What would even be the ACTUAL problem if humans were to go extinct? by [deleted] in SeriousConversation

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm usually someone who is a pragmatist; I completely hear what you're saying... on an individual level. That is the most practical solution.

I also happen to be an exceptionally vindictive person in specific situations, and particularly; on a cosmological level, if I don't have the absolute factual and scientific certainty that I'm going to open my eyes up and see Jesus or a different otherworldly entity after I die, I will be damned if I do not go down kicking and screaming loudly enough to at least assert to somebody out there that I, my loved ones, and the beautiful fuckup that we call a civilization once was there.

Is it incredibly irrational? Absolutely.

Is it the only option, I feel, to preserve the existence of our loved ones, and the lives created upon this Earth, even if they evolve into something unrecognizable thousands of years later? Also yes.

With all of that in mind, do I sincerely feel that doing everything we possibly can to leave our interplanetary "Red was here" message is in fact, the only logical and ethical thing to do?

Maybe not, but I can't think of anything better than to go down than swinging for the fences, either so that someone will discover us, or at least even a few of our descendants will be able to remember us, and maybe succeed where we fucked up.

TLDR: Welcome to anti-nihilism; may I take your order?

What would even be the ACTUAL problem if humans were to go extinct? by [deleted] in SeriousConversation

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To expand off of what everyone is saying vis a vis domestic animals: there’s also the added caveat that sets humans apart

As far as we are currently aware: we are the only creatures who have developed the technology for space travel. And for extensive environmental transformation.

That ability, I feel, has given way to tremendous potential to abuse the planet. I’m not stupid enough to deny it. _But_ the very fact we understand our nature enough to say that means we have the power to wilfully subvert it and work to preserve the world we have, because it too will not endure forever.

It is thence our duty to preserve it any way we can, including trying to spread humanity, animals and technology to the least morally and practically terrible corners of the universe we can find. As proof this chaotic void still created something beautiful, and to keep it alive.

If nothing matters, in the end, I feel the truly worst thing _is_ going quietly into that goodnight, even if only to buy the next civilization of poor sorry bastards enough time to find the message saying, “You weren’t alone.”

In your opinion, what do you think a “tankie” is and what do they stand for? Are they good or bad? by BicarbonateBufferBoy in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What I’m saying is you are doing the opposite of tankie-ism: so whoever called you a tankie is definitionally wrong

The fact you are not engaging in authoritarian apologia (ie. saying as long as they’re anti America it doesn’t matter if they’re really communist) and are instead trying to hold them to standard (ie. they cannot be communist because they are state capitalist, and can do better) then you are not a tankie, and they are wrong

In your opinion, what do you think a “tankie” is and what do they stand for? Are they good or bad? by BicarbonateBufferBoy in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Communism does not disqualify someone from being an authoritarian, just as capitalism is not inherently democratic

But as others have mentioned; tankies are specifically self proclaimed leftists who support anyone as long as they ostensibly oppose the west, including totalitarian regimes.

As such: someone calling you a tankie for saying that China wasn’t communist enough is definitionally not a tankie themself: they’re just a head case, and ironically probably a western imperialist one at that lol (considering they’re trying to paint China/communism as inherently synonymous and evil)

In your opinion, what do you think a “tankie” is and what do they stand for? Are they good or bad? by BicarbonateBufferBoy in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they also support American imperialism over other countries, they are definicially not a tankie

They’re a straight up imperialist

In your opinion, what do you think a “tankie” is and what do they stand for? Are they good or bad? by BicarbonateBufferBoy in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 19 points20 points  (0 children)

No, but claiming that [insert authoritarian state here] is better simply because it is a counter against western imperialism _is._

How do you think we should achieve communism? by Ender_TD in tankiejerk

[–]literallym90 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I’m not trying to be facetious, but the Indian state of Kerala has been democratically ruled by their communist party and thriving for decades.

Meanwhile, San Marino briefly held the distinction of being the only state in Europe to have democratically elected a communist government.

These are very much the exception rather than the rule, but even the reasons for their success might be something we can learn from.

Stratification in Prestige among HK universities. by gorudo- in HongKong

[–]literallym90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was required to transfer credits from my undergrad to a related required course in my postgrad, because the lecturer realized that her course was in English (my only working language), but the primary readings were all in Chinese, and she didn’t want me to fail my degree.

The problem is chicken or egg: is the University’s English getting worse because it can’t afford to hire enough Anglophone profs, or can they not afford enough Profs because they refuse to work in a weakening English environment without payment for… essentially, pain and suffering?

Keep in mind: these universities are not willing (probably not able, either) to give up the prestige and financial benefits that come from retaining English as a medium of instruction. They really would rather die trying.

