Kusimulkku @ Kusimulkku @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 7,034Joined 2 yr. ago
China is also buying stuff to benefit from cheaper labour where there's advantage in that. It's just how trade works for pretty much every single country in a global economy. Every country is serving their domestic interests. You're kidding yourself if you think China doing the same is better somehow than Finland doing it.
China isn't exactly a struggling economy having to trade to survive. They're benefiting from other countries same as Finland. It's just that Finnish economy has largely moved away from manufacturing and has bigger sectors elsewhere whereas China hasn't yet.
Not that Finland being economically in the same situation as China would actually change anything for the people at the other end of the trade.
China doesn't want labour costs to rise because it hits them too but they want them ro rise to be able to sell higher end products. That's not different to Finland either. Benefits to both. Both neither Finland nor China want their imports to be more expensive (while wanting to export more expensive stuff)
I think you need to look more critically and less ideologically.
looks at your entire account*
Allowing people to defend themself as they want
I'm not sure what you mean with this, what form would it take, some sort of militia or what sort of thing?
https://www.thelocal.se/20190404/sweden-hands-out-first-jail-terms-for-draft-evasion
That's for Sweden. I'm from Finland. It's a different country. Here's an article about the civilian service/alternative service I was talking about: https://akl-web.fi/en/civilian-service/civilian-service (the article is from an anti-militarist peace organization so the language probably reflects that, they might have other takes you probably enjoy)
If you refuse both military service/conscription and civilian service and you aren't found unfit for service or something like that, you might serve in a prison though. That's true for Sweden and Finland. We call them "totaalikieltäytyjä", "total refuser" or something like that. Pretty rare though, I think 2022 it was 1 person and most just got given a sentence and an ankle bracelet and served the sentence that way.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I'd consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I'd say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don't think that's the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you've outlined so far is that China's economy isn't at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it's the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
What's the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
I didn't mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It's the big issue.
So supportive that if they refuse to go they go to jail.
I'm talking about polls lol. And by voting the people are giving their concent to the system. That includes us who are forced to serve.
And most people who don't want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don't see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn't much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
I'm not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can't get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That's why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn't work well for them.
Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that's on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn't. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it's best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
Tbf the example countries are countries that started very poor, so had the opportunity to make more impressive gains from more moderate gains in quality of life than those of already advanced economies. More advanced economies haven't usually turned to socialism though, so it's hard to compare.
For me grilling is less about just food preparation and more about the different experience of using a grill and the different taste you got from it. So with propane, even though it makes food prep a lot easier and more consistent, much more convienient, it loses the taste aspect so a big part of the whole thing is missing for me. It's all about what aspects you value and how much.
I've always thought that saying was weird. If I'm specifically grilling, I want to taste the heat. The smoky aroma is what makes grilling special to me. If you just want to taste the meat, it isn't that different to using a pan imo. That's why I like coal grills but prefer a wood fire, though that can be unpractical for some stuff
We outside of the US didn't even have any say in the elections and are subjected to your constant, and I mean constant political shit.
It's all so tiring
It doesn't say have been found guilty, it says is guilty. Someone who has committed a crime is guilty of it, whether or not it has been proven in court.
justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilty
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle. Like I tried to explain, there's different context where in a court you could say that they can't consider someone guilty (and a criminal for that particular thing) until proven so, but you can still be a criminal outside of specific legal language for being guilty, meaning having committed a crime.
Guilt also means different things, it can mean you have actually committed it (factual guilt seems to be the term for it) and legal guilt is the one proven and assigned in court.
That's the real account. The joke account is Jiankui Him.
It's not an idea, that's just how the word works. It can have different and more specific meanings in different context but generally a criminal is someone who has committed a crime.
I think "criminal" can just mean someone who has committed a crime while not having been in a trial convicted of it
Still a really important correction imo
Back in MY day we used the phone plan money on logos and ringtones
Even their own food?