If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
Now compare the number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards independence to that.
The number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards independence is higher than the number who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards unification, but lower than those who want to maintain it indefinitely or to a later date, without moving in either direction. All of these perspectives are in line with my position of supporting the status quo, and only fringe numbers, adding up to 5%, support anything else.
They’re both.
They're not "both" those are distinct categories which mean distinct things in this context. You can't simultaneously support mutually exclusive positions.
Is this whole thing because you insist on redefining terms and using confusing, nonstandard definitions?
Curious on what your answers will be.
I don't see anything to explain. The overwhelmingly popular answers are all about maintaining the status quo, not disrupting it for the sake of pride. Therefore, we should conclude that the status quo is what the Taiwanese people want.
Even the number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards unification is still higher than the number of people who want independence. Because of how popular my position, that of maintaining the status quo is.
Bringing this to Taiwan specifically - I don’t think someone who wants independence (officially) in an ideal world is “lying” or “under duress” as such - that makes no sense
WHAT??? Then on what basis are you dismissing their perspectives?
Is that not the whole reason why you're advocating this insane nonsense about security concerns somehow invalidating people's geopolitical perspectives? That if you're only supporting something because you're worried about security threats if the thing is not done, that it's coerced and doesn't represent your "real" preference?
As I said, you’re not going to convince me otherwise of my position that most Taiwanese people would like Taiwan to become an independent country officially, but just not enough that they’d risk being bombed over it. It’s not that deep.
I'm not trying to convince you out of that position. I'm trying to convince you out of the position that "wanting Taiwan to be an independent country, purely as an abstract ideal that you recognize as impractical and are not willing to actually support" somehow makes a person "pro-independence" as opposed to "pro-status quo."
I didn’t. I just asked. I’d like an answer.
Why? Again, establish relevance.
I haven’t studied the emergence of every single country.
You don't have to to know that every country exists in a world with security concerns.
I don’t think so. Texas would be quite easily able to be independent. I would argue strongly that if it seemed like most Texans actually did want independence and we had active pro-Texan independence movements and campaigns but the federal government was repressing them and threatening them for exploring this route that - it would still be true that most Texans want independence regardless of how the USA’s activity in relation to that suppresses enthusiasm for it
OK, but what if the vast majority of Texans polled said that they wanted to remain a part of the US, but there was an implicit threat that if they declared independence, the US might decide to attack? Should we assume that all the Texans are lying and only saying that under duress and that they clearly want to leave?
Do you actually think you’re going to convince me to change my position? I won’t stop replying.
I am just trying to get you to ground yourself in reality because you are so far out there it's utterly delusional. Maybe I should stop but your brainworms are just so weird and bizarre that I can't help myself.
As I asked: Why do very few people in Taiwan seem to go for supporting “status quo, but move towards unification” when it doesn’t confer the same risks as “status quo, but move towards independence” in antagonising China if enough people polled that way.
Why do you keep thinking that I'm arguing for unification or arguing that people support unification? You keep asking this irrelevant shit.
Possibly.
WHAT? When? How? In what universe could that possibly happen? How, what, how do you think the world works???
For one, Taiwan isn’t even in a union with China - so this logic doesn’t even make sense. It’s more a gentleman’s agreement to note say certain words and is backed up by most nations playing along. It’s all a farce, where as US constituent states do actually come under federal law.
It's not supposed to be a direct comparison. It's supposed to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of treating the existence of security concerns as somehow invalidating people's perspectives on geopolitics.
I really don’t get your point here at all.
I don't see what's confusing about it. You're saying that the Taiwanese people's perspective on independence is influenced by security concerns and therefore invalid, and we should look at what they would be if there were no such concerns. I'm saying that, idk, Texans perspective on independence is also potentially influenced by security concerns, so if we applied the same logic, then we could not possibly say that we know for sure they "genuinely" want to be part of the US. It could be that they're worried that seeking independence would cause them to be invaded.
The same logic could just as easily be applied to any polity in the world, since security concerns are a universal thing. So this whole framework of analysis is completely incomprehensible, as soon as you apply it consistently.
