Should Sino Defence Forum build a sub-forum for social science and the humanities?

[J.Whitman]

I admit that I´m new to this forum although I read it for over a year now. Some of the threads undeniably lead to a political discussion as defence policy has a political dimension. Defense policy includes a range of fields in political science, anthropology, history, sociology, psychology, political economics, natural science, etc. I believe that there should be an opportunity to ventilate discourses within these academic fields within the limit of good taste, in selected parts of the forum - instead having these debates in threads where other topics are discussed.

I understand that there is a sensitivity among the staff regarding humanities and social sciences. It is understandable given the circumstances. Most people are incapable of discussing the humanities and social science at an academic level within the framework of the higher ideals of the disciplines. However, if members seek the civilized higher debate it should be possible. Such a sub-forum would also reduce tensions that is ever present at this forum that cause unnecessary conflict. These tension stem from guidelines and rules that ban any form of political discussion which also means that defence policy beyond weapon systems cannot be discussed. Wars and conflict are fought on tactical, operational, strategic and political level - not only tactical and operational level. Thus, the last need to be addressed within the borders of the civilized and nobiliary conversation.

There are of course other reasons why the Sino Defence Forum should open more sub-forums. We must be able to analyze international relations, power relations and the domestic dynamics of countries. This is a necessity to further deepen and expand the conversation - to eventually to reach the higher Aristotelian pillars of conversation.

/J. Whitman

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I admit that I´m new to this forum although I read it for over a year now. Some of the threads undeniably lead to a political discussion as defence policy has a political dimension. Defense policy includes a range of fields in political science, anthropology, history, sociology, psychology, political economics, natural science, etc. I believe that there should be an opportunity to ventilate discourses within these academic fields within the limit of good taste, in selected parts of the forum - instead having these debates in threads where other topics are discussed.

I understand that there is a sensitivity among the staff regarding humanities and social sciences. It is understandable given the circumstances. Most people are incapable of discussing the humanities and social science at an academic level within the framework of the higher ideals of the disciplines. However, if members seek the civilized higher debate it should be possible. Such a sub-forum would also reduce tensions that is ever present at this forum that cause unnecessary conflict. These tension stem from guidelines and rules that ban any form of political discussion which also means that defence policy beyond weapon systems cannot be discussed. Wars and conflict are fought on tactical, operational, strategic and political level - not only tactical and operational level. Thus, the last need to be addressed within the borders of the civilized and nobiliary conversation.


There are of course other reasons why the Sino Defence Forum should open more sub-forums. We must be able to analyze international relations, power relations and the domestic dynamics of countries. This is a necessity to further deepen and expand the conversation - to eventually to reach the higher Aristotelian pillars of conversation.

/J. Whitman

Your level of discourse is cherry picking numbers and calling other countries shitholes. When confronted with refutations with citations, or questioned in methodology you double down on the exact same arguments.

Imagine the audacity. If a Chinese or Russian said something at even 0.1% of your level on a similar US forum, they'd be banned instantly as a "Putin troll", "CCP bot" or "tankie".

The very fact that NAFO trolls are apparently allowed to operate here and spread poisonous propaganda is evidence of the unprecedented level of freedom of speech that is allowed here. Yet you are not merely satisfied with this incredible level of freedom. You want to be catered to???

 

[J.Whitman]

Your level of discourse is cherry picking numbers and calling other countries shitholes. When confronted with refutations with citations, or questioned in methodology you double down on the exact same arguments.

Imagine the audacity. If a Chinese or Russian said something at even 0.1% of your level on a similar US forum, they'd be banned instantly as a "Putin troll", "CCP bot" or "tankie".

The very fact that NAFO trolls are apparently allowed to operate here and spread poisonous propaganda is evidence of the unprecedented level of freedom of speech that is allowed here. Yet you are not merely satisfied with this incredible level of freedom. You want to be catered to???

It´s sad that you want to derail my thread with only good intentions and force me to go off-topic.

