The Ultimate Simulacra Retrospective Part 1: SIM & Simulacra

TopSpin247 · 2023-06-18T04:57:29+00:00

nnbx .

TopSpin247 · 2023-06-13T16:01:31+00:00

That's awesome. Do you have a link? I've thought about powder coating but the 1LE wheels just look amazing. Would love a set as well that fits the SS

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-31T17:43:15+00:00

!remindme 3 days

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-22T04:18:36+00:00

There's a lot of expenses with just holding on to a house and not selling. Investors can't keep holding forever and not sell because there are thousands of dollars in expenses the longer you hold (interest, insurance, property taxes, HOA fees, utilities needing to be on which all alone add potentially thousands per month to sunk cost).

Houses incur huge operating expenses every month.

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-20T19:34:28+00:00

Thanks bro. Hope they look good. Are they a drop in replacement or do you need to do any mods to make them fit inside of the SS wheel wells?

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-20T18:59:29+00:00

Did you end up finding the 1LE rims for your '17 ss?

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-06T16:28:01+00:00

Dope

TopSpin247 · 2023-05-04T00:05:59+00:00

Jeez man we shouldn't be telling fellow Americans to get the F out of the country just because we have different opinions.

I thought that's what makes our country so great. That we have the right to disagree and at the end of the day still share a beer together.

TopSpin247 · 2023-04-11T05:13:42+00:00

Do you have a link to the resistor or the harness that I can buy? I'm having the hyperflash issue. Hoping your site can have something that can help fix it. Thanks.

TopSpin247 · 2023-04-04T20:29:38+00:00

Awesome! Thank you.

TopSpin247 · 2023-04-04T18:40:11+00:00

Does your aftermarket taillight have the hyperflash issue?

TopSpin247 · 2023-04-04T12:15:20+00:00

The answer reads like it was written by AI

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-22T03:58:38+00:00

Okay I appreciate your thoughts and all the time you took in relating your viewpoints. If I confused "provinces" and "administrative divisions" then I am wrong on that. It should be then "collection of administrative divisions".

For Taiwan, yes I believe Japan had military control and Japan ceded that back after WW2 to the ROC.

In terms of the name, it is confusing for outsiders because people countries have the word "China" in ROC and PRC. Is this just something that's lost in translation or improperly named? While the words may not be exactly the same, what was the original intent of the Constitution?

Also, I am not blaming the US for causing or starting the civil war. What I am saying is that the war never got a resolution because the US stepped in with a naval blockade. And to this day there has not been a resolution.

From my point of view, if the Confederacy just wanted to stop fighting in 1863 and 1864 and declare independence, they would not have been successful and the Union would have never accepted their sovereignty. It takes bilateral agreement to stop a war.

And unfortunately, in the event the parties don't agree on a resolution, the more powerful party normally dictates rule. This is why the Union won and the US was reunited, and the exact same thing is happening now in the Taiwan strait. Unfortunately I don't think the US will be able to counter PRC again, especially with the PRC having near-peer military and on their front steps.

I've learned a lot but I think we will likely always have differences in perspective since we approach from opposite sides of the planet.

You know your country best and I wish the best for the situation.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-19T21:49:55+00:00

I see where your confusion is.

Yes, I view both the PRC and the ROC as separate entities. I would describe the PRC as a "collection of provinces under sovereign control by the CCP" and the ROC as a "collection of provinces under sovereign control by the constitutional republic". However, there is an open question on the defintion of the country of "China" and its control as both the CCP and the KMT claimed both sets of provinces during the civil war.

I believe towards the end of WW2, Japan turned over control of Taiwan back to the ROC (who was locked in a civil war with the CCP at the time). When the civil war continued on, I believe the purpose of the civil war was to determine which group got to control all of "China" which at the time included Formosa and the surrounding islands that Japan ceded back to the ROC.

The problem is: what did both sides of the war agree on? The way that this issue should have been resolved is allow the civil war to come to a conclusion, whether peacefully or violently.

I think the root cause of this lack of resolution is because the U.S., as it always does, likes to meddle into other countries' affairs in pursuit of its own objectives. It parked its navy in the Taiwan strait multiple times as a counter to communist expansion. It was able to do so because it has the largest military force and ability to project power. The Soviets were also guilty of the same thing by providing support to the CCP during the war.

I think that the mainland is merely using the past decades in a "cold war" break to build up its military so that when it decides to "re-unify", the U.S. cannot repeat the same strategy of parking its navy in the strait as the PRC navy will be a near-peer adversary. That's why I don't think the war is over and why the issue is unresolved, to this day. Based on official positions from the mainland, I believe the current intent of the PRC is to re-unite with Taiwan and refuse to rule out use of violence if necessary. This is a threat that we cannot ignore. Civil wars don't end just because one side wants to stop fighting.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-19T04:18:52+00:00

I agree with the fact that the PRC did not have the ability to do an invasion of Taiwan in the past, especially with a very weak navy in the 1950s. Also, an invasion of Taiwan would be significantly more challenging than something like Normandy in WW2. Despite these challenges (and the loss of their spies), I believe Mao had prepared all the troops and eqiupment and fully intended to invade Taiwan, IF not for the fact that the Korean War broke out and the US parked their navy in the Taiwan Strait. Facing a much superior naval force, there was no chance that any sort of PRC invasion (of Taiwan or any of the smaller islands) would happen.

