Competitive
Competitive

Competitive

Auring
Auring

Auring

Admittingly
Admittingly

Admittingly

Two Types Of People
Two Types Of People

Two Types Of People

Type Of People
Type Of People

Type Of People

you like that
 you like that

you like that

automatically
 automatically

automatically

nikes
 nikes

nikes

jen
 jen

jen

dislike
 dislike

dislike

🔥 | Latest

America, Animals, and Comfortable: bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new fo rms of struggle in place of the old ones. * By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. [Engels, 1888 English edition] t That is, all written histo ry. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh g round for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never befo re known, and bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pyshed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, the refore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the develop ment of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune* : here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious This was the name given their urban communities by the townsmen of Italy and France, after they had purchased or conquered their initial rights of self-govern ment from their feudal lords. [Engels, 1890 German edition] "Commune" was the name ta ken in France by the nascent to wn s even befo re they must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cos mopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. n place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, unive rsal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrowmindedness become more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of who le continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground-what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agricultu re and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into the ir place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole histo rical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victo ry so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie. But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhe re country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point whe re that war brea ks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions mu st be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its Communist Party an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefo re, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, at is to do away with the status of women as me re instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proleta rians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each othe r's wives. Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Neve rthe less, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated inco me tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of in heritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swe pt away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in whi ch the free develop ment of each is the condition for the free development of all. IlII. Socialist and Communist Literature 1. Reactionary Socialism A. Feudal Socialism Owing to their histo rical position, it became the vo cation of the aristo cracies of F rance spirits.t As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism. * Not the English Resto ration (1660-1689), but the French Restoration (1814-1830). [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.] t This applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive beetroot-sugar manufacture rs and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier British aristo cracy are, as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their names society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will co mpletely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlooke rs, bailiffs and shopmen. In countries like France, where the peasants constitu te far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie s hould use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine. It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, hig her, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destru ctive " tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature. 2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthro pists, humanitarians, improve rs of the condition of the wo rking class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reforme rs of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, mo reover, been wo rked out into complete syste ms. We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an exa mple of this fo rm. The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. T hey wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and edition of 1890.] 32 Chapter Ill: Socialist and Communist Literatu re Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate exp ression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois so cialism. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois - for the benefit of the wo rking class. 3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism We do not here re fer to that literatu re which, in every great modern revolution, has eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans. In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the inte rests of the wo rking class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for the m. The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introdu ce along with its suprema cy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. As By Popular request, Just Zoom In COMRADES.
America, Animals, and Comfortable: bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new fo rms of struggle in place of the old ones. * By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. [Engels, 1888 English edition] t That is, all written histo ry. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation
 splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh g round for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never befo re known, and
 bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pyshed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, the refore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the develop ment of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune* : here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of
 upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious This was the name given their urban communities by the townsmen of Italy and France, after they had purchased or conquered their initial rights of self-govern ment from their feudal lords. [Engels, 1890 German edition] "Commune" was the name ta ken in France by the nascent to wn s even befo re they
 must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cos mopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.
 but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. n place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, unive rsal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrowmindedness become
 more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of who le continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground-what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in
 the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agricultu re and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into the ir place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern
 their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole histo rical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victo ry so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie. But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhe re
 country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point whe re that war brea ks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions mu st be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its
 Communist Party an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose
 represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefo re, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy,
 at is to do away with the status of women as me re instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proleta rians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each othe r's wives. Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in
 social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Neve rthe less, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated inco me tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of in heritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of
 class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swe pt away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in whi ch the free develop ment of each is the condition for the free development of all. IlII. Socialist and Communist Literature 1. Reactionary Socialism A. Feudal Socialism Owing to their histo rical position, it became the vo cation of the aristo cracies of F rance
 spirits.t As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism. * Not the English Resto ration (1660-1689), but the French Restoration (1814-1830). [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.] t This applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive beetroot-sugar manufacture rs and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier British aristo cracy are, as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their names
 society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will co mpletely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlooke rs, bailiffs and shopmen. In countries like France, where the peasants constitu te far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie s hould use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of
 And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine. It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, hig her, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destru ctive " tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and
 Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature. 2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthro pists, humanitarians, improve rs of the condition of the wo rking class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reforme rs of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, mo reover, been wo rked out into
 complete syste ms. We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an exa mple of this fo rm. The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. T hey wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and
 edition of 1890.] 32 Chapter Ill: Socialist and Communist Literatu re Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate exp ression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois so cialism. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois - for the benefit of the wo rking class. 3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism We do not here re fer to that literatu re which, in every great modern revolution, has
 eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans. In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the inte rests of the wo rking class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for the m. The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without
 possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introdu ce along with its suprema cy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation
 countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
As By Popular request, Just Zoom In COMRADES.