You are not changing my position on this. I believe that if the Taiwanese had the opportunity to vote for independence without the looming threat of being invaded by their neighbour, they would do so, and do so pretty quickly.
I haven't disputed that. And if you apply some other random conditions, like an alien invasion you could get them to support unification. But the thing that they actually support, as things actually are, is the status quo. And that matters more than some abstract principle and more than what they might support in this or that hypothetical.
As I’ve said multiple times now, status quo is in itself a soft-form of independence and that I regard continued supermajority support for it in itself to be pro-independence in itself
That's not what "pro-independence" means in this context at all. "Pro-de-facto-independence" is know as "maintaining the status quo." "Pro-independence" means breaking with the status quo and not just accepting de facto independence. Don't go around redefining the terms.
No? What a strange comparison.
I don't see anything strange about it. Has there ever been any state that formed without security concerns influencing their decisions?
There are many points of observation we can use to determine whether or not the states within the USA continue to consent to being in the union even if their original fusion was indeed unification on grounds of intimidation from others.
But there are still rival states that could pose a threat if the US balkanized. How can we know if people are only consenting to being in the union because of those security concerns? Oh no!
It's so ridiculous. How, I mean, this just doesn't make any sense. Is collective defense not the primary purpose of states? How can you possibly evaluate anything if you have to completely sanitize the world of security concerns first??
I swear, this Idealist nonsense breaks my brain completely. Makes absolutely zero sense on any level.
As I said in a follow-up, “status quo” is de-facto independence which a supermajority support via polling. Not many people support the “status quo but move towards unification” option, yet they could. Why is this?
Why do you keep acting like I'm arguing in favor of unification? When have I ever said anything to make you think that? I support, just like nearly everyone in Taiwan does, the status quo. Which you can't seem to concieve of as an option, because you think the realm of the abstract is somehow "more real" then reality.
I’m saying that if you omit that for the purposes of comparison
Why? Why would you omit them? There's no basis for it! Why are the only two positions you'll consider "independence" and "unification" when those collectively represent only 5%, and are both clearly bad options a fact you obviously agree with as evidenced by the fact that you don't actually support breaking the status quo in practice. The only way I can understand this is if you think the abstract world is somehow "more real" than material reality.
A regions economy not being strong enough, or viewed as strong enough to support itself is fundamentally an internal issue within the regions own borders.
Only if the region we're talking about is North Korea. Every country is connected to and influenced by the global economy, in no way can a region's economy be considered a purely internal issue. No man is an island.
because of threats from a nearby global power just seem to me to be such self-evidently different phenonemons when observing a regions attitude to self-determination.
After the American Revolution, there was a question of whether the states would unify into a single, cohesive entity, or be loosely aligned, or completely independent. The threat posed by European powers was a major reason why the states joined together in a union.
Do we need to go back in time and nuke Europe so that the states can truly and freely decide whether they want to be together or not? It's nonsense. Security concerns always exist and always factor in to such decisions, and have since the very formation of states. Again, you are trying to let people decide these things in a vacuum, but there are no vacuums anywhere and never have been.
I don’t at all see how you’ve concluded that at all from anything I’ve said.
Dammit! I get it from everything you say! Like:
What they (a majority) want, I suspect, is independence officially already - but will continue on settling for ‘status quo’ and relay this on polls on grounds of not wanting to antagonise China and inciting them to bomb them (The Taiwanese rather like not being bombed or blockaded more than directly pursuing independence in this way).
How can you claim that they "want independence officially already" and then immediately say that they would rather maintain the status quo than pursue independence?? You're contradicting yourself. The only possible way to make sense of that is if you consider what they want in the abstract to be somehow "more real" than what they actually do want in reality.
Or:
You aren’t even disputing my analysis here that the wider population can be reasonably observed to be far more pro-independence than pro-unification, you’re just saying that I can’t point out that they only don’t push for it further because of Chinese intimidation and threats because it makes their ideal outcome rooted in hypothetical circumstances.
Why do you keep trying to reduce it to this false dichotomy? These are not the only options, the status quo is what the majority of Taiwanese people support. Why do you not consider the status quo to be a "real" answer? The only explanation I can see, is that you think the abstract world is somehow "more real" than material reality.
