half-Chinese, born in the USA. I want my son to grow up feeling American, not like an outsider. I don't want movies depicting China invading the USA, teaching his young and impressionable classmates that "Asian = evil invader". I don't want guys that look like him getting gunned down on TV by guys that look like Chris Hemsworth. As you said, the stories we tell shape our national psyche. I agree the jingoistic CCP-controlled Chinese media does not depict Americans or whites with respect and tact. That's a problem. But it doesn't make it OK for the American media to do the same.
  • pddpro 5y ago
    At the very end of this sentiment is the fact that all movies depicting invasion should only be made if it's Alien invasion. In that way, no one's sentiment would be hurt and no one would be portrayed evil. At some point you have to ask yourself, do you want to remember history, it's atrocities, invasions, war-crimes etc and learn from it or do you want to forget all of that and be happy always?
    • SavantIdiot 5y ago
      There's huge a difference between a WW2 documentary accurately depicting the axis and allies, and the US films of the 1980's that were all anti middle-eastern / north african propaganda of wars that never happened. I believe the comment you are replying to is addressing the latter. "Any kid can conquer Libya just give him a fighter plane." - Dead Kennedys, "Rambozo the Clown"
      • asfarley 5y ago
        I have a feeling that the Dead Kennedys would not be in favor of editing artwork to avoid offending anyone.
        • SavantIdiot 5y ago
          There's a difference between being racist and speaking truth to power. Jello Biafra was powerfully anti-racism, which is what this thread is about. He punched up.
• m12k 5y ago
  China is very willing to play hardball and throw multinational corporations out unless they cooperate. The US is only just starting to consider actions like that (cf. Huawei and TikTok). I wonder if that's the next big shift in international politics - countries realizing that in the name of ideology (free trade) they've been freely giving away something very valuable - access to their domestic consumer market - which they could have been "charging" corporations quite a bit more for if they wanted to.
• gonehome 5y ago
  Yeah, I agree - South Park got this right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China “As a result of the episode's criticism of its practices, the Chinese government banned the series entirely in the country”
• me_me_mu_mu 5y ago
  People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not, the fact is that hundreds of millions of people (vast majority) are happy to live under ccp, just as {insert number} are happy to live under {insert country}. We can try to convince ourselves this isn't the case, but I don't exactly see progressive programmers giving up their massive Big Tech salaries as protest. No, they're happy to support whatever corporate campaign sounds good to them while ignoring that the machines they build on are built with slave labor, or that their company willingly censors and bends the knee with countries where LGBT rights don't exist and women can't go out on their own. To me, it is the same kind of thing as the Chinese situation. People will do all sorts of stunts for their team, and never take an L for an external actor because why should they? The best thing you can do is sit back and watch everyone argue (the best show that's live 24/7), while you enjoy a beer. Best case scenario you sell both sides something that they enjoy, so that you can enjoy your life.
  • nonethewiser 5y ago
    > People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not Yet there are no movies being made where the US triumphs over China.
    • octopoc 5y ago
      That's because one of the key beliefs of the ruling tribe in the US is that tribalism is bad, ironically.
      • indigochill 5y ago
        Also that money is good, and China is the world's largest market. It's extremely ironic that China has managed to leverage capitalist interests against the US.
    • me_me_mu_mu 5y ago
      The reason US isn't doing that is because currently everyone in the west is essentially using China to build stuff that's too toxic or dangerous to build here. It would cost a fortune to produce plastics and other cheap things in the west with regulations and labor laws. We also know the harms of industrialization having gone through it in the past, so offshore it. The west sends it off to the lowest bidder (China), and leave them to deal with the repercussions. Similar to how the British Empire introduced opium to the Chinese in the 1800s to extract silver and trade, the US/West is taking moral Ls to just use the Chinese once again. In turn, the Chinese do their version of this in S. China Sea and Africa. If played right, there's a possibility of making the opposing side implode, so its no surprise all sides engage in the game. Supply chain issues, wars, pandemics - these suck but they're nothing new to human history. Ignore the noise you hear on twitter, and elsewhere. Very similar to work settings, where the public channels are all fabulous and cheery to keep the workers going but the cold, tough decisions are made in private channels or offline.
• diegof79 5y ago
  The example in your comment is not specific to China, or even to present days. If you look at the history, the media narrative aligns to the status quo. One difference is that nowadays China gained enough political and economic power to be part of the world leaders. So companies doing business there care about not offending their audience. Take a look how movies in the 80s depict enemies: Latin America (all narcos or corrupt), Russia or Eastern Europe (cold and ruthless KBG agents), China (mafias that love occultism or rare rituals). Besides the occasional killer, it’s rare to find a big Hollywood production that offends the US or Western Europe audience. Producers will not risk to put tons of money in a script that may be offensive or politically uncomfortable.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• chaostheory 5y ago
  The longer China keeps their domestic markets effectively closed through severe restrictions to foreign competition, the weaker their hold will become. This will become less of an issue given Xi's general policy direction of closing.
• 015a 5y ago
  Counter-point: All of that changes if their economy weakens or becomes toxic. This could, and probably will, happen in a number of ways. They are blatantly expansionist; asserting control over HK was a mildly toxic event, but a move into Taiwan would be beyond reproach. They have a growing population that is overwhelmingly lower-class, by western standards. They hold a Tremendous amount of foreign-denominated debt (~$1.3T USD just from the USG) (holding a mortgage gives the bank power over you; holding sovereign debt gives the sovereign power over you), while issuing most of their debt internally, with very poor bookkeeping practices. They have very few notable Allies, and none won out of an emotion beside fear. The US has positioned itself for the next decades to aggressively improve at-home manufacturing & infrastructure. These are just public statements by American executives; they mean nothing, and they don't represent the exertion any Real Power. No one is lying to themselves about China; but the shit hasn't hit the fan yet. Until it does, western companies extract and export Tremendous value from China, effectively weakening their natural resource reserves and domestic corporations while increasing their reliance on western technology. When that changes, western economies will take a hit; but China will be decimated. China doesn't export any real culture (their top grossing film was a poorly made war propaganda film? lol Disney can puke out the sixteenth spiderman movie and make more. and No Way Home hasn't been released in China yet). They don't meaningfully export technology or intellectual property (ok: Tik Tok). One thing they do export: their children, to western universities. And you talk to many of these kids who have grown up in the west, and they don't want to leave. They buy houses here, build families, drink with their white, black, and brown friends, work in American companies... It's Just Better Here. And sure; they export Influence; its the echoes of an untapped market with really cheap manufacturing. My western value systems says Intel should be more harsh with China; that they shouldn't mince words. But simultaneously, when speaking about global power dynamics: Why? Profiting from slave labor is horrible, but that's exactly what Intel is doing: Profiting. I wish they wouldn't, but doing so doesn't meaningfully make China stronger. If anything, it further striates their already overwhelmingly lower-class population; unrest can't just happen in authoritarian countries, it tends to. And while all-out war is unlikely; if that happens, everyone will be decimated. We can drum all we want, but global military tech has react the status of Perfect Killing Machine. War, in the past, was a tool countries used to assert influence and escape dire economic situations. The tools have changed; you can't assert influence if there's no one left to have influence over, and your dire economic situation will just be made worse after coastal population center bombardment and grain field irradiation. We'll just kill each other off, and most war is rational somewhere in the reasoning matrix.