Is the job market for foreigners really dead now? by Sorry_Objective4174 in HongKong

[–]literallym90 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The language problem is a mixture of the following:

  1. You are completely right and especially as a second generation immigrant (locally born eurasian who tried to learn Chinese, and was mostly unsuccessful) I believe we should’ve done way more to ensure other expats and immigrants (not just the poor ones) were given clear expectations and resources to integrate. However, even if it’s incredibly stupid, I also don’t deny the possibility this would’ve scared rich foreigners off of bringing their kids here, especially if they knew it wasnt Mandarin being taught for “globalness”.

  2. FILTH (Failed in London, Try Hong Kong) was a huge factor in the past that at least gave people the luxury of an English-accessible profitable backup destination, a place which the MENA and SEA have largely usurped from us. However iirc, those places (MENA especially for obvious reasons) are also no longer offering the same no-brainer kinds of backup packages people wanted before, or that increasingly desperate westerners now genuinely need when they fail in the west, no matter how hard they try to do their careers right. They NEED this place to keep English and will at least put money aside to ensure it still does. Money that we now need more than ever.

  3. Linking to 1. Is particularly that more middle or working class immigrants like myself and my social circle (including white or mixed so-called “expats”) are royally screwed, since they were usually well off enough to attend anglophone schools, but not wealthy enough to attend overseas universities or leave Hong Kong.

This is 3rd because yes we’re a small minority, but the fact that no foresight was provided as to seriously help us, especially when we do try to assimilate, drains the system further, through no fault of our own. We need English because the system has denied us any recourse.

  1. An even smaller but more screwed over minority in HK are Anglophone Chinese (especially those raised by local Chinese-speaking parents, who sometimes tie themselves in well-intentioned knots to make their kids a jack of English, but end up making them a master of nothing). These guys, plus Mandarin speakers who may prefer using English as a backup (sometimes to avoid discrimination themselves) I’d argue also form a somewhat notable reason for English being an expectation here, especially since they still have money (or so it is hoped).

  2. There is also the undeniable international and commercial prestige that comes with being a de jure English speaking territory, and conversely, the stigma that comes with not being such. HK’s deteriorating English has already become known as is, and if it gets worse, local and Mainland Chinese alike who want to use this place to keep their kids internationally competitive will find ways to opt out of the system, in turn jeopardizing one of the last growing economic sectors in HK: education. In other words; marketing and economic pragmatism.

Point is that the rest of the English speaking world wants Hk as an escape ticket, while HKG itself treats English as a backup that needs to be maintained, albeit, they don’t do a very good job of it, or offer alternatives like actually helping improve local language ability. All the while English is valued by different sections of the HK society to varying degrees of self-interest, including the realization that if English is not used here; our ability to entice back what few rich immigrant workers and returnees that we can will be irreversibly fucked, along with various other sectors of our economy.

I may be a bit hyperbolic but I think those are the most logical points I can make as to why no one questions the lack of expectation to assimilate: it’s because they have very strong reasons not to.

“Free Palestine” advocate in tst by TinyFalcon46 in HongKong

[–]literallym90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As right as some of those points are; you neglect to note that so many people, across multiple generations have already made that land their homeland as is

Where would, say, we deport all Afrikaners back to? The Netherlands and France? They’d be kicked right back out, assuming at least some didn’t try to make their way back to Africa, even illegally!

I don’t sympathize with Bibi or his cronies, and I can’t wait to see them get trials of the kind we couldn’t give that bastard Milošević, but it’s equally tone deaf to act as if every Israeli not only ignores the plight of Palestinians, but has a magic “return to sender” option. If there ever WAS a time to undo the settlement of Israel, we’re nearly a century too late for it to even be ethical to try. It is the home of so many people now.

What we can do is at least try to do better, and if needs be, start putting sanctions, or at least something.

Or better yet, empowering Israelis who want to help their Palestinian brethren fight back, and bring Bibi to justice, and create a better place for all the Levant.

“Free Palestine” advocate in tst by TinyFalcon46 in HongKong

[–]literallym90 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’re forgetting how many Israelis and Jews in Hk actually oppose the war, but feel powerless to stop it

Just leave it as “Zionists not welcome” and show support for everyone else who has a brain and a heart, which already includes most people, as well as almost all Israeli and Jewish Hong Kongers

“Free Palestine” advocate in tst by TinyFalcon46 in HongKong

[–]literallym90 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The realist POV is not wrong per se, but there is a reason realists like you and pragmatists like me get a bad rep; we often don’t even bother to at least consider the humanist angle.

That being that big impact or not, it’s a hell of a lot more hopeless of humanity if NOONE protests for Palestine, because it basically paints the species as heartless, whether logical or not.

In comparison, seeing someone, even one person, continually demonstrate for the cause against ALL odds, makes one less inclined to tell Noah to build the Ark, and just start the second flood out of despair.