I think there’s a fundamental difference between not supporting your regions independence because you think it economically non-viable and not supporting your regions independence because another nation threatens to invade you if that happens.
I don't see the difference. In both cases, your position is that independence is not likely to result in desirable outcomes.
You think an alien invasion is on the same level of likelihood of a Chinese change of policy here?
Never said anything that would remotely imply that, no.
‘Status quo’ itself is a halfway house that no-one in Taiwan or China is especially happy with, but works well enough for both sides to last at least as of now - a long time (which is why I am not calling for any independence moves for Taiwan).
Exactly! You get a 1000 political philosophers around a table, and not one of them would invent such a scenario or describe it as ideal or logical. But that doesn't matter. It is a "vulgar" compromise that doesn't allow for abstract principles to be satisfied. But it is an effective compromise that has worked and has maintained the peace.
In what universe are we supposed to judge political solutions to conflicts based on how much they satisfy abstract principles, how "neat" they are in the abstract, instead of the actual results they produce in reality??? And in what way is someone "pro-independence" if they support that position purely as an abstract ideal, if what they actually support in practice, and when asked, is the status quo? To be in favor of the status quo is to support in in practice, as pretty much no one supports it in the abstract.
The thing I find completely baffling is that you seem to think that the abstract world is in some way more real or more relevant than material reality. That the only way we could know what the Taiwanese people "actually" support is by placing them in a vacuum. This is nonsense. What they "actually" support is what they do support, in the actual, real world as it currently exists. But, despite insisting that "the world as it is now is what I care about," you try to say that what actual matters, what actually reveals their true preferences, is this hypothetical reality where you arbitrarily remove China as a factor, and the opinions of your mental model of Taiwanese people in that hypothetical somehow "overrules" what they say they want in material reality.
The reality of what people in Taiwan now think, not alternative history scenarios regarding a different USA reaction to Taiwan at specific points of divergence.
Just alternate present scenarios, gotcha.
I think a majority of the would-be pro-independence bloc across Taiwan likely do wish to move towards independence, but feel it unrealistic and dangerous to do so because of the potential reaction from China, and so answer “status quo” or “status quo, decide later” on polls out of that specific resignation.
Right, and I think a majority of the would-be pro-unification bloc across Taiwan feel currently feel that unification is not necessary because there isn't a looming alien invasion.
You're acting as though "pro-independence" or "pro-unification" are just these abstract things that can be understood in a vacuum, utterly unconnected to geopolitical realities, except, for some reason, when the geopolitical realities pertaining to China are involved. But these positions will always be dependent on what they actually mean for the people Taiwan, in existing reality. US investment breaks this vacuum, this "Platonic form" of pro-independence just as security concerns from the PRC do.
You cannot, fundamentally, talk about what they would support "in a vacuum" or "if security concerns did not exist" because they will never be in a vacuum and security concerns will always exist. This gets back to something I asked previously:
I don’t believe you can just look at those specific polls and say “Gee, I think the Taiwanese must be completely divided or overtly support the status quo purely because they prefer it to either unification or independence”. The “status quo” is a result of geopolitical realities that, for obvious reasons, is better than the geopolitical alternatives.
Fucking hell! Why else would you support any course of geopolitical action than it being better than the geopolitical alternatives based on geopolitical realities!?
Enough - you are a completely ridiculous, obstinate, unreasonable chauvinist.
I just could not believe you'd have the audacity to say "the reality now is what I care about" after I spent 40 comments trying to convince you that the reality now is what matters. You are just impossible.
Why are we supposed to consider hypotheticals where China's actions are different, but not hypotheticals where the US's actions were different? It makes no sense!
They don’t support pushing for it now
Cool! So they don't support it now. So is the "the reality now" what matters to you or not?
I don’t know that the argument that effectively represents China as an aggressor here as the reason many Taiwanese don’t officially support moving to independence is particularly impressive one, personally.
I don't give a shit about whatever you just said.
I know I, and anyone with an ounce of sanity, including the vast majority of the Taiwanese people (whose opinions you completely disregard), think it would be completely insane to start WWIII just based on some point of pride, instead of enjoying the continued peace that the status quo has provided for decades.