Off Topic
I did not cherry pick numbers. I pointed out that despite China´s GDP (nominal) growth it´s GDP (nominal) per capita had not grown much in relation to other developing countries in 2023. After being viciously attacked by a member. I was forced to express myself as U.S. former president as this particular user systematically and on purpose misunderstood me. I also stated this in the sentence. Of course I could have expressed myself differently but I suspect the reaction from a small segment of Sino-nationalist sympathizers would be the same. One of the reasons why I expressed myself a bit "rough" was to be explicit so my point was not misunderstood - people leave China because it´s poor and suffer under social, political, cultural and economic ills. China has a negative net migration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and most of this immigration it goes to Western countries. Further more, I yielded many times and agreed if your arguments. I have been very respectful towards you and all members on this forum. This not a CCP forum. This is a military forum ought allow people to hold diffrent views including those who share the views of the U.S. intelligence community;

U.S. intelligence leaders told lawmakers Wednesday that the Chinese Communist Party remained the "most consequential threat" to U.S. national security...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...to be heard.

So you understand this. I actually do not share the views of the U.S. intelligence community. If China was a real threat to the United States - it would not have allow tens of thousands of Chinese to migrate into the United States. There are now 5.2 million Chinese in the USA. If the liberal elites and neo-cons saw Chinese as a threat there would be a "Chinese exclusion act" . The same goes for the so called "Islamist terrorist threat" . If it was a real threat there would not be Muslim mass-immigration from West Asia into Western countries. Chinese are hold in particular high regard in the U.S. and Canada and are even allowed to be cabinet-members. Thus, the "China Threat Theory" is mostly "theory". It is however concerning that China is large that it may in the future may pose a threat to Western intrests.

I do not hold any animosity against Chinese, China or any of the nine legal parties in China. I believe sanctions and the overall U.S. policy against China is wrong and harmful for both sides. However, I do believe that Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao should permanently be given a special statue as dependent but still politically and economically independent territories similar to British Overseas territories. It would benefit both China and these territories. Thus, I´m neither a liberal or neo-conservative. In fact. I believe U.S. hegemony is overall harmful and I believe in an independent Europe from the United States.

On Topic
I think all parties would benefit from more forums were more issues can be discussed instead of being confined to certain threads. The both Economic threats has turned into debate forums. What I understand this is not the intention. This is why there should be room for a dedicated forum for political discussions or for academic debates slightly beyond the scope of defence policy at a tactical and operational level. The defence discussion is so much broader than technology. I´m sure you would agree with this. It would also benefit the accessibility and reduce the often arbitrary decisions that the Moderators make not to mention reduce their workload. It would be a happier and more dynamic forum. Everyone would benefit.

 

[Aniah]

Reported, I suggest others to do the same.

 

[J.Whitman]

Reported, I suggest others to do the same.

If you please, do not derail this thread. Act proactive. Any suggesstions or comments on my initial post?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It´s sad that you want to derail my thread with only good intentions and force me to go off-topic.

Off Topic
I did not cherry pick numbers. I pointed out that despite China´s GDP (nominal) growth it´s GDP (nominal) per capita had not grown much in relation to other developing countries in 2023. After being viciously attacked by a member. I was forced to express myself as U.S. former president as this particular user systematically and on purpose misunderstood me. I also stated this in the sentence. Of course I could have expressed myself differently but I suspect the reaction from a small segment of Sino-nationalist sympathizers would be the same. One of the reasons why I expressed myself a bit "rough" was to be explicit so my point was not misunderstood - people leave China because it´s poor and suffer under social, political, cultural and economic ills. China has a negative net migration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and most of this immigration it goes to Western countries. Further more, I yielded many times and agreed if your arguments. I have been very respectful towards you and all members on this forum. This not a CCP forum. This is a military forum ought allow people to hold diffrent views including those who share the views of the U.S. intelligence community;



...to be heard.

So you understand this. I actually do not share the views of the U.S. intelligence community. If China was a real threat to the United States - it would not have allow tens of thousands of Chinese to migrate into the United States. There are now 5.2 million Chinese in the USA. If the liberal elites and neo-cons saw Chinese as a threat there would be a "Chinese exclusion act" . The same goes for the so called "Islamist terrorist threat" . If it was a real threat there would not be Muslim mass-immigration from West Asia into Western countries. Chinese are hold in particular high regard in the U.S. and Canada and are even allowed to be cabinet-members. Thus, the "China Threat Theory" is mostly "theory". It is however concerning that China is large that it may in the future may pose a threat to Western intrests.

