4 ms·

You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. You are trying too hard and doing

You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove. So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething? Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.

jacquesm 10mo ago
You're unbelievable. Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious. That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists. As well as articles like this: https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-save-taiwan/ https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav... There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers. Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either... This is bizarre at this point. Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved. You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties. Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      None of what I wrote is a worldview and I avoided any controversies by sticking to facts: China has split and this is explained in the first link in your previous comment, and "reunification" can therefore be an accurate term. How is that at odds with "facts"? What "facts"? What do you think I claimed? How is it controversial? I am not sure you know at this point as you are being evasive and shifting to ad hominems. Claiming that the Earth is round is "controversial" to flat-Earthers. Does this make it a controversial topic?
      - komali2 10mo ago
        I changed my mind, I actually don't know what China is at all. Can you please tell me what China is?
komali2 10mo ago
> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China." > any sources can disprove. Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then! > So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething? Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here. > Past history is what it is. This sentence is genuinely meaningless. The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong." What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan... I agree that "China" may mean several things but in the context of this discussion and previous comments it is rather clearer. You can have a look at the Wikipedia link about the political status of Taiwan that @jacquesm posted. You can also have a look at related article about the history of China or Taiwan. Quick summary (to mostly repeat myself as you point out but it does seem hard to get you guys to even read the links you provide yourselves, or don't want to accept them) is that China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th century (as a reaction to European imperialism) with Taiwan acquiring province status towards the end of the 19th century. It was then ceded by China to Japan after the First Sino-Japanase war, and "reunited" in 1945. Following the Chinese civil war the communists took over the mainland and the government kept, and retreated to, Taiwan, which led to a split with de facto two states and official policies to "reunite". That's all there in the links mentioned. So, again, I don't understand the drama. I never denied that Taiwan was de facto a state independent of the mainland, or that the majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be absorbed by the PRC, or even that a portion of the people of Taiwan would like no affiliation with "China" and be simply the Republic of Taiwan. And, yes, Taiwan was never controled by the PRC (like East Germany was never controled by West Germany prior to German "reunification", and there is still no country called "Germany" or "Korea"...). But that said I do have a problem with rewriting history and fallacious arguments to further a political aim.

jacquesm 10mo ago

You're unbelievable. Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious. That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists. As well as articles like this: https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-save-taiwan/ https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav... There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers. Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either... This is bizarre at this point. Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved. You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties. Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    None of what I wrote is a worldview and I avoided any controversies by sticking to facts: China has split and this is explained in the first link in your previous comment, and "reunification" can therefore be an accurate term. How is that at odds with "facts"? What "facts"? What do you think I claimed? How is it controversial? I am not sure you know at this point as you are being evasive and shifting to ad hominems. Claiming that the Earth is round is "controversial" to flat-Earthers. Does this make it a controversial topic?
    - komali2 10mo ago
      I changed my mind, I actually don't know what China is at all. Can you please tell me what China is?

komali2 10mo ago

> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China." > any sources can disprove. Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then! > So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething? Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here. > Past history is what it is. This sentence is genuinely meaningless. The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong." What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan... I agree that "China" may mean several things but in the context of this discussion and previous comments it is rather clearer. You can have a look at the Wikipedia link about the political status of Taiwan that @jacquesm posted. You can also have a look at related article about the history of China or Taiwan. Quick summary (to mostly repeat myself as you point out but it does seem hard to get you guys to even read the links you provide yourselves, or don't want to accept them) is that China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th century (as a reaction to European imperialism) with Taiwan acquiring province status towards the end of the 19th century. It was then ceded by China to Japan after the First Sino-Japanase war, and "reunited" in 1945. Following the Chinese civil war the communists took over the mainland and the government kept, and retreated to, Taiwan, which led to a split with de facto two states and official policies to "reunite". That's all there in the links mentioned. So, again, I don't understand the drama. I never denied that Taiwan was de facto a state independent of the mainland, or that the majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be absorbed by the PRC, or even that a portion of the people of Taiwan would like no affiliation with "China" and be simply the Republic of Taiwan. And, yes, Taiwan was never controled by the PRC (like East Germany was never controled by West Germany prior to German "reunification", and there is still no country called "Germany" or "Korea"...). But that said I do have a problem with rewriting history and fallacious arguments to further a political aim.