Skip Navigation

𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

@ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
2052
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Nation-states are nationalist/imperialist in nature because they often violate the concept of self-determination. It is by definition the amalgamation of various similar cultures and peoples by enforcing a shared identity (and making those who don't conform to it do so anyway). The Taiwanese population does not want to be ruled by the PRC for example, yet the PRC claims legitimate governance over the island anyway based on these nationalist claims. Similarly, the Spanish suppress the Catalan identity, the French assimilated the Bretons and the Alsatians, etc... It is this enforced unification of people that is not a very socialist viewpoint, people should want to unify on their own accord.

  • The Ottoman Empire would be contiguous with Istanbul, like the Roman empire would be contiguous with Rome and the Holy Roman Empire would be contiguous with the Vatican. In fact, the interesting question would be whether the Holy See is in fact contiguous with the Holy Roman Empire. I think it might be.

    🤦

    The Ottomans existed well before they conquered Constantinople. The Vatican (or Papal States at the time) was explicitly not part of the HRE. They were in many ways opposites; the seats of spiritual power vs temporal power. This tells me you have very little sense of general history.

    You also keep mentioning "the framework of Westphalian nation states", which is also a tell since you're confusing two different concepts; the Westphalian system and the concept of the nation-state. These are associated with one another, but distinct concepts.

    Importantly, China is not a nation-state. China is a civilisation-state, which is a grander concept as the nation-state is far too European an idea to make sense for China. Both the ROC and the PRC claim to be nation-states, but these claims are somewhat doubtful definition-wise. Regardless, this places the earliest possible concept of a Chinese nation-state in 1912, when the Qing Empire fell (an empire, mind, so by definition not a nation-state).

    This also means that Taiwan, which was conquered from the Qing in the 1890s, was not a part of a Chinese nation-state until 1945 when it was ceded to the ROC.

    The problem with characterizing China as a nation-state is that it doesn't consist of one nation and one state, it has far too many peoples, cultures and languages inside it for it to be considered that. You'd be doing its diversity a disservice, really. Hence it is a civilisation-state.

    Characterizing it as a nation-state reeks of nationalism and imperialism, which is typical for nation-states. Claimed lands are assimilated, either through coercion or force (or ethnic cleansing). A heroic epic is created to turn the birth of the nation-state into something mythical. Wars are fought to establish borders, usually along natural, defensible lines. Interestingly it's a perspective the CPC is keen to avoid (since it's not very "socialist" after all).

  • What? No. Please re-read what I wrote. I was saying that the Quebecois, who were the losers in the battle for control over Canada, could become a protectorate of the US, just like the KMT, who were the losers in the battle for control over China, became a protectorate of the US.

    I read what you wrote. The Quebecois as a faction currently do not govern Canada at all, the Canadian government does. Similar to how the CPC did not govern China, the KMT did. Hence in this parallel, the CPC = the Quebecois, and the KMT = the Canadian government (to remain accurate regarding the order of events). The Japanese/US then invade, causing the Quebecois/CPC to try and wrestle control over Canada. But in your parallel, the Quebecois "lost" and were left with only a small portion, whereas in our timeline obviously the CPC conquered the majority of China/Canada. This is where your parallel diverges, making it a poor metaphor. To make your story more accurate, the Quebecois would have to conquer most of Canada, just not all of it.

    I'm not ignorant, I just understand it differently than you. You think that a national government changing which people are in charge is somehow the creation of a new state, despite there being zero other historical precedent for that.

    The CPC, as mentioned, understands it differently from you, as they by their own words founded a new state.

    Coups are different than civil wars, as with a coup a faction seizes control of an existing governmental structure. A civil war is a more fundamental break. And there's plenty of precedent in this. Take the American Civil War; the CSA can't really be considered the same state as the United States. Had the civil war ended in a stalemate, they likely would have remained that way. But if the CSA had won and annexed the US, there's a decent chance they'd consider themselves the legitimate continuation of the US (despite having declared a new constitution, like the CPC did).

    Regardless, the problem is that civil wars are messy. Take the Vietnam war. Technically French Indochina was split into two Vietnamese states, yet the Vietnam war is considered a civil war and ended with the "reunification" of the two states. You can endlessly debate definitions, but none will see definitively fit all of history.

