I also belong to a marginalized group. I agree that belief in conspiracy and lack of knowledge is a big driver, but what legitimizes belief in conspiracy, at least from conversations I’ve had with others, seems to stem from government mistrust.

I also agree with you that urgency is key in dealing with Covid. I am just hesitant to impose top-down restrictions without enough community support. I’ve seen enough instances of top-down impositions back-fire because there was not enough understanding of the primary motivations of why people behaved the way they do. I can name several countries that right now are currently dealing with high death tolls, even though they have tried strict lockdowns and do indeed have some access to vaccines. In these cases, it appears to me that the primary reason for low compliance is a broader lack of faith and trust in government. Whereas community led organization can be far more effective, for example, among indigenous groups in the US.

I understand that laws are by definition coercive. Ideally they would be minimally so, that way we can achieve a maximum amount of social good with minimal coercion. I also don’t disagree with the choice to pursue non-association with those who are unvaccinated by those who deem the risk too high.

My point is that if you use a hammer approach, i.e. mandating vaccination so quickly and especially when many individuals could come from marginalized communities whose skepticism may arise from a legitimate history of mistrust (for example, the US has and still has a long history of government-led abuse towards various communities, one example is forced sterilization ). Rather than succumbing to authoritarian approaches, the long-term reward is greater when putting the effort in methods that value and respect individual agency, build trust and can lead to mutually agreeable outcomes.

And so you’d rather treat them like children and rob them of agency? Unrestricted authority is a slippery slope. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on coercing people without broader efforts that focus on discussion and transparency. Otherwise, how can we expect to live in a cooperative society if we just bully each other?

I agree. More effort should be emphasized on transparently matching scientific understanding to the general public. It’s not fair to punish people in an age where disinformation is so widespread.

Electric bikes make motorcycles pure vanity methods of transport nowadays.

Exactly, given imessage/facetime was used on iOS, virtually every iPhone is at risk. The same applies to Android depending on whether the exploit depends on something at the OS level or software like Whatsapp.

Diversity of OS is certainly a way to go, but ultimately, tying your identity to a device that communicates with a cell phone tower makes this needlessly hard. Your phone number easily identifies a device. For a firm as sophisticated as NSO, Linux is not an obstacle, as it is not free of potential exploits. It’s moreso identifying a device as belonging to you that puts you at risk.

Ultimately, if one is truly at risk of state intelligence, one should simply not use a device that relies on a cell phone network that can be easily traced to you.

I can agree with that. In such circumstances, how do you minimize foreign intervention influence while simultaneously avoiding repressing discussion of domestic grievances?

No doubt, the US blockade is criminal.

Certainly, no one is in favour of foreign intervention (i.e. US). I wonder though how much is driven by legitimate grievances due to economic mismanagement? As per this thread.

Why are there 5 down votes on this? Why not express thoughts in comments?

That’s true, you can offer other assets as collateral to secure a loan, but that is typically for unsecured loans (where the loan is not applied to some underlying asset). In this case, the underlying asset, the highway and presumably also the land for the highway, would likely be the collateral on the loan.

In any case, one should be extremely wary of state actors in the case of sovereign debt. The potential geopolitical risk can be great, as we saw in the case of Greece when it tried to default on its debt.

Not normal if it’s any land that is not the land belonging to the asset.

It’s funny to me that you view the world in such a binary lens. If I say something that opposes China, in your view I automatically support the West. As a Muslim from the Arab world, I can tell you that neither Western, Russian or Chinese imperialism and oppression is tolerated. We don’t see the world in a binary lens like you do, but rather are acutely aware of when our fundamental human rights are violated by our own dictatorships and by foreign powers.

From actual opinions with fellow Arabs, the average opinion in the Middle East is Anti-Sisi, Anti-Assad, Anti-MBS, Anti-Iran, Anti-Israel and Anti-US. Tell me how that squares with being pro-West? In fact, I’d wager China is viewed more favorably given it’s a non-factor in the Middle East, except for the fact that Uigher Muslims are persecuted, and admittedly, at least to the extent that we can trust refugee testimonies. Though, nothing about China’s authoritarian regime is viewed in a positive light here, except for when it comes to its increase in economic development in the past decades.

And no, you wish I was pretending. Ana men al blad li ja menha bnou Ziyad, chouf ila 3rafti fham hadchi li ktebt lik. Need more proof? Try to guess where I’m from.

Ok, as much as I’m willing to believe you, the entire world witnessed what happened in Honk Kong as well. It does not speak well for freedom of speech or for self-determination. Again, I don’t care what the West thinks, but it is was painfully clear that China does not believe in basic democratic principles or freedom of expression.

Also, I obviously know the history of Hong Kong being an ex-British colony and colonialism in general in China. That does not excuse oppression by China of its own citizens. FYI, I am also for the people of Hong Kong being united with China given the obvious historical bond, just not under authoritarian government.

And to return to the topic about Uighers. I simply do not trust government propaganda. The situation for Uighers is harder to determine given propaganda from the West and from China, but I am willing to believe that China does oppress Uighers (and others in China). Despite not being able to verify individual testimonies, I have spoken to more than a few Chinese students at the university I attend to know for a fact that it is simply not possible to speak freely in China about politics.

If, as an Uigher in China, I were to say I believe in self-determination of Uighers, then would I be able to even last the day before I’m in prison? What you describe is selection bias. In countries that do not allow free expression, you only hear what is tolerated. I for one choose not to believe that the only opinion is the one stated by an authoritarian regime and that there exists no diversity of thought organically.

And again, to pre-empt you, I think the West is also hypocritical in that it oppresses expressions of self-determination.

I don’t defend the West or China. I’m against any form of authoritarian oppression. Try again.

I don’t trust what they say about China, but I also know that China is an authoritarian regime that is more than happy to oppress its own citizen. On top of that China does have imperialist ambitions, similar to the West. You do realize that Uighers are not ethnically Han Chinese and that China has no desire to allow self-determination or even the mere thought of expressing that desire? I think that’s called colonization if I am not mistaken.

That’s fucking hilarious. I’m an actual muslim who lives in one of those aforementioned countries. We know the consequences of Western colonization and we know the current consequences of our dictatorships. Neither is acceptable. I don’t need western media to tell me what dictatorships and human rights are. But thanks, go pretend to know more about the Muslim world somewhere else.

I’m an actual muslim from one of those muslim countries and can tell you that we don’t give a shit what the West thinks of us, but, yes, literally every single one of our countries is a dictatorship. Look up who is in jail in literally Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Iran, Turkey. It’s anyone who criticizes their regime, furthermore, the elections in these countries, if they do happen, are frauds. So no, it’s not what the West thinks, it’s literally what we think living here.

Second, if you actually understood what dictatorship means, it means that the pseudo-muslim rulers are more than happy to acquiesce to both the West and China if it means increase in their power or wealth. That’s the primary driver of good relations with China and the West, is economic investment in crony capitalist dictatorships. (Iran/Syria obviously don’t have good relations with the West, but are more than happy to interact with China and kill their own citizens and fellow muslims in Syria/Iraq.) The same is true for Western allied dictatorships. Egypt is more than happy to kill its own citizens to be a good friend of US/Israel.

For the sake of this discussion. It is worth noting that every Muslim country you mention would rank very low with regards to human rights or freedom of press. They’re all pretty much dictatorships and I would take their official positions with a grain of salt. The popular opinion in the Muslim world is much more in solidarity with Uigher Muslims who individually have given testimony of oppression and torture (obviously the right-wing propaganda you mention above is not credible, but individual testimony from refugees is more likely to be).