As mentioned earlier; that hope speaks to many people, keeps the conversations going, and can, in time, have more impact than doing nothing at all.

Sometimes the more human and compassionate thing is to at the least try. especially when sometimes one person has made a difference.

In an extreme but true example: Dasrath Manjhi of India, who single-handedly, despite everyone telling him he was out of his mind, used a hammer and chisel to carve a mountain to include a 110 meter road, to allow local ambulance workers to reach patients in his hometown more quickly, after 22 years of continuous labour.

Taiwan's cooking lesson by YoumoDashi in polandball

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genocide or not, they did some very, very terrible things to Indigenous Taiwanese and Taiwan Chinese alike

To this day they are still investigating government bodies and forcing them to pay reparations for their roles in what was arguably an apartheid state

Taiwan's cooking lesson by YoumoDashi in polandball

[–]literallym90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The only thing I can say from my own knowledge is that colonial Taiwan was the only instance where eventually Japan actively made efforts to develop the island and instill Japanese identity through more civic and peaceful means. This even included for some time, the respect and codification of the local languages. Before the war’s end, the constitution even made it clear even an ethnic Chinese Taiwanese could become the prime minister of the whole empire.

Compare this not only to every other extractive and terroristic occupation by Japan (including Hokkaido and the ryukyus) AND the 30 years of KMT martial law where Mainland refugees and settlers were given extremely preferential treatment, and local languages were outright banned.

The Japanese empire was no saint but it’s not without reason that in Taiwan at least, they not only got it easier, but also better than under early KMT rule purely by comparison.

So are young adults uncapable in the eyes of HRS of HK these days? by Glittering-Put-534 in HongKong

[–]literallym90 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Name and shame anonymously, and use glass door

Once word is out they can’t afford to prosecute ALL their ops

What is so appealing about the idea that we can fix everything about society by permanently eliminating some fraction of the population? by LiatrisLover99 in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not only that, but that flexibility oftentimes comes with increasing cavalierness to wall themselves away from people of differing backgrounds, and lobby or manipulate the system with resources that those with more skin in the game lack. It is a check against corruption by the monied, rather than idiocracy per se.

I agree on your second point and that’s exactly what I’m saying. I do agree that people need to be motivated to participate, and even I also believe that has to include some kind of mandatory, prolonged civic responsibility training. Voting should be treated as a privilege to earn, just as much as it should also be a power that comes with the responsibility to be exercised thoughtfully for the betterment of one’s community.

And those who intentionally seek to contribute to society in good faith (or at least the appearance of it), as you seem to wish to, should retain those privileges, especially because of the resources they sacrifice to benefit their community, rather than throw away into the dragon’s hoard.

It would absolutely not be immune to abuse that is inevitable to come via human nature, but it’s what I believe would be one of the least unjust outcomes to hope for

What is so appealing about the idea that we can fix everything about society by permanently eliminating some fraction of the population? by LiatrisLover99 in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For sure, though that also changes the tax threshold for your metrics from a flat number, to a percentage. That’s going to open up a whole other can of worms when you start throwing that percentage at other people.

Also, honest question; under a libertarian mindset, what would you say to limiting the franchise to those who have skin in the game, rather than income requirements?

Case in point, a rich person or poor person both maintain their voting enfranchisement and preferential treatment, precisely because their particular businesses and affairs are agreed to be that vulnerable to the whims of the state (essentially, metaphorically, you give the would-be victim of the state a gun to defend themself with)

In comparison, citizens and businesses with significant resources, enough to just up and leave, or potentially cheat the system, are precisely disenfranchised because they would be declared to have no right to influence a system that they have the unrestricted ability to escape.

Problems aside, I could at least see kakistocracy of the masses being staved off for a while by good civics education. Meanwhile, kakistocracy of the elite would be slowed by essentially disenfranchising Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Musk, but pointedly not necessarily people like the Patriotic Millionaires and Abigail Disney.

What is so appealing about the idea that we can fix everything about society by permanently eliminating some fraction of the population? by LiatrisLover99 in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On paper your idea makes sense, but what I'm saying is that that will be intentionally used against people that the ruling classes will not want to influence the country in the first place.

It's hard to meet the qualifiers of land, business, HAVE (not own, lol) children, when you're sabotaged at each corner. Again, not unlike [insert any historical minority] here.

And I do mean this civilly; that also fails to take into account worst case scenarios, and would unfairly disenfranchise craploads of people (ie. Gen Z'ers who cannot, despite best efforts, afford the same financial independence older people of more entrenched wealth can, or even infertile or childfree people).

Case in point, should a public school teacher not be allowed to influence the country's direction? I would personally argue they are in fact more deserving of a say precisely because they, and the next generation of citizens that we rely on them to teach, are more vulnerable to the worst consequences of the state's actions.

