for me it felt like gaiman/ishiguro/murakami for kids
the main impressions i have left of it are of trippy kaleidoscopic space fabric and someone in a jar; i distinctly recall being very frustrated that the author did not bother to explain in great detail exactly how the space witch went from being a star to being a space witch
child me yearned for the spreadsheets
in parlance, he’s called an uncle chan.
it’s an interesting exercise to map racism and self hatred against class interests, particularly in the context of america and china’s antagonistic relationship. mao’s perenially applicable class analysis has changed somewhat over the years, but the gist remains the same: the big bourgeois landlords/compradors have morphed into corrupt officials and bureaucratic monopolists, the middle bourgeois are now real estate/insurance/finance goons or factory owners and right wing petty bourgeois have added techbros to their ranks.
in my experience, the big bourgeois are largely past this level of ingroup status signalling, they’re too busy hustling their stolen capital out of china and race for them only matters insofar as who lets them stash their cash where. meanwhile, the middle bourgeois and the upper rungs of the petty bourgeois are likely most prone to this sort of behavior. they don’t have enough cash or clout to feel like they’re above the party, but they have a big enough amount of ill gotten goods/chips on their shoulder to make them feel like they might be arbitrarily targeted (or maybe they feel like they deserve more but for the intervention of the party), and so they channel that resentment into hating other chinese people.
less rich people also ape western affectations for a wider variety of reasons, but i will say that western media penetration into china is very deep and pervasive and that the 90s/chimerica years resulted in at least a generation of thought leaders and public intellectuals that are extremely ideologically compromised and it is unclear how fast their influence might be dissipated, if ever.
i am once again relieved that 
libs are too lazy and ignorant to investigate anything beyond the ccp bad that msm tells them, and that chinese libs hate themselves too much to think themselves worthy of educating their lib betters about cpc atrocity conspiracy theories.
though tbf at least shit like tiananmen is falsifiable, i think i’d have an aneurysm if white people on the internet started telling me that mao never left his palanquin and ate the PLA’s entire stock of chicken over the course of the long march. like big spoon stalin but in earnest 
obligatory mentions for tengger cavalry, nine treasures and SULD
i’m a freshwater guy myself but i also do paludariums and vivariums. always wanted to try a topoff only saltwater system based around mangrove filtration with macro and seagrass but am too nervous to make the plunge lol
what is hegemony? what is the balance of power? what is security? why did we need security from iraq? from libya? who or what was this security for? what was wrought by these conflicts that changed the lives of the average american for the better or more secure?
the MIC supported continuation of vietnam, who else supported it? who stood against? why? how was it ultimately settled? what were the consequences? why were these consequences? where are these people and parties today?
labor aristocracy work for people but the people they work for are sufficiently subsidized by global imperialism that they can compensate the labor aristocracy in a manner that would be equivalent to the bourgeoisie anywhere outside of the imperial core. the labor aristocracy understand this at a base level and thus tend to align their interests with the interests of imperialists and global capital accordingly. hence the fascist base comment.
from zak cope’s divided world, divided class.
on class:
…class denotes a dynamic social relationship corresponding to the system of ownership, the organization of labour and the distribution of material wealth as mediated by ideological, cultural and political institutions and practices. Above all, class is the product of political practices, with the relationship between the state and class struggle revolving around the issue of class domination.
cope explains:
The bourgeoisie is that group in society which directly (through full or part ownership of the means of production) or indirectly (through being paid super-wages ) depends upon the exploitation of workers for the maintenance of its income. The working class is that group in society which sells its labour-power in order to make a living. The proletariat is that section of the working class creating values under industrial (urban or rural) conditions which owns none of the means of production and is forced to subsist entirely upon wages equivalent to the value of labour-power.
The labour aristocracy is that section of the working class which benefits materially from imperialism and the attendant superexploitation of oppressed-nation workers. The super-wages received by the labour aristocracy allow for its accrual of savings and investment in property and business and thereby “middle-class” status, even if its earnings are, in fact, spent on luxury personal consumption.
The labour aristocracy cannot, however, be wholly equated with the middle class or petty bourgeoisie. Although the labour aristocracy forms part of the middle class, the middle class also encompasses self-employed property-owners, shopkeepers, small businessmen and professionals whose income largely does not derive from wage labour and whose characteristic ideology is bourgeois.
and lastly:
Ultimately, however, the embourgeoisement of the proletariat, that is, the creation of a middle-class working class, is a political question centred on increasing superexploitation. That is the explanation for the appearance and continued existence of a wealthy working class in the world s core nations. Imperialist national oppression is both the most crucial “historical and moral element” of global wage differentials and the sine qua non for working-class conservatism.
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it’s the heat death of the universe
feels like thedeprogram sub hoovered up all the gzd people who missed the lifeboat
should have just called him names to begin with, this was one of the most pathetic interactions i’ve had online in recent memory
although i guess it’s possible he’s like 11 and can’t really come up with anything else
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
time ran the exact same article, what is your point?
jfc, points for trying to turn this into a semantics game but sorry, fuck you
lets look at bbc, first result we get when we search "台独民意调查“ on google.hk because apparently google.tw is too spicy for google’s techbro commissariat. whatever, close enough:
2020年的数据首先反映在统独立场。台湾人偏向“台湾独立”的支持度为27.7%，是历年最高；“尽快独立”的民意有7.4%。此外，希望“两岸统一”则占5.1%，是历年最低。选择“维持现状再决定”的民众比例为28.7%，而且在持续下降中。“永远维持现状”者占23.6%
even tries to reframe it by breaking up de facto status quo supporters into two camps but plurality still supports status quo
how about cn language natopedia
2020, NCCU (same as the bbc study):
2021, united news:
2022, ‘taiwanese public opinion foundation’ (read: cia cutout):
look at how they progressively split the status quo category (the size of which does not demonstrably change) into smaller and smaller demos to try and push an agenda
let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and more closely examine what is obviously the most compromised source here. this is the cia cutout’s (shitty and completely unprofessional) paper from this year. they’d probably lose funding if they put something as damning as actual independence vs status quo numbers out there so they decided to go with plausibly deniable second order opinion sets and STILL get blown the fuck out
just take the L dude, taiwanese are completely cognizant of the fact they’re being primed to be the next ukraine and most of them understandably want no part of that
and a plurality of people believe that maintaining the status quo == independence
where is the gotcha?
i can’t believe i enabled images for this
they’re not even figures, they’re just snippets of text from natopedia that somehow unequivocally support my claim
what am i supposed to do with this? gloat?
group of people overwhelmingly wish to separate
this is just not true. the overwhelming majority want a return to the status quo, a status quo that was very consistently gravitating towards china before the US decided to stir shit using its DPP puppets. the taiwanese people are perfectly capable of understanding which side their bread is buttered on and that their families cannot subsist on a diet of freedom and democracy.
this is my pet concern as well and it’s always struck me as being bit darwinist. i cope by telling myself that instead of environmental evolutionary pressures, it’ll be social and cultural pressures instead. so long as those pressures are grounded in material reality and are able effectively act on the population at large, we won’t evolutionarily overfit and get stuck in some local minimum. all the more reason to prefer socialism over liberalism.