As By Popular request, Just Zoom In COMRADES.

Being Alone, Bad, and Complex: 74 points 13 hours ago Edit see my self reply below for explanation of why this comment examines what it does while ignoring other important areas of this broad and complex problem. I think this should also make us more sympathetic to the enormity of the choices we casually foisted on our ancestors, and made them responsible for. (And I am not here diminishing the magnitude of past genocides; on the contrary, I mean to emphasize them.) With this data, the only moral choice directly available to stop this is war: invasion of China by other powers, and imposition of martial law to the extent that victims of these policies are freed and their unjust suffering given reparation (insofar as this sort of thing is even possible much about suffering cannot be undone, and certainly you cannot pay for the dead in a way that makes up for their loss to the living) Because that is what we mean by "responsible", right? That our ancestors stood by as the Holocaust or some other genocide unfolded, and allowed it to continue. Certainly there are other ways of bringing pressure against nation- states, but there is little hope of gaining the sort of international unity that could make this effective against a state with an economy as diversified as China's. Only war is credible here, because other countries would suffer incredible deprivation by opposing China, and worry about the unequal competition with other nations that choose to continue reading with China. (Sanctions work to a degree against Russia, but people should understand that this is because of its much less diversified economy hitting on just one or two coordinated fronts is very effective, and Russia does not have reliable capital (money/asset) protection, making asset seizing/freezing in finance hubs like London and the U.S. effective. Additionally, their "best" goods, such as natural gas, can be gotten from elsewhere, albeit not as cheaply, giving huge importers of those resources like Germany enormous leverage not buying starts a price spiral that hurts Russia far more than Germany China, on the other hand, is a linchpin of the global economy, and in many areas is essentially the sole provider of many rare raw materials, like rare earth magnets used in electronics, as well as many manifactured goods. Its economy is also roughly self-sufficient it can technically feed itself and outfit armies start to finish in a pinch, even if that's far from ideal economically. As a result, and in addition to its unique and historically unprecedented role in the global economy (no nation has ever worn this many hats in this particular way) most economic options for political pressure actually hurt everyone else much more than China, which completely changes the calculus. That in turn makes those economic options for diplomacy largely ineffective even if you can get countries on-board, which you basically can't. Ever wonder why we hear about strict sanctions on small or isolated countries like Cuba/North Korea, or global powers like Russia, but not really China? That's why. Not very effective, hurts everyone else more, and too many countries fear not having access to the Chinese economy/competing against other countries that are happy to continue importing inexpensive Chinese goods. This is one reason why China insists on domestic companies only at the helm of its economy, and/or forces technology transfers and domestic partnerships on any Western company entering its market, and probably the most important one. Many centuries of subjugation by Western powers through economic warfare has hardened its resolve to not be vulnerable to this problem ever again. So this circumstance is not coincidental in the least, and it limits what political levers other nations can apply to China without war. Paradoxically, this increases instability in a way, from a global perspective because it means conflict resolution short of war is very difficult to force China to the table on, as we have frequently seen when China ignores international treaties with impunity.) But an actual war, a real war, a war that would not stop until these oppressed peoples were free would lead to unimaginable suffering on a global scale. The refugees alone would overwhelm the stability of East Asia/Central Europe Millions at least would die directly in war, even if China did not ultimately result to nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction. They are a great power on the way to becoming a global superpower the world has not seen a conflict like that since WW2, even if only the U.S. and China fought (and certainly other nations would be drawn in, including at minimum former superpower Russia, and North Korea, where Chinese divisions decimated American forces during the Korean War at troop strength rations of 12 divisions or more to each American division) The world has never seen the