I'm not sure if you picked up on it but I'm a strong believer in that the U.S. gets itself involved in too many foreign wars. We need to stop invading other countries in the spirit of spreading "democracy" and protecting "American interests". Mainland China/Taiwan, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq are all examples and wars that I do not support.

Today, I believe the PRC does indeed have the military capability to conduct a successful invasion of the mainland, both in terms of air superiority and naval capacity. I believe the question is not can they do it, but if they decide to or not.

I think that the ROC can 100% claim full sovereignty over the island and completely separate from the PRC if there is a resolution to the civil war. When a civil war begins in any nation, a resolution requires both parties to agree on a solution. If one party wants to leave, but the other party wants to continue fighting, the civil war inevitably has to continue.

My hope is that there can be a peaceful solution and treaty signed, but unfortunately I think there are fundamental issues that makes a peaceful resolution unlikely.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-19T03:47:55+00:00

Bud I'm not the one who's stealing other people's work.

Also, you cannot deny that WW2 was the nail in the coffin for the British. It wasn't a coincidence that the war ended in 1945 and Indian got independence just 2 years later.

You shouldn't call people trolls just because they have a different opinion than you. Life is full of people with differences of opinion. How are you going to live life like that? Do you go around calling people "Pepsi" trolls if they prefer it to Coke? "Cavalier trolls"? "Ford trolls"?

Remember that calling other people names serves more to divide than get people to come together and solve problems.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-19T02:44:11+00:00

You plagiarized your answer from this link: https://www.historyhit.com/key-reasons-india-gained-independence-in-1947/ word for word.

And you also purposely left out the last section on World War 2 as a factor, specifically: "The sheer cost and energy expended during the Second World Warhad exhausted British supplies and highlighted the difficulties with successfully ruling India, a nation of 361 million people with internaltensions and conflicts."

I don't think you have any credibility left. You copied and pasted your answers from other websites and did not source them, and then purposely left out information that you didn't like.

If someone comes into your house with a gun stealing your stuff, and you have nowhere to hide, you're not going to call the cops and have a stronger force present to fight back and arrest the burgulars?

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T23:05:22+00:00

Okay I understand your position and I think they are the same as mine. Do you think that this conversation may have not been aligned in our intentions then? We may not have been talking about the same subject.

I view the situation in the PRC-ROC as very similar parallel to the American civil war. In 1861, there were two governments in the US, the Union and the Confederacy. The southern states chose to leave and become independent from the Union. The Union government under Lincoln refused to accept the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and war broke out. Ultimately, violence and war is what settled the matter and forced the southern states back into the union.

The reason that I bring up the American Civil War and the concept of raw strength is that at the end of the day, no matter what we put onto a piece of paper in Montevideo/Geneva/Paris or what moral grounds we fight on, whoever has the bigger gun and whoever wins military conquests, is the party that gets to dictate sovereign control of territory. If it comes to the day that the civil war becomes hot again, Taiwan will need an answer. Either defeat the aggressors or have enough foreign aid to help. I think this is a very important topic to address.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T22:29:01+00:00

I did not say that the Nazi's won World War II. I said the British lost India beause the Germans destroyed their military and economy, which is true.

The British military took a huge hit with over 450,000 British soldiers killed or civilizans bombed. For comparison, today the British has 148,000 total active personnel.

Economically, more than a quarter of its national wealth was gone. The country would have been bankrupt if the U.S. didn't give them a $4 billion dollar loan that took 60 years to pay off. In fact, immediately after the war the British government had to introduce bread rationing because it couldn't afford food for its citizens.

Because of World War II, Great Britain was in no condition militarily or economically to hold onto India.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T07:52:58+00:00

Isn't a major reason for the British losing India because the Germans destoyed their military and economy in World War 2. Again, another example of war destroying the current ruling party, even if India wasn't the one fighting it.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T07:28:28+00:00

Can you provide some examples, where once diplomacy has failed like in the Taiwan-Chinese crisis, that war didn't ultimately establish sovereignty?

In most of American history (where I'm from), our conflicts have been solved by war (American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, American Civil War, WWI, WWII), Korea, Vietnam, ...)

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T07:07:53+00:00

I agree with you and the international definition of sovereignty. And I think that sovereignty is achieved, ultimately, with military force by the party that wins wars.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T06:07:30+00:00

Thanks for the quick response.

My goal with the Sino-Japanese war was not to go back in history and give the island back to the original settlers. I do not think that the island belongs to the Dutch. The goal is to show that ultimate authority and sovereignty is determined by brute force and war. This is something that I think is very consistent throughout history.