    Even in China the lines are blurred. Since 1991 the ROC does not actually regard the PRC as a rebellious group, and abandoned its claim to be the sole representative of China. But the PRC has not responded in kind, not acknowledging the ROC as legitimate. De facto the war has ended, yet there's no one party now in control of both the mainland and Taiwan. It's solely diplomatic pressure from the PRC that is preventing countries from acknowledging this (even though they do have embassies and such in Taiwan, so it's de facto accepted).

    Civil wars that don't de facto end in a reunification are typically considered to have spawned separate states (e.g. North and South Korea for example, or North and South Sudan). But even if they do the lines are blurred; is Turkey the same state as the Ottoman Empire? Or is it a successor state?

  • Lovecraft's racism was born and fuelled out of fear of the unknown. Bardot's racism is more of the common hate-kind.

  • You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the CPC did proclaim a new state, the People's Republic of China, succeeding the Republic of China. In their constitution, they made territorial claims regarding what parts of the world belong to it. Just read the proclamation made by Mao where this is plainly stated.

    You're also seemingly confused regarding what "de facto" means. It does not matter what various governments recognize to be the true China, that's more relevant for de jure. De facto speaking, the CPC has no control over Taiwan, and the KMT has no control over mainland China. They effectively govern separate states with separate territories, despite claims to the contrary (which are just claims and have no bearing on reality).

    Your Canada/Quebec example falls a bit flat on its face since for it to be a proper parallel, the Quebecois declaring a new government would have to have the same role as the CPC, which is the party in China that declared a new role, not the other way around.

    You're very stuck in a dogmatic view regarding what nations/nation states/governments are, and are ignoring the messy reality of civil wars.

    You don't see military coups making territorial claims, do you?

    This is just laughable, it's basically the first thing a military coup does, state which parts of the country it is in control of (and will soon control).

  • But by this logic, China is already in control of Taiwan, no? So why is the CPC threatening an invasion?

    Truth is that you can't really consider nations going through a civil war to be truly the same entity. I mean, they were literally fighting each other over control and claimed lands, bit strange if it's all the same China no?

    China (led by the CPC) is claiming lands it never controlled that are currently in control of China (led by the KMT). They're de facto separate nation states, and the communist one does not and has never controlled Taiwan. Its territorial claims come from it claiming to be the successor state (or continuation state) of the Republic of China (officially, Mao declared the foundation of a new People's Republic of China).

    This is a wildly different situation from e.g. Labour/Conservatives in the UK. Neither make competing territorial claims nor claim to both be in power at the same time. They also all serve the same government, which the CPC/KMT do not.

  • You're confusing Wero with the Digital Euro. This article is about the latter.

  • Laptops typically come with their own driver management software. Windows was probably trying its best to get something compatible installed, when your existing driver became outdated. There's a decent chance that MSI supplies some specific driver for your laptop that Windows won't touch or try to override through their own software.

    Still, nice that Linux supplied better drivers by default!

  • Their public statement says this isn't true and a rollback is in progress.

  • To be fair, it was 4 coat hangers. The Monster cable was therefore outnumbered.

  • The main reason for a store to sign up on a website would be:

    • Advertising
    • Centralised shipping
    • Centralised handling of payments (and note, this one is especially hard due to laws surrounding KYC and complexities in handling different payment methods)

    The Fediverse, being decentralised, has a hard time implementing the latter two. The first is basically not much different than being discoverable on Google.

    So fun as it sounds, it won't be easy to implement. You'd likely have to have independent "shippers" and PSPs sign up to this, and somehow have webshops choose which to use. And that's a very awkward structure for a Fediverse-minded solution.

  • Technically called "Côte d'Ivoire" I believe.

  • To play devil's advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.

  • I mean, screen protection is covered by a, well, cover. Note taking doesn't necessarily need a 2nd screen, and I'd argue the ergonomics is probably worse, not better.

    Having multiple sources side-by-side is a usecase, but not a common one.

  • It's not that great of an idea. You can only read one page at a time anyway, so why bother with the second screen, which only really adds weight?

  • Probably so young Dutch kids don't understand, and the majority of Dutch people understand English fine.

  • Well yeah, we haven't really been in the business of freezing hamsters regularly since they end up braindead pretty quickly.

  • Is that terrorism?