You say that “If America can copy those methods and create even more prosperity, fantastic” but when the author states “We may find important truths needed to bring about American revitalization.” you say this is as meaningful as saying “WE MUST RESTORE THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE!”
Seems to me that you and the author share a common belief, that successful Chinese policies or frameworks should bring about reflection and positive changes for American government (or any government, it just so happens that this post was framed by an American).
Also...whenever you say “me” to make your points, you lose me as someone who isn’t you.
“Seems to me that you and the author share a common belief, that successful Chinese policies or frameworks should bring about reflection and positive changes for American government (or any government, it just so happens that this post was framed by an American). ”
Yeah that was literally the point of my last paragraph. Was trying to demonstrate that I don’t disagree with the obvious (and basic) sentiment underpinning the original post, I only disagree with the way it was presented—cagey, but ultimately nationalistic rhetoric about ‘feelings’ in place of meaningful information about the specific differences in China and America’s policies.
Harry Fankfurt’s On Bullshit 101… seriously...
Clearly this site’s just full of Americans who don’t read very closely and thought I was being racist *shrug* No skin off my teeth.
Sorry your thing got downvoted hard without much explanation. Mostly agree the article has a bunch of weird nationalistic assumptions and doesn’t provide much evidence for its claims. I think your comments here are ending up fairly fraught and hyperbolic and false. For example, while the LessWrong team is based in the US, we’re mostly not American, coming from Germany, England and Australia. At no point did I think you were being racist, nor consider the hypothesis anyone else did. Also, complaining about downvotes is not a good look.
I’m sorry we argue with downvotes here rather than words? Very rational.
You say that “If America can copy those methods and create even more prosperity, fantastic” but when the author states “We may find important truths needed to bring about American revitalization.” you say this is as meaningful as saying “WE MUST RESTORE THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE!”
Seems to me that you and the author share a common belief, that successful Chinese policies or frameworks should bring about reflection and positive changes for American government (or any government, it just so happens that this post was framed by an American).
Also...whenever you say “me” to make your points, you lose me as someone who isn’t you.
“Seems to me that you and the author share a common belief, that successful Chinese policies or frameworks should bring about reflection and positive changes for American government (or any government, it just so happens that this post was framed by an American). ”
Yeah that was literally the point of my last paragraph. Was trying to demonstrate that I don’t disagree with the obvious (and basic) sentiment underpinning the original post, I only disagree with the way it was presented—cagey, but ultimately nationalistic rhetoric about ‘feelings’ in place of meaningful information about the specific differences in China and America’s policies.
Harry Fankfurt’s On Bullshit 101… seriously...
Clearly this site’s just full of Americans who don’t read very closely and thought I was being racist *shrug* No skin off my teeth.
Sorry your thing got downvoted hard without much explanation. Mostly agree the article has a bunch of weird nationalistic assumptions and doesn’t provide much evidence for its claims. I think your comments here are ending up fairly fraught and hyperbolic and false. For example, while the LessWrong team is based in the US, we’re mostly not American, coming from Germany, England and Australia. At no point did I think you were being racist, nor consider the hypothesis anyone else did. Also, complaining about downvotes is not a good look.