central nations of a globally interconnected world economy at war. The amount of knock on suffering caused by that economic turmoil is probably incalculable. The Great Recession in 2012 would look tiny in comparison. (The limited trade war initiated by President Trump is already having global impacts on the economy, and that is simply tariff trading, not complete disconnection and war.) And if I focus on the U.S. here, it's primarily for two reasons: One, because it is the superpower that made human rights a matter of politics, after the Holocaust. Before its global hegemony, and the catastrophe that brought it to the head of that hegemony, what a nation did to its people was considered its own business. This is to both its glory and its shame: a rare international and historical triumph of morality to be responsible for, and a magnification of the shame of its own human rights abuses, and its intermittent strategic befriending of those who have committed them already. (For example, how many people know that it is the U.S. that forced Britain to divest its empire, and allow the independent self-determination of its subjugated peoples? This was a direct requirement imposed by the United States if Britain wanted to be included at the treaty after the end of WW2. The U.S. also directly and successfully opposed Anglo-Soviet plans for carving up other countries as spoils of war, notwithstanding the annexations the Soviet Union began before the treaty was even concluded and continued in the immediate aftermath. Consider also things like the Alien Torts act, a statute that underwent a legal revival in the modern era, in which U.S. courts allowed foreigners to bring suits against other foreigners for crimes against humanity committed in foreign countries a more substantial threat to dictators than it might seem, due to the U.S.'s role as a global finance and capital hub, which meant assets of dictators or other person's could be frozen or seized by court order, and travel to the U.S. impossible in practice.) People focus on the hypocrisy of the U.S. here, but honestly, it is not the hypocrisy that is remarkable at all. We would expect nations to do nasty things in their own interest, and they usually do. It is a little remarked on miracle that the U.S. is directly responsible for human rights being seen as legitimate political objective at all; it was and is a completely unprecedented occurrence in human history. The second reason is that it is only the U.S. that would have a credible chance of invading China and succeeding and odds are quite good that even this "credible chance" would end in failure, as force projection for a smalll amount of time anywhere in the world (the specialty of the U.S., and its expertise by far) is much different than total war predicated on supply chains thousands of miles long. (Where this is occurring in China is possibly one of the the worst places for it to occur, too, in terms of this military difficulty.) Even a multinational force of smaller nations with modern militaries would pose no credible threat of total war on China; such is the state of her military power already at this early date in her rise. Even a truly global coalition (i.e. not a nominally global but practically unilateral coalition like the one that invaded Iraq in 2003), has a moderate chance of failure- China's geography in particular disfavors any inland invasion coming from the sea. Without the U.S., any such effort is likely doomed to failure. So the problem is especially acute: the sole actor that can add the value needed to make the conflict worthwhile has a lonely spotlight to sit under. Only it can credibly act, and hence it alone must also carry the shame of inaction, if chosen. With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben noted.. How terrible are the options we are left with. To let the innocent suffer and be effectively silent (what good does awareness without change do?), or to wage war and cause equal or worse suffering, but arguably as moral victors. As someone who fought in a war much more limited and low intensity than this, I cannot express just how much misery war results in. It is never an option to be chosen lightly. There are literally no winners in war other than armament industries and nation-statess moneyed interests and abstractions, and maybe in very rare cases, future generations. Every actual person involved loses, even as the victors. I don't even know whether to be disappointed in us all. I am sure no war will come, but is this a good thing or a bad thing? Are we too standing by during the Holocaust? Such an ugly and dispiriting circumstance. I feel like it gives me more sympathy for the onlookers who, still scarred by wW1, and even threatened themselves, were still too skittish for war. And of course even more sympathy for the victims of that genocide, and that war, and their modern day counterparts. My heart cries out for these