What if the geopolitical realities were completely different, and there was no risk of WWIII? What if the geopolitical realities were different, and the US hadn't intervened in the situation in the ways they did historically?
In response to the latter you claim that "the reality now is what I care about," but then you go on and on and on about how important it is to imagine what people would want in the former hypothetical, instead of looking at what they actually do want in the reality now.
They accept status quo given the existing pressures, but if that changed
So then, they don't support changing it now, but would if the geopolitical realities were completely different.
Jesus christ in heaven! Do words mean anything to you?
But the reality now is what matters to me.
This motherfucker just spent 40 comments telling me that the reality now is irrelevant because hypothetically, if the geopolitical realities were completely different, the Taiwanese people would support independence.
It doesn’t?
Cool, I'll stop wasting my time then.
That’s not me saying the poll should be ignored.
Just that the majority of the responses should be ignored, so that you can cherry pick the results you want.
What are some other options?
Maintaining the status quo indefinitely. Maintaining the status quo and deciding at a later date. You know, the two options that about 60% of Taiwanese people want?
Right, I’m not saying they support it now but primarily because of the risk of inciting China into attacking them. If that was not a threat, they would likely support moving towards independence officially.
So you don’t even disagree with me here then. You think the hypothetical is outlandish (to the point where you compare China accepting their self-determination to a literal alien invasion) but don’t dispute my conclusions.
I'm saying I don't care what your mental model of Taiwanese people would say if the world were different than how it is, more than I care what the actual Taiwanese people do say in the world that actually exists.
How does your mental model of Taiwanese people in this hypothetical matter in any way?
Where? Quote me?
I have quoted this for you multiple times already:
"What we can see is that, eliminating the safe, friction-free option of status quo"
Right, it’s a hypothetical where Taiwan could freely choose between recognised statehood and unifying with China.
No it isn't. There isn't a hypothetical, there is the real world, and in the real world there are lots of options besides those two.
What evidence have I ignored?
"What we can see is that, eliminating the safe, friction-free option of status quo"
I don’t believe you can just look at those specific polls and say “Gee, I think the Taiwanese must be completely divided or overtly support the status quo purely because they prefer it to either unification or independence”. The “status quo” is a result of geopolitical realities that, for obvious reasons, is better than the geopolitical alternatives.
Fucking hell! Why else would you support any course of geopolitical action than it being better than the geopolitical alternatives based on geopolitical realities!?
suggests to me that if it was regarded as a safe option, many more would opt for official independence.
So what? And as I said before, if space aliens attacked, maybe they'd want unification for protection.
You can't just change the geopolitical realities, insert whatever you think their responses would be, and treat that as somehow being more true or more valid than their actual responses based on the actual geopolitical realities. This is complete nonsense.
Where did I ignore anything? Am I specifically saying the polls should be ignored?
Yes! You literally said that the majority of responses should be excluded!
All I’m doing is saying that in a binary choice
This might be hard to understand if you're used to following American politics, but we don't actually have to write off all the good, sane, popular options and chose between two bad options that nobody wants.
As I said before, this is the very definition of a false dichotomy.
Me giving you my opinion
If you call your decision to arbitrarily ignore evidence an "opinion" or "interpretation" one more time, I'm blocking you.
is somehow putting words in other people’s mouths?
Yes, because your "opinion" is literally just excluding any responses you don't agree with so that the ones you do agree with appear more popular than they are. As I have explained over and over to you.
I don't have to. I can just ignore whatever you say and put whatever I feel like into your mouth because that's how it works, apparently.
Maybe there's somebody holding you hostage and forcing you to post your comments when you actually want to confess to a bunch of puppy murders. I guess I'm just allowed to assume that, and no matter what evidence you can provide, I'll just assume that the guy holding you hostage is forcing you to fabricate it.
Or, we can live in a world where evidence actually exists, even when it tells us things contrary to our preconceived opinions, and you can stop arbitrarily silencing the perspectives of majority of Taiwanese people and putting your own ideas into their mouths.
It turns out that this model of voter behavior where everyone always falls in line behind the "lesser evil" and therefore the best strategy is to take the left for granted while bending over backwards for the centrists, is complete bullshit.