![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/bae905b8-0357-4d8f-aeee-8c3227e76c8c.png)
This isn’t even my final form
Is this one of those military cosplay groups like the oath keepers?
Believe it or not, I can be concerned about both.
The difference is, the place where I live has some data privacy regulations which actually get enforced, and I have some legal recourse against organizations which mishandle my data. China does not have such regulations and I do not have any recourse against organizations based there, so my risk from them is significantly higher.
birdcage
chain gang
shot box
rollin’ rusty
grateful tread
chained to the wheel
“grill marks, bud”
cage against the machine?
Greenwashing.
DPP politicians should fear for their lives.
Ah, another appeal to violence as the source of morality.
It’s very funny for you to accuse anyone else of being authoritarian.
No, that is not the point that was made in this comment:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
This comment makes very plain that the writer believes that a nation only achieves independence through military force.
We’re not talking about what is ‘widely acknowledged’, we are talking about what you have expressed as your personal belief. And you do have a morality problem:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
You believe that in order to be independent from mainland China, Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.
You made this statement. It is not about international law, or opinio juris, or any other deflection you want to attempt. It is about what you believe justifies a nation’s independence, and it is solely based on the exercise of military power.
No, you said:
I would simply win the civil war instead of losing
Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don’t get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.
I see, so “might makes right” for you then?
I appreciate you making your sense of morality - or lack thereof - so very clear.
Yes, an authoritarian government with a lot of economic and military power just made it a crime to even speak about their own country’s independence, so they have legitimate reason to be afraid.
Or just reinstalls it in the next update.
I’m having trouble understanding your point. What is the “quiet part”? That representatives from a foreign government visited Taipei?
Vetting the employees isn’t really important when an observer can just watch a higher-than-usual volume of delivery trucks showing up.
Well the point is more to poison the source of information with bad indicators for anyone watching.
Trying to remove the indicator is one strategy, and it might work partially, but it can also just move the problem somewhere else. To use your example, serving the food in house shifts the problem from takeout delivery to food delivery to the in-house kitchen.
Of course the best strategy would probably be to do both - increase the availability (and quality) of in-house food to encourage its regular use, and also order takeout in large-ish volumes sometimes when nothing is going on.
I’m sure that you’re right, but I would love to have a list of references for this. Where do you find credible information on the labor sources of these companies?