people. They live between what is, for other nations, the frying pan and the fire. permalink embed unsave parent report give award reply - 23 points 12 hours ago Minor note as reply to myself (other comment already at character limit): I am not ignoring the evidence of China's internal struggle over this, a struggle that may (we can only hope) eventually result in the freedom of these people being persecuted for practicing their religion peacefully. Rather, I am focusing on one aspect of the issue: the position of Western, non-China nations in this equation, as well as their available options for resolution This is certainly a much broader issue than that, and China's internal politics, as well as the victims themselves, are more important and central than what I chose to examine here. The reason for my narrow focus was simply this: thinking about what we, as people of Western nations, can actually and directly do (as opposed to any options that rely on China deciding on her own agency to stop), if we agree that responsibility falls on our shoulders when known genocide is met with inaction, as is mentioned in the submission statement For a number of reasons, some of which I gave here, I am fairly sure that war is the only directly efficacious means of ensuring that aim China may or may not change her internal policy, but if she does, it won't be because of Western economic or political pressure. Hence, if it is true we are morally responsible for inaction during genocide, it seems that in this case it would mean a moral obligation to go to war: an option with its own extremes of suffering, and nearly guaranteed to be a calamity of global scope. Which is not very different at all from WW2, as it was then: the war that eventually did occur was in fact a global calamity, and hence the choice that we fault our ancestors for not going to war over human rights is very similar to what we exp to see the war that would have resulted, for other reasons. And hence the now, except we opportunity to see just how much suffering a choice to make war over genocide would have created, if our ancestors had actually acted. This extremely unappetizing choice, between "moral" war and immoral inaction, is what prompted my comment permalink embed save parent report give award reply Troubled redditor pens a long essay on whether the "Western nations" have the "moral obligation" of invading China in order to "stop genocide"
Being Alone, Bad, and Complex: 74 points 13 hours ago
 Edit see my self reply below for explanation of why this comment examines what it does while ignoring other
 important areas of this broad and complex problem.
 I think this should also make us more sympathetic to the enormity of the choices we casually foisted on our
 ancestors, and made them responsible for. (And I am not here diminishing the magnitude of past genocides; on the
 contrary, I mean to emphasize them.)
 With this data, the only moral choice directly available to stop this is war: invasion of China by other powers, and
 imposition of martial law to the extent that victims of these policies are freed and their unjust suffering given
 reparation (insofar as this sort of thing is even possible much about suffering cannot be undone, and certainly you
 cannot pay for the dead in a way that makes up for their loss to the living)
 Because that is what we mean by "responsible", right? That our ancestors stood by as the Holocaust or some other
 genocide unfolded, and allowed it to continue. Certainly there are other ways of bringing pressure against nation-
 states, but there is little hope of gaining the sort of international unity that could make this effective against a state
 with an economy as diversified as China's. Only war is credible here, because other countries would suffer incredible
 deprivation by opposing China, and worry about the unequal competition with other nations that choose to continue
 reading with China.
 (Sanctions work to a degree against Russia, but people should understand that this is because of its much less
 diversified economy hitting on just one or two coordinated fronts is very effective, and Russia does not have reliable
 capital (money/asset) protection, making asset seizing/freezing in finance hubs like London and the U.S. effective.
 Additionally, their "best" goods, such as natural gas, can be gotten from elsewhere, albeit not as cheaply, giving huge
 importers of those resources like Germany enormous leverage not buying starts a price spiral that hurts Russia far
 more than Germany
 China, on the other hand, is a linchpin of the global economy, and in many areas is essentially the sole provider of
 many rare raw materials, like rare earth magnets used in electronics, as well as many manifactured goods. Its economy
 is also roughly self-sufficient it can technically feed itself and outfit armies start to finish in a pinch, even if that's far
