Perchance

You almost got the joke. You were right there

but the world is more complex than that

Proceeds to give the absolute most naive surface level interpretation

Ok then.

What is it that you think I’m arguing, that those figures would be impactful.

I explicitly said that I’m not calling China’s economy unstable, that instead I’m using hypotheticals to discuss the joke itself.

Dude, calm down and read what I wrote again.
I explicitly went out of my way to say how none of what I was writing was a reflection of the realities in China, but rather an explanation about why a joke about Schrodinger doesn’t apply.

I didn’t say that China had an unstable economy, I said that even if it had an unstable economy it could still outcompete the USA. How it’s not a mutually exclusive condition, like the cat being both alive and dead.

That wasn’t a fair way to characterize me or what I said, and it’s pretty upsetting that you made such a judgement about me, seemingly without reading what I wrote 🙁

Instability in the present doesn’t mean instability in the past where preparation could have been done. But setting that aside:

I really think that the way that the USA is being outcompeted (according to these seemingly hypocritical sources) could be competitive spontaneously given the size and resources of china.
It’s always things like EVs that these news sources focus on, and China did invest heavily into battery tech during a time of relatively stability in the past, which is paying dividends now, also they’re just able to manufacture nice cars for cheaper, plain and simple.
They outcompete for electronics manufacturing due to the lower cost of labour, the scale of manufacturing they can provide, and proximity of materials, and the existing tooling.
Etc.

And even if none of that was true, have you never seen a store that is almost bankrupt, putting on crazy sales to attract new customers? Undercutting competitor could be what causes the instability.

All this is hypothetical, I’m not arguing that’s actually what’s happening in China, I’m just describing how these things need not be mutually exclusive.

I get your point, Western propaganda can’t make up its mind about if they’re strong or weak.
But it’s not really a funny joke because economic instability isn’t mutually exclusive with outcompeting, so the Schrodinger doesn’t really apply.

You make it sound like a few min on the shitter a day is a big investment. I sit down, see an unread message and I reply.

I’m not being especially clever, all I do is give you a little rope and you keep hanging yourself 🤷

No, you’re right. People with lives don’t know how to use toilets.

You’d make for the absolute saddest sequel to Pixar’s Inside Out. You’re trying so hard for these zingers but there’s just nobody home in there.

Why wouldn’t I reply to you, while taking a shit? Do you think people with lives don’t poop or something?

How embarrassing for you 🫢

No, you’re right. The Lemmy unread inbox doesn’t exist, so there is no way I’d be reminded of what people told me 💀

God you’re just trying so hard 😔

Imagine thinking that telling someone they have a life and sleep sometimes is a burn 💀

This was not a defense of the USA you braindead idiot. I did not offer “feeling threatened” as an excuse for the USAs behaviour. The USA is threatened by the mere existence of successful countries that are not hypercapitalist (although tbf the tool used in this case is usually a coup, rather than bombs).

Not all countries consider the same things to be threats.

Ok there edgelord

Imagine having someone reply the exact same thing back to you and get more up votes.

How embarrassing for you.

You can make that exact same argument about dropping bombs.

When countries are threatened and dropping bombs relieves that threat instead of increases it, then they do. It’s just that right now violent escalation doesn’t benefit China, so it stays in the realm of sabre rattling

Imagine writing that completely unironically.

Removed by mod

Dude, idk.

I was just like “you seem to be telling the dude that he isn’t using tankie correctly, but that’s not how language works”

And then you replied that I’m wrong, and seemed to be making an appeal that the negative connotations had to do with the invalidity of the definition.

Our wires are so crossed at this point that a random car in 1960 Spain just got spontaneously hotwired.

Yup.

You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want, the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.

The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.