@gonglei89 that statement is broad enough to be true of almost any international policy the american goverment took between 1945 and now. no one is disputing the united states is a capitalist society. something can be an effective rhetorical and strategic tool and still be untrue

@vt__snowflake Well…yeah? The US was a global power even before WW1 so it had broad globe spanning interests, and decolonization was a broad globe spanning challenge, so of course they would see global postcolonial movements to repossess US controlled assets abroad in broad global terms?

@gonglei89 tangent

@vt__snowflake No, the fundamental point.

@gonglei89 no, the fundamental point was “were korea and vietnam exercises in paranoia and ideology.” i said yes, you said i was wrong, and then you reasoned yourself around to agreeing with me, but also i was still wrong. fine, ok

@vt__snowflake They were not because Korea and Vietnam were not about Korea and Vietnam in isolation, and the basis for not treating these conflicts in isolation is tied to how broadly American imperial interests spanned around the globe. Not sure where you got “reasoned…around to agreeing”.

@gonglei89 ah, so what you’re saying is the americans making decisions at the time had strong opinions, a system of ideas and ideals perhaps, that they believed maximized american interests abroad, and that they intervened in vietnam and korea on that basis

@vt__snowflake Well founded opinions built on well established practically calculable material interests, aka not paranoia and ideology?

@gonglei89 i wonder if there’s a word that you could define as “a system of ideas and ideals”

@gonglei89 and i think it’s perfectly fair to describe “making decisions based on fears of a theory of which there is not a single piece of evidence” as paranoia

@vt__snowflake There you go again, dancing around the point with word salad. https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 is an opinion well-founded if there’s no evidence for it?

@gonglei89 also side note but it’s very funny that we seem to have found ourselves in a situation where you are rabidly defending cold-war era american strategic planning while i poo-poo it

@vt__snowflake Buddy, ask yourself that question. You’re the one with a clear deficit in basic world history. American strategic planning made sense for American interests. I poo poo the interests, not their rational comprehension for how to pursue them? https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 can you answer my question?

@vt__snowflake I did? Learn to read? https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 no you didnt

@vt__snowflake Yes, I did. I gave you evidence, evidence that you can fact check in any history book on the Cold War. Not my problem if you’re historically illiterate 🤷🏻‍♂️ https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 i am not asking you about the cold war. i am asking you if an opinion is well-founded if there is no evidence for it

@gonglei89 it’s a very straightforward question

@vt__snowflake It’s a disingenuous question. You’re trying to deflect with a non sequitur drawn from a false premise. It’s pretty chickenshit. https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 it’s not about you and this is a very good example of what i was saying earlier about you taking things too personally. if you scroll up in our conversation it should be rather obvious i’m referring to historical figures lol

@gonglei89 in fact this is also a very good example of what i was saying about intellectual humility, because you’re so invested in being right you won’t give even an inch of ground to find out the point i’m trying to make instead of just assuming you already know it

@vt__snowflake Buddy, you are now bullshitting incoherently lol. Seriously do you even remember what you write? https://x.com/vt__snowflake/st...

@gonglei89 yes, i do. will you answer the question?

@gonglei89 if you’ll answer the question i can just make my point, you can call me stupid and illiterate and whatever, and we can both move on

@vt__snowflake I already answered your question. You are suggesting that there is no evidence for “calculable material interests”. I gave you the evidence for “calculable material interests”. If you had a point you’d have already made it 🤷🏻‍♂️ https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 no, that is not what i am saying or suggesting, that is not even close to my point i want to make

@vt__snowflake Then make your point instead of playing conceited rhetorical games?

@gonglei89 no, answer the question. if you won’t humor me for something this small why would i bother?

@gonglei89 it’s not a rhetorical game, i’m establishing a logical premise for the very basic statement i want to make

@vt__snowflake If it’s not a rhetorical game then you should just make your point rather than dance around like you’re trying to play a rhetorical game. I am not here to humor you. I’m not the one asking for your time. https://x.com/gonglei89/status...

@gonglei89 well you’ve been responding to me for the better part of an hour, one might argue that demonstrates some small level of interest or investment in a conversation

@vt__snowflake Don’t mistake courtesy for interest 🤷🏻‍♂️

@gonglei89 the opposite of love isn’t hate it’s indifference