I find it fascinating that the US government is being openly hostile like that. Surely they just realize that this will be held against the US for a long time?
> Surely they just realize that this will be held against the US for a long time?
Who can? There are plenty of things people around the world hold against the US. It's not like anyone can actually do something about it and that's all that really matters.
> It's not like anyone can actually do something about it and that's all that really matters.
In the long term they can, by using the US dollar less and less. Which is already happening. One day the US government will wake up unable to print money to pay for things from other countries, and the economy will collapse.
Many of these countries though, finance theirs debts and pay them back in USD, simply because the USD is still the de facto currency in global financial markets.
I believe that's an entirely different issue, tbh. There is no grand strategy or conspiracy behind dedollarization, just a path of least resistance for free and open trade.
I don't like assuming that someone is an idiot, but besides "shitting where you eat" the only explanation I can think of is that someone is betting on WWIII and that it will end as profitability as WWI and WWII.
People who live in the US are usually less aware of how a lot of the international community perceives them as a bully. His view is very common and he finds it completely foreign that the US is even perceived this way.
A lot of people in the US view the US as the heroic peace keeper, and that all actions the US takes against China are for "world security" rather then an attempt to keep the top spot as the #1 economic and military super power.
It's weird because while there is freedom of the press in the US, many US citizens are still strangely misinformed and irrationally patriotic.
I'm not even clear about the mechanism at work here but there is a sort of strange form of control of information at play here. You can sort of sense it in US news. It's genius really how the media can be controlled despite amendments in place ensuring freedom of the press.
For some reason I had a feeling they were referring to something different.
Anyway, I am aware of the whole bubble thing, although I don't think its unique for the US, at least no entirely.
It's quite similar to countries with their own sovereign media. That's why people often think that those other guys hand out talking points to their journalists, when it's actually all about hiring people with good political sense, who feel "the flow" and know what is politically correct.
The difference is that people with 3 digit IQ typically know how dive into foreign media (or even passively exposed to it), while people in the US dominated part of the world just kinda don't even care.
I wonder if it was different when the Fairness Doctrine was in place - probably not, cross-cultural fairness seems like something too complicated to scale well.
News media are private businesses. Control the flow of money or buy the business and you control the narrative.
It's well known that advertising dollars influence decisions, and it's also well known that western news media is owned by only a few huge companies that often are advertising subsidiary companies on the same platform.
Perhaps when China stops their massive human rights abuses and begins to act like a mature world leader, but until then, its turning out to be another 2 bit authoritarian regime who cannot hold a candle to what the U.S.A achieves on the world stage.
> Perhaps when China stops their massive human rights abuses
How do you figure it's not empty propaganda and that it's actually more massive compared to the US "well that's just life" incidents?
Because it's definitely propaganda (even if not an empty one). It's no coincidence that it ramped up when China became an economic competitor to the US. Even the "Uyghurs camps" narrative surged in media just right along with ICE detention camps scandal. And given how muslims were treated by the US after 9/11, there is definitely zero moral high-ground.
Cracking down on dissidents? Capitol riots challenge was failed miserably and was hardly handled any differently than what gets so criticized in "authoritarian" countries.
> cannot hold a candle to what the U.S.A achieves on the world stage.
Jokes about participating in wars all over the planet aside, what did the US actually achieve on the WORLD stage? Not it's influence on European neighborhood and the small corner of North Atlantics, but the WORLD. Cuz IMO, the world is totally burning right now.
It's really hard to figure out what you're implying specifically when you talk in slogans and manifestos, instead of like a normal down to earth person. But I can't shake the feeling that you kinda treat the rest of the world as ochlos to American demos, with an inherent supremacism similar to how 20 century commies went about their global revolution that no one had asked them for.
That's about how far high beams shine, so it's totally acceptable for cops to give people speeding tickets for doing 55 in a 55 at night with high beams on?
• Use fog lights if you have them.
• Never use your high-beam lights. Using high beam lights causes
glare, making it more difficult for you to see what’s ahead of
you on the road.
”
If you create a rule to accomplish a broader goal then this is a terrible argument because you end up getting rules lawyered and then you have to add sub-rules and sub-sub-rules and then exceptions to those and etc. Eventually you end up enforcing things that are non-sensical just because someone used a loop-hole once and you have to plug it. No one thinks this is a good outcome.
In your metaphor the town wants safe roads -- they don't care if someone is going 54 or 56, and the enforcement should reflect that. If you really think that anyone going over 55.1 should be pulled over no matter what, and that people driving with a blindfold on going 54.9 should not, then I don't know what to say .
Statistics show the least accidents occur at up to 15% over the speed limit, because that is the speed the good drivers go.
I would fully support a speed limit system based on driving skill. However, since we have a purely speed based system those driving the limit should not get tickets.
First of all, I was disagreeing with the metaphor on premise, and thus that it is a 'purely speed based system', because it is not. Emergency vehicles can drive faster, and you can argue with a cop or in court that you had a good reason to drive faster and be relieved of the offense.
If you really believe in only 'the letter of the law' then why do we have courts? It isn't just to determine guilt or innocence, since only some of the courts do that and only some of the time.
Who can? There are plenty of things people around the world hold against the US. It's not like anyone can actually do something about it and that's all that really matters.