 from ideal economically. As a result, and in addition to its unique and historically unprecedented role in the global
 economy (no nation has ever worn this many hats in this particular way) most economic options for political
 pressure actually hurt everyone else much more than China, which completely changes the calculus.
 That in turn makes those economic options for diplomacy largely ineffective even if you can get countries on-board,
 which you basically can't. Ever wonder why we hear about strict sanctions on small or isolated countries like
 Cuba/North Korea, or global powers like Russia, but not really China? That's why. Not very effective, hurts everyone
 else more, and too many countries fear not having access to the Chinese economy/competing against other countries
 that are happy to continue importing inexpensive Chinese goods.
 This is one reason why China insists on domestic companies only at the helm of its economy, and/or forces technology
 transfers and domestic partnerships on any Western company entering its market, and probably the most important
 one. Many centuries of subjugation by Western powers through economic warfare has hardened its resolve to not be
 vulnerable to this problem ever again. So this circumstance is not coincidental in the least, and it limits what political
 levers other nations can apply to China without war. Paradoxically, this increases instability in a way, from a global
 perspective because it means conflict resolution short of war is very difficult to force China to the table on, as we
 have frequently seen when China ignores international treaties with impunity.)
 But an actual war, a real war, a war that would not stop until these oppressed peoples were free would lead to
 unimaginable suffering on a global scale. The refugees alone would overwhelm the stability of East Asia/Central
 Europe
 Millions at least would die directly in war, even if China did not ultimately result to nuclear weapons, or other weapons
 of mass destruction. They are a great power on the way to becoming a global superpower the world has not seen a
 conflict like that since WW2, even if only the U.S. and China fought (and certainly other nations would be drawn in,
 including at minimum former superpower Russia, and North Korea, where Chinese divisions decimated American forces
 during the Korean War at troop strength rations of 12 divisions or more to each American division)
 The world has never seen the central nations of a globally interconnected world economy at war. The amount of knock
 on suffering caused by that economic turmoil is probably incalculable. The Great Recession in 2012 would look tiny in
 comparison. (The limited trade war initiated by President Trump is already having global impacts on the economy, and
 that is simply tariff trading, not complete disconnection and war.)
 And if I focus on the U.S. here, it's primarily for two reasons:
 One, because it is the superpower that made human rights a matter of politics, after the Holocaust. Before its global
 hegemony, and the catastrophe that brought it to the head of that hegemony, what a nation did to its people was
 considered its own business. This is to both its glory and its shame: a rare international and historical triumph of
 morality to be responsible for, and a magnification of the shame of its own human rights abuses, and its intermittent
 strategic befriending of those who have committed them already.
 (For example, how many people know that it is the U.S. that forced Britain to divest its empire, and allow the
 independent self-determination of its subjugated peoples? This was a direct requirement imposed by the United
 States if Britain wanted to be included at the treaty after the end of WW2. The U.S. also directly and successfully
 opposed Anglo-Soviet plans for carving up other countries as spoils of war, notwithstanding the annexations the
 Soviet Union began before the treaty was even concluded and continued in the immediate aftermath. Consider also
 things like the Alien Torts act, a statute that underwent a legal revival in the modern era, in which U.S. courts allowed
 foreigners to bring suits against other foreigners for crimes against humanity committed in foreign countries a more
 substantial threat to dictators than it might seem, due to the U.S.'s role as a global finance and capital hub, which
 meant assets of dictators or other person's could be frozen or seized by court order, and travel to the U.S. impossible
 in practice.)
 People focus on the hypocrisy of the U.S. here, but honestly, it is not the hypocrisy that is remarkable at all. We would
 expect nations to do nasty things in their own interest, and they usually do. It is a little remarked on miracle that the
 U.S. is directly responsible for human rights being seen as legitimate political objective at all; it was and is a completely
 unprecedented occurrence in human history.
