okc

So what?

The point in having currency is a speculation of value between entities?

My experience (UK) is that landlords screw people over where they can - they want to make money but actually have a social responsibility for housing conditions. Most people I know live in horrible conditions for a little less rent or increasingly so more precarious and even less stable house shares. Maybe that's an English problem though.

The interesting question being posed in these threads is a lifestyle choice: ownership or flexibility, lay your roots down or remain agile.

If you have enough money to pick and choose that's great. Otherwise home ownership may be the only route out of a precarious and unstable existence.

I'm disregarding your views not censoring them.

Well put. I would further remark that this general debate is more a perspective of reformation versus revolution - which doesn't need to be tied to a capitalist/communist contrast.

but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.

>if advertisers establish metrics that are more closely aligned with their objectives then we'd all be better off

Disagree. Thats a personal value judgment and an ethical perspective viewing efficient corporations as utilitarian bodies fulfilling the greater good.

The criteria for censorship at the 20 points level - could be debated as - quite healthy criteria.

Criteria such as the government controlling online harassment is classed, rightly, as censorship. Political anarchy would be the reflection of 0 point score.

Is 0, 10, 20, even 30 or 40 points the optimum score: thats debatable. At the 80+ level, its really not debatable.

Excellent. I'd love to see a not that handles recruitment too.

>> But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise

>That's a great example of international propaganda failing to work in China's favor

I'm still waiting for your definition of propaganda.

You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not.

Is that what you mean?

Now you are just making stuff up. I give up.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.

Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".

All I can see is some-one wriggling out of an argument where they begun by calling me out for making propoganda posts.

You can twist that statement and apply your own criteria to it, but it just isn't true: pointing out propaganda has nothing to do with being part of it. Infact its the very process that stops it. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.

I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.

I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.

You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.

Over and over again in these threads you have defended Taiwan as a sovereign state. You keep thinking I am attacking Taiwan's status as an independent country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am however pointing out how Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country.

Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN. Don't confuse it with my own opinion. These are the facts. It would be deluded to deny these facts. You could at very least provide evidence that says otherwise - you haven't.

Instead you have been deluded to the point of accusing me of touting propaganda for mentioning these things.

I grew up in a similar way. My departure point was somewhere between okc and kid a. I can't stand most their music now. A still like the first 5 EPs but even Pablo honey is a hard listen at times. Funny, really.

Come on. You said I was touting government propaganda.

If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.

I wish international relations were built on trust. But that's a bollocks and idealised view.

My example of the UN membership is quite fitting. Small countries with no interest in Taiwan have been directly bribed by china to vote against letting Taiwan join. Call that trust?

Point out why and how this isn't true. Make a succinct argument, support your assertions.

Explain.

Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.

If its because I am drawing attention to Taiwan not being fully recognised, as per our earlier thread. Then that is an assumption based in the fact of it being a non-un member. But I'm drawing attention to the type of corruption that let's countries (such as China and the UK) bully Taiwan.

Sound like a propaganda line?

Explain which country and how?

Please.

Can't believe you are lecturing on succinct arguments and at the same time calling my post propaganda without any reason.

Read your own post and apply it to yourself.