Meanwhile, any question I ask that has a simple answer is ignored. Why was it commonly believed that China was a civilian dictatorship in 1988, more than a few years after Mao and Dengs time? Why is the one-party state of China not considered a dictatorship when one-party states are?

This entire conversation has been moving goalposts, and every time I defined the goalposts clearly enough to not be moved, you simply ran in another direction. I may not have gotten a university degree, but you’ve still done an amazingly poor job of defending your thesis.

I will give you points on the checks and balances applied after Mao reducing the risks of harm from the dictatorship of China, but the definition of a dictatorship doesn’t rely on the benevolence of the leadership, merely the lack of power of the people to change it, which was not negated by dividing the powers of government between different levels.

My first link has the following quote:

Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian,[1] and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. (emphasis mine)

China has been a one-party state for the last 75 years, so the only question is whether or not it was also a dictatorship.

My second link has an infographic labeling China as a civilian dictatorship in 1988, which is prior to Xi putting himself in absolute authority, so how does it have nothing to do with the era prior to Xi taking absolute authority?

As for the handy little link you provided, that only talks about Xi, and we’re agreed that he is a dictator running a dictatorship, so, while it’s interesting, I’m not sure of the relevance unless your proposal is the the only thing that qualifies as a dictatorship is if it’s run by a single individual. In which case, it seems there are a number of people in your purported field who disagree with that stance.

Do you mean like the summary in Wikipedia? Or how about the Democracy-Dictatorship Index? It seems a lot of people in political circles have been calling China a civilian dictatorship for at least 36 years, just based on the cute little pictures.

Feel free to read a definition that’s more than one sentence long if you want an explanation for something as nuanced as political systems.

You’re right, words do have meaning. Just because there is a transition from one dictator to another without bloodshed or death doesn’t mean it isn’t a dictatorship. Just because the dictator of the week is chosen by a committee doesn’t mean it isn’t a dictatorship. One-party systems are commonly accepted to be dictatorships because of the lack of ability by the people to choose their leader, rather it is chosen by the party (usually the party elites).

In this case, China is coming into its own as a regional hegemon, assuming their relatively new status as an outright dictatorship doesn’t fuck that up.

China has been an outright dictatorship for a while now, it’s just the lifetime leader that was recent.

Well, that’s terrible, sure, but do you know how much they spend in American arms purchases?!

There’s no evidence that what feels good to you actually reduces the odds of the perpetrator committing crimes again or reduces the rate of those crimes in society in general, and good evidence that what doesn’t feel good to you does those things. So you will have to decide if you would rather feel good about how the person who did something wrong was punished or have less crime in your society.

Okay, you’re sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here’s a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I’m sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.

This isn’t entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it’s already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.

Let’s say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?

Isn’t it at meme levels when YouTube games have their screen go black and they mention Nvidia crashing?

This reminds me of when I went to a restaurant with some friends and we had a variety of beers to taste. I’m not a big drinker, and have never liked beer, but whatever, it won’t kill me. So we try 5 or 6, some are better and some are worse, but there’s one that’s far better than the rest. I say, “Well, this one is almost worth drinking,” and they all respond with something along the lines of “Yeah, this one is really good.” That’s when I came to the conclusion that my perception of good and bad were on point for beer, it’s just that my standard for what I was going to enjoy was higher. They can keep their beers, I’ll stick to tastier beverages, alcoholic or otherwise.

Sabotage against an enemy in war is a long-held tradition, and can be a very effective tactic if it causes economic (or other) damage to their enemy. It will still cost less than rebuilding entire cities, but I guess that doesn’t matter as much since it wasn’t (scary hand gestures) sabotage.

I’ll give you an upvote just for knowing what type of gem it was. So many South African diamond mine comments smh.

The whole idea of nuclear ICBM warfare and MAD is that you are prepared to launch at least some of your missiles before your attack capability can be removed. So, to maintain MAD capability, at least some of your missiles have to be launch capable at any time in order to effectively respond to a first strike. Of course, that readiness level can be increased if the perceived threat is higher. What that means is that a response strike needs to be able to launch in less than 30 minutes. Two hours is very generous. The first strike advantage is that you can launch most of your missiles. The MAD doctrine assures that all victories on this stage are pyrrhic.

Yes, the US constitution requires that the president be at least 35 and a natural born citizen. There is more info here.

He also said almost all of the presidents, then links to a genealogy that lists less than half.

It is constitutionally impossible for Musk to become president.

The scientist Robert L. Forward discussed possible ways to handle this in his novel Rocheworld. The fiction part wasn’t about the light sail, more the general AI, life extension tech, and the aliens.

And there’s the real answer. I don’t think anyone is paying for their Starlink account with a wad of cash in a back alley. They will probably give people some number of days to close their accounts and sending notices to banks and credit cards to not accept payments for Starlink from Brazilian accounts or some other means of interfering with payments. Things will likely escalate from there with fines not dissimilar to those with Twitter and other methods to deter people from using the services illegally. There may well be some political elements, as well, but I’m not sure how important Brazil is to America to make that happen.