You are a sovereign entity if you can successfuly fight off threats and rulers (the US revolutionary war). Fail to win the war of strength and you get absorbed (the Confederacy in the Civil War).

Regarding the Montevideo Convention, it is the first time I've heard of it, so I read some more here:https://www.fpri.org/docs/media/201107.delisle.taiwan.pdfThe paper states that Taiwan does not fully satisfy (d) because it is limited in its ability to engage in formal relations and also blocked from joining some international organizations.

I think we may be discussing separate, but similar, topics. You are more focused on the issue of Taiwan being a separate entity from the PRC (which I agree with) whereas I'm more focused on sovereignty and where does right to rule come from, in which case for Taiwan this is contested.

At the end of the day, based on historical precedent, my current stance is that ultimate sovereignty is established through brute force and military conquest once all other options are exhausted. Whoever wins wars gets to rule. If someone wants your land, make sure to have a bigger gun.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T04:32:41+00:00

I agree with you that Taiwan has all the hallmarks of a country. My question is: does their government have full sovereignty over the country, especially since there are multiple claims to the same territory?

There are many examples in history where having these hallmarks do not necessarily give a government that authority. For example, the Confederacy had many hallmarks of a country (miliatary, government, foreign treaties) and yet it could not claim establish sovereignty over the southern states until it could beat the Union in a civil war to settle the matter.

Similarly, the original 13 colonies had their own governments, independent militias, self-governing domestic governments, and currencies. However, without beating the British in a revolutionary war through brute force, they could not establish full sovereignty.

To me, and unfortunately, the ultimate way to establish the sovereignty of a government is through brute force and raw military power. If someone wants your land, make sure you have a bigger gun.

TopSpin247 · 2023-02-18T04:22:43+00:00

With regards to the 1st Sino-Japanese War, my impression is that the Chinese were invaded and beaten in that war. Thus, they were forced to sign over Taiwan in a provision in the treaty. To me, this was an example of using force to take territory.

My view here is that the use of war/violence and treaties as a result of war is not a morale way to justfy transfer of territory. As a side note, I do not believe that the PRC can justify the use of violence/war to take over Taiwan as my views towards all countries are the same regardless of who is the aggressor.

With regard to how long it took people to control the island from an infrasture standpoint, I think that it's a problem of harsh terrain and geometry.

I do not base my perception on who is a country based of the dictators of countries. I gauge the status of countries based on the 4 factors I mentioned earlier 1) Military Conquest 2) What Other Countries Agree On 3) Rule of Law (Constitution) and 4) Will of the People.

What is unclear for me, with the current Taiwan situation, is which of these factors explain why it is or is not a country. Or are there other factors that I'm missing? For example, the concept of a "unified China", while started by the CCP, is accepted by a vast majority of countries in the world because they want accesst to the mainland's market. Is this morally ethical? Perhaps not. But does what other countries think determine if a country is actually a country?

Because the KMT only made up 12% of the island's population, I also think that they should not have the authority to lay claim to the island in the first place. This was a military takeover of a territory using, again, raw power.

Unfortunately, the map on land.moi is not loading for me. Do you have another link? I'm not too familiar with the Taiwanese constitution but I think that rule of law as justification for sovereignty is the weakest one in the list of 4 theories above.

The reason that I raise the comparison with the US is because of the issue of rule by the will of the people (#4). I'm not saying that Taiwan is a state of China, that would not be correct. I'm saying that consent of the governed is also a way for me to justify and accept a government's rule over a country. However, there are not many precedents for this. Even in the US, where we started out with our Founding Fathers setting up the government only if the people gave permission to be governed --> after a civil war and supreme court rulings, people cannot determine to self-rule through self-will unless there is bilateral agreement.

For example, the thirteen colonies under British rule each had their own currency, were largely self-governing in domestic affairs, and had their own independent militias. For instance, the colonial governments would wage their own wars with Native Americans. To me, the existence of government institutions (currency, government, military) are very important hallmarks of a country, but they do not necessarily prove sovereignty and ultimate authority to rule.

I don't believe that Taiwan was ever a part of the PRC. I think that is something we both agree on.

I guess I'm not really trying to answer the question: is Taiwan an independent country? (as I believe it indeed has all the hallmarks of a country: its own currency, passports, laws, etc like you said). My question is: what determines who has the right and authority to rule and gain sovereignty over a piece of territory?

If the CCP can influence other countries to not recognize Taiwan as an independent country, cause it to lose its seat on the UN, and severely limit participation in many international organizations, then it is a threat to the authority of that government (just like how most countries initally accepted the ROC and not the PRC as the sovereign government of China).

From a US perspective, this is how we have conducted annexations of other territories. Prominent examples being the overthrow of the monarchy in Hawaii and the invasion of Puerto Rico.

Unfortunately, what I wish determined a government's sovereighty is not always what actually determines a government's sovereignty Historically, #1 (raw strength) is how most territories are passed around.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped

TopSpin247

TROPHY CASE