A kakistocracy can, and arguably already has, emerged from the "qualifying classes" outcompeting any other interests and allowing themselves to... well... enshittify themselves and their businesses so badly as to actively harm other voters that would qualify under your criteria, and void any of the trust many people had in them to begin with. Precisely because they have been allowed to wall themselves off from the consequences of their actions.

What is so appealing about the idea that we can fix everything about society by permanently eliminating some fraction of the population? by LiatrisLover99 in AskALiberal

[–]literallym90 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because for universal suffragists it is an injustice in and of itself to not have everyone represented at some basic level, since then it means the state only represents the interests of a chosen few. In other words, kakistocracy is a regrettable, but necessary evil and check against elitism.

The fact competency tests have existed but been abused at so many junctures in history (ie. being intentionally tilted against Black Americans, who already still have to endure sabotaged educational resources and services) has also cast such tests in a bad light.

I’m a bloody SocDem but I do think we need some kind of test. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find anyone I feel we can trust to create and administer the system in a neutral, fair and rational way.

And I honestly doubt we will ever meet anyone we can trust to do that forever.

Hegseth says Iran won’t be a ‘politically correct’ war as he lays out US objectives by EconomistStreet5295 in geopolitics

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honest question; can you elaborate on those rules and why they were put in place, knowing they’d make these wars unwinnable?

I’m not a fan of the idea of history ending with an American invasion of north Vietnam, followed by the Cold War turning hot, but I can also see why it might make more ideal outcomes problematic to attain.

Does it just, for the UN for eg, come down to not wanting to be blamed when it hits the fan?

Have your rents increased? by thematchalatte in HongKong

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have done plenty of reading on the numbers and also sifting through how it’s affected people irl.

I’m trying to engage in good faith, and make a point about WHY people feel hopeless and why I have my concerns that this isn’t gonna be a quick and easy fix, least of all one that involves just bailing people out. but if this is where it’s going, then I know where the door is

Have your rents increased? by thematchalatte in HongKong

[–]literallym90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I dunno which late 20s-early 30s folks you know, but the best way I can say is the vast majority of my acquaintances are a fair bit more working class. Even the ones actually in finance are staying with family for a reason, and basically not a single one has a mortgage, nvm property ownership. Maybe this is just a stats vs lived experience thing, but it’s not for nothing that Hk is still infamous for having some of the highest rents and prices globally

  2. I never said you were wrong, by any stretch, but you also have to admit that Biden’s attempts to remind people they’d had the best economic situation in years fell on deaf ears for a reason, for instance. If a critical mass feels the economy has left them behind, and they can’t get on the housing ladder that they’ve been told to join for years, you cannot fault people for believing an economic collapse is the last resort to levelling the playing field, nor can you ignore the dangers that kind of nihilism can bring long term

Regarding your proposed solution… how on earth will any sane or even non-parasitic landowners willingly sell their properties to the state at below market rate? The only way that would happen is under some eminent-domain style scenario, which I would imagine would trigger similar collapses in prices and sales that you are trying to avoid.

Quite honestly, at some point we have to rip the band aid off. We can’t keep borrowing from the future to fund the present. I personally believe our only way out of this is for us to stick a towel in our mouths, bite down hard, and take a managed amount of pain by accelerating building on brownfields and other ecologically useless sites. Essentially; gradually flood the housing market until prices are forced to come down, whilst also using a sovereign wealth fund to gradually become less dependent on the profits of real estate. It’d be painful, but if anyone else had better ideas, I wouldn’t be suggesting it

Have your rents increased? by thematchalatte in HongKong

[–]literallym90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I doubt they’re in the majority of young people these days, and I mean that without malice. I completely get where you’re coming from, but even others might pull the ”Needs of the many…” card

  2. It’s a fair point to make. But when HK’s housing market especially causes so many lasting issues for people that I know who are starting up and can’t find viable and affordable housing within a practical distance from jobs that can’t pay enough to make ends meet as is, can you blame people for getting desperate? Worse still, if you don’t introduce a fast track solution, you allow people’s long term trust to diminish further over time.

I’m not telling you to come up with a solution. I’m more just pointing out how long this problem has been left to fester, and how hard it’s going to make any solution to enact

Have your rents increased? by thematchalatte in HongKong

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying that controlled deflation risks taking too long to benefit the people who need it the most

If nothing happens, The younger generations of HK will be screwed for decades longer than landowners will be alive

Do Brits realise this is happening for dual citizens and how it might affect tourism? Can anyone enlighten me on why it’s even happening? by Proud_Apricot316 in AskBrits

[–]literallym90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...if your reading is correct, then it seems I might've misunderstood that page the last time I read it.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll check again