 The second reason is that it is only the U.S. that would have a credible chance of invading China and succeeding and
 odds are quite good that even this "credible chance" would end in failure, as force projection for a smalll amount of
 time anywhere in the world (the specialty of the U.S., and its expertise by far) is much different than total war
 predicated on supply chains thousands of miles long. (Where this is occurring in China is possibly one of the the worst
 places for it to occur, too, in terms of this military difficulty.)
 Even a multinational force of smaller nations with modern militaries would pose no credible threat of total war on
 China; such is the state of her military power already at this early date in her rise. Even a truly global coalition (i.e. not
 a nominally global but practically unilateral coalition like the one that invaded Iraq in 2003), has a moderate chance of
 failure- China's geography in particular disfavors any inland invasion coming from the sea. Without the U.S., any such
 effort is likely doomed to failure.
 So the problem is especially acute: the sole actor that can add the value needed to make the conflict worthwhile has a
 lonely spotlight to sit under. Only it can credibly act, and hence it alone must also carry the shame of inaction, if
 chosen. With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben noted..
 How terrible are the options we are left with. To let the innocent suffer and be effectively silent (what good does
 awareness without change do?), or to wage war and cause equal or worse suffering, but arguably as moral victors.
 As someone who fought in a war much more limited and low intensity than this, I cannot express just how much
 misery war results in. It is never an option to be chosen lightly. There are literally no winners in war other than
 armament industries and nation-statess moneyed interests and abstractions, and maybe in very rare cases, future
 generations. Every actual person involved loses, even as the victors.
 I don't even know whether to be disappointed in us all. I am sure no war will come, but is this a good thing or a bad
 thing? Are we too standing by during the Holocaust?
 Such an ugly and dispiriting circumstance. I feel like it gives me more sympathy for the onlookers who, still scarred by
 wW1, and even threatened themselves, were still too skittish for war. And of course even more sympathy for the
 victims of that genocide, and that war, and their modern day counterparts. My heart cries out for these people. They
 live between what is, for other nations, the frying pan and the fire.
 permalink embed unsave parent report give award reply
 -
 23 points 12 hours ago
 Minor note as reply to myself (other comment already at character limit):
 I am not ignoring the evidence of China's internal struggle over this, a struggle that may (we can only hope) eventually
 result in the freedom of these people being persecuted for practicing their religion peacefully.
 Rather, I am focusing on one aspect of the issue: the position of Western, non-China nations in this equation, as well
 as their available options for resolution
 This is certainly a much broader issue than that, and China's internal politics, as well as the victims themselves, are
 more important and central than what I chose to examine here.
 The reason for my narrow focus was simply this: thinking about what we, as people of Western nations, can actually
 and directly do (as opposed to any options that rely on China deciding on her own agency to stop), if we agree that
 responsibility falls on our shoulders when known genocide is met with inaction, as is mentioned in the submission
 statement
 For a number of reasons, some of which I gave here, I am fairly sure that war is the only directly efficacious means of
 ensuring that aim China may or may not change her internal policy, but if she does, it won't be because of Western
 economic or political pressure.
 Hence, if it is true we are morally responsible for inaction during genocide, it seems that in this case it would mean a
 moral obligation to go to war: an option with its own extremes of suffering, and nearly guaranteed to be a calamity of
 global scope.
 Which is not very different at all from WW2, as it was then: the war that eventually did occur was in fact a global
 calamity, and hence the choice that we fault our ancestors for not going to war over human rights is very similar to
 what we exp
 to see the war that would have resulted, for other reasons. And hence the
 now, except we
 opportunity to see just how much suffering a choice to make war over genocide would have created, if our ancestors
 had actually acted.
 This extremely unappetizing choice, between "moral" war and immoral inaction, is what prompted my comment
 permalink embed save parent report give award reply
Troubled redditor pens a long essay on whether the "Western nations" have the "moral obligation" of invading China in order to "stop genocide"

