Every time I see events like this happen, I get extremely skeptical of the idea that China will somehow replace the US as leader of the world. I’m not sure if I’m justified in thinking so, but I just cannot imagine actions like this leading to a creative, innovative culture.
There's no single leader of the world, it's all about local influence. It has always been and probably will be bipolar. Geographical closeness, and trade and cultural/language export have the most impact.
If I say that I'm not sure how students who live in a climate of fear and need to practice active shooter drills after every school shooting can lead to a creative and innovative culture, do you think that holds?
Better question is do we need creative and innovative culture. It's rather destructive when everyone wants to be a creator and nobody is willing to do hard not-so-fancy jobs. Somebody has to do plumbing and install electricity for all the influnkers and utubers.
Obviously there's a need for a small portion of pioneers. But should society aim for mass creativity or just highlight those who cannot not create.
“ In his three-and-a-half-hour political report to the Party’s 2,300 top officials, Xi laid out a vision for China to lead the world in everything from science and technology, to modern weaponry and military might, to providing a model of economic development and governance for other countries to follow.”
The problem is two different meanings of "lead"; one simply means "being in front", like in a race; another means, "Guiding and directing coordination of a large group of people". The first is completely individual; the second is collaborative.
"Leading the world in science and technology" means "having more advanced science and technology than the rest of the world"; and even "providing a model" means, "letting people copy it if they feel like it". That's all completely about China.
When people talking about the US leading the world, it's more about guidance and influence over coordinated action; NATO, climate change, IMF, WHO, etc. That's something China as a country has never been particularly interested in.
Imagine, for instance, China trying to arrange sanctions in response to something. They're not even close to having that kind of influence, and they're not particularly trying.
The opposite, in fact. I used to be mostly neutral about war, but now I would consider myself a borderline pacifist. After studying this war and its causes, I realized that it was the consequence of geopolitical actors (including the defense industry) acting in certain ways over the last few decades. It is the kind of game where the only move is to not play.
I understand - it seems like a rational position to me to a certain degree. But regardless of circumstances leading to the event, what do you think you would do if you saw murders and rape right on your doorstep? Honest question by the way - there are plenty of examples of pacifists standing up to violence following a pacifist ethos.
There are many people that aren’t religious extremists who think that abortion is, at best, extremely morally problematic. It’s fundamentally a question about the definition of life, not the adherence to certain religious beliefs.
Poll data suggests that the plurality of the population do not support third-trimester abortions, but neither do they support a prohibition on first-trimester.
The reality is that what we consider a "life" is graduated, and the fetus progresses along that continuum during gestation. Most people know this intuitively, which is why popular opinion generally falls where it does. (See, for example, the Pew polls on the subject of abortion and trimesters.)
We struggle to draw a bright-line to say, "this is where life begins," because there is not really a point where life "begins," merely a long series of points where it shifts by degree from "no life" to "life."
As a society though we still are tasked with drawing this line and it is an arbitrary line. But it is illogical for it to begin at the very start of the continuum, or at the very end. The beginning because it is silly and unscientific to pretend as though some tiny clump of cells has any more life than a wart, and it comes at great cost to women's autonomy; the end because it is illogical to believe that a baby the moment prior to birth is a fundamentally different being than at the moment after. To believe that the moment is at either end is thoughtless dogmatism.
Where should the line be? Pick a point. Give the woman enough time to be able to know that she is pregnant, to plan and provide for her bodily autonomy to make her own life choices, and to deal with lead times at clinics. And then draw a line where the choice has been made. Most people believe that line is somewhere around the end of the first trimester or early part of the second.
> the end because it is illogical to believe that a baby the moment prior to birth is a fundamentally different being than at the moment after. To believe that the moment is at either end is thoughtless dogmatism.
> Where should the line be? Pick a point
But in your own words, isn't it similarly illogical to believe that a baby the moment prior to that point is a fundamentally different being than at the moment after.
Actually, the way you are framing it is a significant cause of the problem. In many cases, we are talking about a strictly amoral health care concern, IE: a clump of cells that are going to kill a woman if she doesn't get the necessary health care. It has absolutely nothing to do with a baby or life and everything to do with her bleeding out. THAT is the thing the right-wing ignores and wants you to ignore too. So they show you pictures of babies, they talk about babies, they come up with fictitious terms like "third-trimester abortion" because it's the only way they can frame the issue to rile up their base.
It isn’t wrong legally and if anything, had the constitution been followed correctly, this decision is how it should have played out in the first place. It is only controversial because some people think their personal opinions on controversial issues should override democratic mechanisms.
Yes frankly this website is not capable of entertaining certain contrarian ideas. Which of course are only contrarian in the narrow societal bubbles they occupy.
I blame the downvote mechanism for rewarding echo chambers and punishing outlier opinions.
If you worked for Amazon, Facebook, Google, or a similar social media / adtech company, I think you’d be doing more real damage to society. The only difference is that these organizations have a better PR department.
Crypto has pluses and minuses and you should determine whether it’s a technology you believe in or not. I think basing your opinion of it on “the public” or (notoriously uninformed about crypto) HN opinion is just a bit mentally weak. Either believe in what you’re doing, or do something else. But don’t base your feelings on what the mob thinks.
The historical portion of this article is misleading and relies on Western people’s lack knowledge of the region. It makes you think that Sweden then was Sweden today, a neutral peaceful country. In reality, Sweden had spent the previous century invading and destroying Central and Eastern Europe. It was so destructive that some historians estimate the damage in Poland exceeded that of World War 2.
> From the outset, Sweden had gone into the negotiations with very high ambitions and hopes of fulfilling the old dream of making all Russian trade pass through Swedish territory. As a consequence of that ambition, the Swedes originally demanded far-reaching territorial gains into western Russia, including the important northern port of Arkhangelsk.[3]
> However, King James I of England sent a delegation to mediate, and the United Provinces did the same, mostly to ensure that Arkhangelsk did not fall into Swedish hands, which would have made the extensive trade between Western Europe and Russia far more difficult.
The whole region was chaotic for centuries. Poland invaded Russia at one point as well. Everyone pretty much invaded everyone else.
Certainly no one was “justified” here, I just meant to point out that the article is written to be misleading. The region in question (St. Petersburg) does indeed seem to have been occupied by Russians for a considerable period of time prior to Sweden occupying it.
Interesting that at no point does anyone stop and think, “Gee, maybe tearing down every institution and social obligation in the name of individualist consumerism wasn’t a good idea? Perhaps our ancestors and their thousands of years old traditions concerning marriage and dating weren’t outdated idiots after all?”
Nope. The solution is always more dating apps, more self-help books, more targeted algorithms to find your perfect match and fulfill your individualist desires for pleasure and purpose. If you aren’t happy with your dating situation, it’s because you aren’t knowledgeable or hard-working enough.
Sure people stop and think. traditionalism does not have a lot of potential for commercial exploitation so you see more of the other. You can't stop it, but you can at least let people know that the whole romantic ecosystem from hollywood to PUAs is basically a marketing scam.
