Credible Defense Megathread 7/14/23 + Feedback Thread
Credible Defense Megathread 7/14/23 + Feedback Thread
Well, its been two weeks, which I think is a decent amount of time for a quick check-in for feedback. Is this space helping people? Is there anything I could do to make it more useful or engaging? I was considering migrating this thread to a second subreddit with lower posting standards, a la r/lesscredibledefense. That way, maybe people who feel intimidated/uncomfortable with the submission standards can still share content. Would love to hear your thoughts.
I’m trying this out on a purely experimental basis. Please strive to keep your discussions focused, courteous, and credible. Links to combat footage without significant further analysis will be removed. That sort of footage should be posted to !combatfootage@lemmy.world.
Also, please report things which break the rules! It’s unlikely I’ll see everything that happens in a thread, so reporting is the best way to remove content that doesn’t fit our standards.
The megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments. Comment guidelines: Please do:
- Be curious not judgmental,
- Be polite and civil,
- Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
- Use capitalization,
- Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
- Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
- Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
- Post only credible information
- Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles, Please do not:
- Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,
- Use foul imagery,
- Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,
- Start fights with other commenters,
- Make it personal,
- Try to out someone,
- Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'
- Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility. Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.
You're viewing a single thread.
Countries are make-believe. They exist because a critical mass of people all agree that “country” is a meaningful category, and that certain groups fit into that category. The exact particulars of both of these vary across time and space, but the modern Western definition includes ideas like “the monopoly on violence”, “Westphalian sovereignty”, and so on. The point is, peoples’s image/perception of a country and the country itself are to some degree one and the same. Things which shake a country’s citizens’ perception of their own nation really do shake the nation itself. Therefore, when the identity of a country is threatened, said country will react in the same way as if it were faced with any other existential threat. Similarly, when a concept or idea is incorporated into the identity of a country, it becomes worth protecting to the same or greater extent as the physical markers of a country’s existence.
China has incorporated the idea of territorial integrity, including Taiwan, into its very bedrock as a nation. There are many reasons why it did so, but they are beyond the scope of this comment. Therefore, China must pursue the reintegration of Taiwan, the same way it pursues “internal security” or “common values” or any other thing that you may consider part of being a “country”. To give up on this pursuit would be a body blow to its people’s consensus that the current “China” is a meaningful entity worth preserving. In short, China must pursue Taiwan because pursuing Taiwan is what the People’s Republic of China does. If ever it was to cease to do so, there would be a real risk of the People’s Republic of China ceasing to be the People’s Republic of China.
I feel that that is a circular argument of epic proportions.
Thanks for stopping by! A circular argument is when an argument’s conclusion is part of its priors. The arguments conclusion is “China wants Taiwan because territorial integrity is part of its social contract with its citizens”. The arguments immediate priors are “states are social constructs whose characteristics and aims are determined by a consensus of their citizens”, “maintaining territorial integrity is a core part of the CCPs claim to be the legitimate government of China”, and “the Chinese people view Taiwan as a part of China’s territory”. As far as I can tell, there is no circularity there, though, I do admit, I could have been more clear with my wording. I wanted to emphasize that this is a core goal of the Chinese government, and failing to achieve it has existential risks for them.
Thanks for your quality comment