Troubled redditor pens a long essay on whether the "Western nations" have the "moral obligation" of invading China in order to "stop genocid...

Be Like, Community, and Crying: No meme format is by itself a low effort format, and the white frame is one of the ones that allow for more diversity and possibilities of use. In fact white frame memes are not even the meme it's just a system to set up the meme in a simple, easy manner. LMAOOOO0, QUIT CRYING ABOUT YOUR LOW-EFFOR LOW- QUALITY MEMES BEING BANNED! MODS ARE DOING THIS SO THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T BECOME white frame with the STALE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE for example, phrase "are you a jojo fan?" and then a picture of avdol making the pose and saying "yes, i am!": the meme there is not the white frame setup, it's the "yes i am" with the picture of Avdol part. The white frame is just the setup BAN WHY DON'T YOU JUST START YOUR OWN SUBREDDIT!? IT'S JUST THE WEEKDAYS GUYS, THEY ARE NOT REAAAAALLY BANNED. I PREFER IT WHEN MODS MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR US, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOD- LIKE CREATURES WITH NO FLAWS IN JUDGEMENT! therefore the ban, even if it's only on weekdays, is kinda dumb and will harm the subreddit, since it only results in the users posting less memes because they don't find a way to phrase correctly the meme they thought about, or the subreddit being flooded with them on Saturday because they have been saving them for the weekend Mods should offer a public poll to decide what memes get banned so they can listen to the redditors and act accordingly LOOOO000L THIS IS CENSORSHIP! MODS GAY! IF THEY BANNED THIS MEME WHY ISN'T *insert other meme here* BANNED?! YOU ONLY LIKE THE BAN BECAUSE IT'S LESS COMPETITION FOR YOUR SHITTY MEMES! MODS ARE MONSTER DICTATORS FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING GOOD WHEN THEY ARE NOT BEING USELESS! Having said th is, there is no reason to insult mods, they are doing what they believe will make the subreddit better, even if they are wrong in their choices, just kindly point out your opinion, i'm sure they would be willing to listen to the users if they are shown that people are not happy with their choices whatever you do, don't be like joshu.
Be Like, Community, and Crying: No meme format is by itself a low effort
 format, and the white frame is one of
 the ones that allow for more diversity
 and possibilities of use. In fact white
 frame memes are not even the meme
 it's just a system to set up the meme in
 a simple, easy manner.
 LMAOOOO0, QUIT CRYING
 ABOUT YOUR LOW-EFFOR LOW-
 QUALITY MEMES BEING BANNED!
 MODS ARE DOING THIS SO THE
 COMMUNITY DOESN'T BECOME
 white frame with the
 STALE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE
 for example,
 phrase "are you a jojo fan?" and then a
 picture of avdol making the pose and
 saying "yes, i am!": the meme there is
 not the white frame setup, it's the "yes
 i am" with the picture of Avdol part. The
 white frame is just the setup
 BAN WHY DON'T YOU JUST
 START YOUR OWN SUBREDDIT!?
 IT'S JUST THE WEEKDAYS GUYS,
 THEY ARE NOT REAAAAALLY
 BANNED. I PREFER IT WHEN
 MODS MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR
 US, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOD-
 LIKE CREATURES WITH NO
 FLAWS IN JUDGEMENT!
 therefore the ban, even if it's only on
 weekdays, is kinda dumb and will harm
 the subreddit, since it only results in the
 users posting less memes because
 they don't find a way to phrase
 correctly the meme they thought about,
 or the subreddit being flooded with
 them on Saturday because they have
 been saving them for the weekend
 Mods should offer a public poll to
 decide what memes get banned so
 they can listen to the redditors and act
 accordingly
 LOOOO000L THIS IS
 CENSORSHIP! MODS GAY! IF
 THEY BANNED THIS MEME WHY
 ISN'T *insert other meme here*
 BANNED?! YOU ONLY LIKE THE
 BAN BECAUSE IT'S LESS
 COMPETITION FOR YOUR SHITTY
 MEMES! MODS ARE MONSTER
 DICTATORS FROM THE DEPTHS
 OF HELL WHO CAN'T DO
 ANYTHING GOOD WHEN THEY
 ARE NOT BEING USELESS!
 Having said th is, there is no reason to
 insult mods, they are doing what they
 believe will make the subreddit better,
 even if they are wrong in their choices,
 just kindly point out your opinion, i'm
 sure they would be willing to listen to
 the users if they are shown that people
 are not happy with their choices
whatever you do, don't be like joshu.

