She is the status-quo. In international matters, we do not fear her, because we already know how the USA under the Clinton empire family works.
Trump is, potentially, a lot *worse*
And the obvious rebuttal is a) she is a really lousy status quo, and b) Trump has been kicking around for a while too. He's just as much a known quantity since he's been kicking around a while and has made a lot of noise for a long time.
much of the world is ready to declare it is the start of the apocalypse if he wins (which will pave the way for right-wing extremists everywhere).
Ever think about the dynamics of why that happens rather than just worry about it? If there weren't so many "right-wing extremists" and they weren't heavily marginalized by society, then all the "paving" in the world wouldn't create a problem.
Or maybe it's only a problem because you're not the one exploiting the discontented?
might work for fooling lazy magnetometer reader or one without "big data" processing capability
It'd fool me. But then I'm neither a major world power or trying.
The Roman senate eventually gave up their autonomy willingly because they were tired of the civil wars.
I think it more accurate to say that the members of the Senate who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic in expressing their tiredness (or whatever propaganda excuses they really used at the time), ended up on the wrong side of Augustus Caesar.
And somehow I doubt the Chinese Communist Party will go gently into that good night for the sake of a calm succession (especially given their brutality while putting down the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989). The viewpoint you describe is only relevant while the Party is not threatened.
It also doesn't mean that you have to bring it up in every conversation.
I disagree. The viewpoint you discussed doesn't actually exist except as a propaganda fabrication by an oppressive government to remain in power.
Then you write the following:
So that is the problem the Chinese government needs to solve. Keep order and harmony, because for the vast majority of people, it's better than chaos. (Look at what happened in Egypt recently when they had their new government.....lots of violence, then nothing really changed. Replacing Mubarak was probably a mistake, but some people paid for it with their lives).
With a different form of government, unscrupulous men can start a campaign of lies, and build a following, and if he's convincing enough, even make it into power as president. But all this will happen without real violence (that is, violence does not lead to power and political enemies don't need to 'disappear'), and the system is designed with power balances to prevent things from getting too messed up, even with a lousy president.
The very narrative you repeated (of being concerned about order versus chaos) is an example of a "campaign of lies". Funny, how this viewpoint is so concerned about rival parties causing trouble by spreading lies (or perhaps rather inconvenient truths). That's such a refined and elegant hypocrisy.
and unseen by the west, via the new DEEP canal.
It's not deep enough for that. Sorry, one doesn't sneak a sub through a canal with satellite and human int coverage.
let's leave aside which is 'right' and 'wrong' for now, and concede them the right of self-determination
No, let's not. Let's note instead that exercising the right of self-determination would require the sort of communication and social unrest that is supposedly bad under their "chosen" form of government.
This is not accidental. An effective parasite is hard to eliminate from a host. And at the human level, we see plenty of examples of this, here, a variety of authoritarian governments that insert themselves into every aspect of life, creating both a dependent class of citizen who supports the government merely because that's where their benefits come from and a large cost to remove the government.
So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.
And I'd say the current story is supporting evidence for the claim that FB just might not understand social networks as much as it should.
Didn't say it wouldn't happen anyway. The point is having "at will" increases distrust and reduces loyalty between employers and employees, and that is not friendly to employment.
It doesn't. The employer now has greater distrust of the employees, especially after it picks up a bunch of bad seeds that can't be fired.
Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.