Agreed. 2000 was fantastic, but that was 9 years before 7. Its been 17 years since 7.

I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I’m sympathetic to it because it’s a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say

“Your next move: Build AI foundations. Our work with organisations confirms mounting evidence that isolated, tactical AI projects often don’t deliver measurable value. Tangible returns come from enterprise-scale deployment consistent with company business strategy.”

I read this as marketing. What’s the evidence you’ve been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn’t help like you say it will?

This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No… No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.

I’m finding it difficult to continue because you’ve abandoned political analysis for moral truisms. We began by discussing the objective sources of legitimacy and statehood, but you’ve retreated into a ‘Gish Gallop’ of emotional appeals.

Whether or not you like a regime’s methods doesn’t change the reality of its statehood or its control over a territory. Since you’re no longer engaging with the central argument of how states actually function in reality, there’s nowhere left for this conversation to go.

What we as we want and what is real are two different things. We do business and perform politics with many authoritarians and will continue with no end in sight. Some of us live in reality.

Winning the civil war and controlling the land does.

Winning an election in Taiwan doesn’t give them a claim to mainland China. This isn’t relevant.

1. Taiwan’s constition states that they are a part of mainland China. Their position is that the ROC and not the PRC are the rightful government.
2. 142 or so countries agree that the PRC is the rightful government of Taiwan. 12 recognize the ROC. And, importantly, 50 or so, including the US, acknowledges the claim that the PRC is making without agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Yes, the PRC claims that there is one country and Taiwan is a part of it. They also know that a seperatist group maintains control of Taiwan. If the confederacy lost all but Kentucky in the civil war, the US would still need to regsin control by military means. I’m not sure it would be called an invasion though.

I’m sorry if it came off that way. Wasn’t my intent. Sorry your wife isn’t receiving that sincerity.

I didn’t assumed that.

From the IHRA working definition, “[C]iticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Have you tried telling her with sincerity and openness and not anger or self righteousness that this is important to you?

You don’t think that people in the KMT would? I think there are still some who hold that view and would never say it because it’s brings waaaay too much heat and no political points. Rather, the KMT has shifted to cultural identity position.

“We are the original China; we don’t need to declare independence because we are already the masters of our own (ROC) house.” - Chairwoman Cheng

Calling it annexation is the pan-green position of the DPP. The other major ROC position of the KMT (pan-blue) would never use annexation because it would infer that the PRC is legitimate.

The PRC, of course, would also not use annexation. They would claim reunification of the country from a seperatist groups like the DPP.

I feel odd having to say this, but because I understand the other side doesn’t mean I agree with them. Its important for me to understand the major positions in this conflict.

They lost a civil war and retreated from the land. How is that a better claim?

And does not challenge that position either.

Both the articles were written in January 2024, ten months before the election. They weren’t analyzing the 2024 elections. There is no possibiliy of mentioning elderly white folks ev

They never mention whiteness anywhere in either article and the FT article is explicitly a global take mentioning Germany, UK, South Korea, Tunisia, and China.

There is nothing in the FT article implicitly or explicitly blaming “young white boys”. It is saying that when there is an ideological gap between young men and women, it has sociological implications.

I agree that the larger media narrative blames young white men’s regressive turn for the Trump presidential win and not elderly white folks or white Gen X women, but this is not that article.

What they are explicitly saying, and not implying at all is, “Korea’s is an extreme situation, but it serves as a warning to other countries of what can happen when young men and women part ways. Its society is riven in two.”

They are not implying the specifics of how the election unfolded in South Korea bears clear resemblance to the US like you stated.

This is a silly discussion because you did read the FT article, speculated wildly, and now are defending your bad take with a vague and baffling two sentence defense. Construct an actual argument.

This quote comes from the graph’s source article from the FT. They are talking about South Korea and not the US.

From the article:

The #MeToo movement was the key trigger, giving rise to fiercely feminist values among young women who felt empowered to speak out against long-running injustices. That spark found especially dry tinder in South Korea, where gender inequality remains stark, and outright misogyny is common.

In the country’s 2022 presidential election, while older men and women voted in lockstep, young men swung heavily behind the right-wing People Power party, and young women backed the liberal Democratic party in almost equal and opposite numbers.

Korea’s is an extreme situation, but it serves as a warning to other countries of what can happen when young men and women part ways. Its society is riven in two. Its marriage rate has plummeted, and birth rate has fallen precipitously, dropping to 0.78 births per woman in 2022, the lowest of any country in the world.

Seven years on from the initial #MeToo explosion, the gender divergence in attitudes has become self-sustaining. Survey data show that in many countries the ideological differences now extend beyond this issue. The clear progressive-vs-conservative divide on sexual harassment appears to have caused — or at least is part of — a broader realignment of young men and women into conservative and liberal camps respectively on other issues.