I do not hold any animosity against Chinese, China or any of the nine legal parties in China. I believe sanctions and the overall U.S. policy against China is wrong and harmful for both sides. However, I do believe that Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao should permanently be given a special statue as dependent but still politically and economically independent territories similar to British Overseas territories. It would benefit both China and these territories. Thus, I´m neither a liberal or neo-conservative. In fact. I believe U.S. hegemony is overall harmful and I believe in an independent Europe from the United States.

On Topic
I think all parties would benefit from more forums were more issues can be discussed instead of being confined to certain threads. The both Economic threats has turned into debate forums. What I understand this is not the intention. This is why there should be room for a dedicated forum for political discussions or for academic debates slightly beyond the scope of defence policy at a tactical and operational level. The defence discussion is so much broader than technology. I´m sure you would agree with this. It would also benefit the accessibility and reduce the often arbitrary decisions that the Moderators make not to mention reduce their workload. It would be a happier and more dynamic forum. Everyone would benefit.

Lmao holy shit. This is further proof that you are not engaging in good faith and cherry picking data.

If net migration rate was indicative of anything, then Iraq, Gabon and Jordan are better than Canada. Chad is better than Ireland. Even China is better than Ireland! Nigeria is better than Spain!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By your logic, if allowing migrants into your country and putting them in positions of power means you don't view them as a threat, Russia doesn't view Ukraine as a threat either! There's Ukrainian generals fighting for Russia, guess that means that Russia is just playing in Ukraine! If Russia was actually at war with Ukraine why would they allow Ukrainian generals to command Russian forces!!!

Holy shit!

Mods, this is the best proof that OP is not serious about good faith discussion. Cherry picking, name calling, bad faith, all on display, right here.

 

[J.Whitman]

Lmao holy shit. This is further proof that you are not engaging in good faith and cherry picking data.

If net migration rate was indicative of anything, then Iraq, Gabon and Jordan are better than Canada. Chad is better than Ireland. Even China is better than Ireland! Nigeria is better than Spain!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By your logic, if allowing migrants into your country and putting them in positions of power means you don't view them as a threat, Russia doesn't view Ukraine as a threat either! There's Ukrainian generals fighting for Russia, guess that means that Russia is just playing in Ukraine! If Russia was actually at war with Ukraine why would they allow Ukrainian generals to command Russian forces!!!

Holy shit!

Mods, this is the best proof that OP is not serious about good faith discussion. Cherry picking, name calling, bad faith, all on display, right here.

Off Topic: It was not in bad faith. There is net migration out of China. According to 60 Minutes the Chinese migration to the U.S. has increased. Many come to the U.S. through the Southern border an apply for asylum.

You do not have to answer this here. Can we please stick with the topic. If you please, Act proactive. Any suggesstions or comments on my initial post about creating more sub-forums?

 

[canniBUS]

Off Topic: It was not in bad faith. There is net migration out of China. According to 60 Minutes the Chinese migration to the U.S. has increased. Many come to the U.S. through the Southern border an apply for asylum.

You do not have to answer this here. Can we please stick with the topic here. If you please, Act proactive. Any suggesstions or comments on my initial post about creating more sub-forums?

You're very good at pretending to be a victim and your posting style is self-centered. Narcissist much?

 

[J.Whitman]

You're very good at pretending to be a victim and your posting style is self-centered. Narcissist much?

That was unnecessary. If you please, act proactive and discuss topic. Any suggesstions or comments on my initial post about creating more sub-forums?

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

The reality is that this forum is military oriented that is mostly about China. The Miscellaneous News Thread along with the Economic and even the high tech threads were more or less additions. The latter threads such as the Semiconductor and Software threads were later accepted since they are much more technical than an economics thread is. Derailments there can easily be differentiated from arguments in good faith. Economic, the demographic, and previous non-technology/military doctrine related threads are a different story and frequently get derailed and turned into subtle ultranationalist (yes, I’m referring to BOTH sides) s**ttalking. So the answer is no. Given how this thread turned into a series of acrimonious attacks, I’ll shut down this thread. If you want to discuss it further, directly message one of the super mods (their banner color is blue).