Somewhat reddit-brained lib friend of mine sent this article which triggered a whole discussion of geopolitics: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-euv-machines-are-equipped-with-a-remote-self-destruct-in-case-of-an-invasion

He said that would reduce the chance of an invasion and I was like (paraphrasing): “really? does it? the generations-long and unfinished business of the chinese civil war and all the history there is outweighed by the thought of losing one chip fab that they’ve already proven they don’t really need after all the sanctions? They aren’t going to invade unless their hand is forced, there’s literally already US troops on taiwan-held islands, if they were on the brink of invading they would have done it already, but they aren’t.”

He basically argued that the majority of people there wanted to be independent therefore its simple self determination and the US should help them, etc.

I said the no capitalist state gives a flying fuck about self determination and asked if texas has the right to secede, or perhaps more relevantly, if texas settlers had the right to secede from mexico and join the US in the first place? because its not like the nationalists that took over the island were its native inhabitants, who are now mostly dead, flooding a low-population place with “settlers” doesn’t mean you own it…

we went back and forth a bunch and he stopped arguing when I pointed out the inconsistency of supporting palestine but also taiwan, when they (while not the same, taiwan wasn’t settler colonialism) have kind of a similar arc, what with israel’s “majority”, both having invaded and largely displacing the prior inhabitants.

I don’t feel I had all the best arguments at my disposal, though overall I feel good about my responses.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radioEnglish
    8·
    6 months ago

    You appear to be thinking in terms of winning an argument.

    Political arguments are the same as religious arguments. Essentially they never resolve and there is no winner.

    The best you can hope for is that you both learn something from each other.

    If you keep that in mind you’ll have more fun, learn something and have the opportunity to teach something.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      15·
      6 months ago

      Tons of people change their political opinions, it just usually happens as a culmination of a bunch of different factors over time, rather than an on-the-spot change right there in the conversation.

    • Chronicon [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      11·
      6 months ago

      Its not necessarily just “winning the argument”, although I do fall into that at times, I want to understand the situation better and I know many of my comrades on here know a lot more about it and the theory surrounding it than I do, hence the question/comm.

      I don’t hound this friend about it, I just push back on their narratives when I believe they are wrong or buying into propaganda. I am of the belief that political arguments, engaged in good faith, can and do resolve, when the people involved recognize their common interests and take a materialist approach to analyzing the political situation through the lens of those interests.

      This friend does sometimes teach me things or get me to question my understanding of topics, but is generally less well read on politics, and so I like to try and expound on why I don’t share their perspective when we disagree. I’m not angry when they don’t agree, but I do think that with sufficient discussion we’d land closer to my perspective than theirs.