The News Thread

[Dak]

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/diversity-and-its-discontents/

To the social scientist Richard Florida the “sobering” evidence argues that humans “sort ourselves into communities of similar, like-minded others,” in a way that “appears to be built into the very structure of our social lives.” Political scientist Robert Putnam was similarly chagrined to find that ethnic diversity and social trust are negatively correlated. Diversity causes us to “hunker down [and] act like turtles,” he said. “And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

I would be proud of this entire article if I were the author.

 

[Nate Skalman]

The thesis of that article reminds me of the self-chosen lunch table segregation in high school...we even had catchy racist terms for every table and everyone went along with it-? There was 'margaritaville', 'the black panthers', 'rising sun', the burnouts, we called the hippie table 'Woodstock' etc...nobody was offended because we were still all friends and the gravity of racism hadn't set in yet. In my experience adults (sounds funny) manifested the racist ideas that started TRULY dividing us kids apart the closer we got to adults. That's what it seemed like from a kids point of view to me...? I think maybe there's something to be learned from that.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Us kids could naturally "segregate" socially without being racist...The only 'racists' in high school/middle school were either influenced by older kids, adults, or worse yet- parents. It's the same now- I go to the skatepark with my 17 yo son and see TONS of black, Hispanic, and Asian kids on skateboards who aren't buying into these adults painted picture of having to put racism at the forefront of your thoughts. Kids are smarter than adults at times.

 

[Einherjar86]

if that's the perspective, you will never know if his way was the only way and I think that's not a good argument.

if Trump maintained the status quo, at what point would China be forced to contain NK? Would NK become more powerful while we waited for China to turn on its neighbor? Would SK elect a new leader who would be 'tougher' on NK? Japan after building it's army?

The goading is apparently working, not goading hasn't worked. It could all change tomorrow, but today Trump's method is the superior one objectively

Is China turning on its neighbor? I'm not sure that they are, or at least I haven't read anything that would suggest they're putting themselves in a position that we can identify as opposed to North Korea. If anything, they want to appear confrontational without actually doing much. Do they even care all that much about North Korean nuclear armament?

Beyond that, I'm curious as to how we're qualifying Trump's goading as "working." If it's making China appear confrontational, then that's not actually working. And if we're measuring "working" by the fact that North Korea hasn't yet detonated a warhead over the western hemisphere, then I'd say that the status quo worked just fine as well. After all, his taunts aren't forcing the North Koreans to stop their nuclear testing; if anything, they're exacerbating the situation. Maybe exacerbating forces something to happen, but why is that automatically better than postponing disaster?

 

[rms]

Cig just linked an article like a page back about China restricting income or something to NK

 

[Nate Skalman]

NK only has a about a 10% actual chance of going nuclear

 

[Nate Skalman]

Cool fact: the kryton sequencers that initiate nuclear reaction that NK is TRYING to develop look like guitar amp tubes

 

[Nate Skalman]

NK claims to have mini nukes, but only one company in the world knows how to develop and manufacture kryton switches, under insane scrutiny and governmental control. There is no known "miniaturized" nuclear sequencers according to the scientists who've developed these crazy secret little tubes- so we pretty much know NK is full of shit...they're trying hard though

 

[Einherjar86]

Cig just linked an article like a page back about China restricting income or something to NK

It doesn't appear they're doing all that much, according to that article. North Korea is a major trading partner, and I don't think China is going to forfeit economic prosperity for the welfare of the West. If anything, continued turbulence between China and North Korea will kindle Chinese animosity toward the U.S.

China, one of five permanent Security Council members with veto power, supports the latest sanctions but doesn't want to push North Korea too hard for fear that Kim's government might collapse.

Chinese leaders argue against doing anything that might hurt ordinary North Koreans. They agreed to the latest sanctions after the United States toned down a proposal for a total ban on oil exports to the North.

Chinese officials complain that their country bears the cost of enforcing sanctions, which they say have hurt businesses in its northeast that trade with the North.

The latest round of UN sanctions bars member countries from operating joint ventures with North Korea — most of which are in China.

They also ban sales of natural gas to North Korea and purchases of the North's textile exports, another key revenue source. They order other nations to limit fuel supplies to the North.

China, which provides the bulk of North Korea's energy supplies, announced Saturday it would cut off gas and limit shipments of refined petroleum products, effective January 1. It made no mention of crude oil, which makes up the bulk of Chinese energy supplies to North Korea and is not covered by the UN sanctions.

This describes China upholding UN sanctions--much to their chagrin, it would seem.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Even though China makes up over 75% of NK's trading, if you look at their economic statistics you'll see that they're imports are at higher numbers than they're exports, also their agricultural industry is still recovering from being sanctioned throughout the 90's and being cut off from equipment and fertilizers, pesticides etc causing a famine in the late 90's. Additional sanctions are devastating to NK, even small ones, epecially after Obama cut off all US trade with them in 2012...the citizens eat mostly from government food banks and get cereal by the gram based on a ration formula- any hit in their economy and their citizens cereal rations go down...

 

[rms]

North Korea is a major trading partner, and I don't think China is going to forfeit economic prosperity for the welfare of the West.

But trade with west > trade with NK ? and China realizes that too..

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[Einherjar86]

But trade with west > trade with NK ? and China realizes that too..

That's definitely true, but it doesn't seem to have stopped them from placing North Korea's economic welfare above the West's fear over nuclear armament.

 

[rms]

I think China's red ness explains that though, and their increased investment in the U.S.

 

[CiG]

Every person I know who voted for Donald Trump as well as many people I have spoken to who I don't know but did vote for him, did so because in part he was supposed to be the non-interventionist, non-military conflict candidate.

I haven't seen much drop in support among these people, really solidifies the idea that partisans really are hacks.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

As someone that didn't vote for Trump, North Korea is probably the single best target for a "liberation" of any nation in the last 30 years. They actually have WMDs, they're an actual threat some of our best allies (unlike say Iran which is no military threat to our shitty ally of Israel), and their people are legitimately oppressed, suffering, and would be unlikely to create a significant insurgency being that their way of life is built around the godhood of their glorious leader. The most important thing is that we have South Korea's and China's approval, though, since realistically NK're still no threat to us and it's not our call to make. If there was a plan that involved a quick strike taking out NK's leadership and artillery that all relevant players could agree on, I think Trump would be right to take it.

Barring that, we should allow SK and Japan to acquire nuclear weapons. Simply failing to take direct military action doesn't represent a commitment to isolationism, it's just kicking the can down the road.

 

[CiG]

You just want to trigger a North Korean refugee crisis so you can open your doors to a poor, fatherless family from Kangwon.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, but South Korea might be happy doing so. Eastern Germany is still poorer than western Germany but I'm pretty sure both sides are overall happy that reunification happened.

Though that being said, high-IQ Nork babies being adopted here would probably help our nation as well.

 

[CiG]

I actually agree with you, but I'm not an isolationist or an anti-interventionist or anything like that.

It's better to judge it on a case-by-case basis, I'm just thinking back to all the rhetoric I heard when Donald Trump was running from those who supported him. Talk of Donald Trump draining the swamp of neocon and neoliberal establishment types who meddle in foreign lands and waste taxes on military actions.

They all just seem so typically silent on the issue.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think China's red ness explains that though, and their increased investment in the U.S.

I'm not sure I follow--are you saying that China is looking out for North Korea because of their respective communist values?

I only ask because I'm skeptical of China's "redness." It isn't really a communist country anymore. It's more like a weird hybrid mix of communist policies dictated by a capitalist imperative.