whatever you do, don't be like joshu.

Be Like, Community, and Crying: No meme format is by itself a low effort format, and the white frame is one of the ones that allow for more diversity and possibilities of use. In fact white frame memes are not even the meme it's just a system to set up the meme in a simple, easy manner. LMAOOOO0, QUIT CRYING ABOUT YOUR LOW-EFFOR LOW- QUALITY MEMES BEING BANNED! MODS ARE DOING THIS SO THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T BECOME white frame with the STALE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE for example, phrase "are you a jojo fan?" and then a picture of avdol making the pose and saying "yes, i am!": the meme there is not the white frame setup, it's the "yes i am" with the picture of Avdol part. The white frame is just the setup BAN WHY DON'T YOU JUST START YOUR OWN SUBREDDIT!? IT'S JUST THE WEEKDAYS GUYS, THEY ARE NOT REAAAAALLY BANNED. I PREFER IT WHEN MODS MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR US, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOD- LIKE CREATURES WITH NO FLAWS IN JUDGEMENT! therefore the ban, even if it's only on weekdays, is kinda dumb and will harm the subreddit, since it only results in the users posting less memes because they don't find a way to phrase correctly the meme they thought about, or the subreddit being flooded with them on Saturday because they have been saving them for the weekend Mods should offer a public poll to decide what memes get banned so they can listen to the redditors and act accordingly LOOOO000L THIS IS CENSORSHIP! MODS GAY! IF THEY BANNED THIS MEME WHY ISN'T *insert other meme here* BANNED?! YOU ONLY LIKE THE BAN BECAUSE IT'S LESS COMPETITION FOR YOUR SHITTY MEMES! MODS ARE MONSTER DICTATORS FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING GOOD WHEN THEY ARE NOT BEING USELESS! Having said th is, there is no reason to insult mods, they are doing what they believe will make the subreddit better, even if they are wrong in their choices, just kindly point out your opinion, i'm sure they would be willing to listen to the users if they are shown that people are not happy with their choices whatever you do, don't be like joshu.
Be Like, Community, and Crying: No meme format is by itself a low effort
 format, and the white frame is one of
 the ones that allow for more diversity
 and possibilities of use. In fact white
 frame memes are not even the meme
 it's just a system to set up the meme in
 a simple, easy manner.
 LMAOOOO0, QUIT CRYING
 ABOUT YOUR LOW-EFFOR LOW-
 QUALITY MEMES BEING BANNED!
 MODS ARE DOING THIS SO THE
 COMMUNITY DOESN'T BECOME
 white frame with the
 STALE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE
 for example,
 phrase "are you a jojo fan?" and then a
 picture of avdol making the pose and
 saying "yes, i am!": the meme there is
 not the white frame setup, it's the "yes
 i am" with the picture of Avdol part. The
 white frame is just the setup
 BAN WHY DON'T YOU JUST
 START YOUR OWN SUBREDDIT!?
 IT'S JUST THE WEEKDAYS GUYS,
 THEY ARE NOT REAAAAALLY
 BANNED. I PREFER IT WHEN
 MODS MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR
 US, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOD-
 LIKE CREATURES WITH NO
 FLAWS IN JUDGEMENT!
 therefore the ban, even if it's only on
 weekdays, is kinda dumb and will harm
 the subreddit, since it only results in the
 users posting less memes because
 they don't find a way to phrase
 correctly the meme they thought about,
 or the subreddit being flooded with
 them on Saturday because they have
 been saving them for the weekend
 Mods should offer a public poll to
 decide what memes get banned so
 they can listen to the redditors and act
 accordingly
 LOOOO000L THIS IS
 CENSORSHIP! MODS GAY! IF
 THEY BANNED THIS MEME WHY
 ISN'T *insert other meme here*
 BANNED?! YOU ONLY LIKE THE
 BAN BECAUSE IT'S LESS
 COMPETITION FOR YOUR SHITTY
 MEMES! MODS ARE MONSTER
 DICTATORS FROM THE DEPTHS
 OF HELL WHO CAN'T DO
 ANYTHING GOOD WHEN THEY
 ARE NOT BEING USELESS!
 Having said th is, there is no reason to
 insult mods, they are doing what they
 believe will make the subreddit better,
 even if they are wrong in their choices,
 just kindly point out your opinion, i'm
 sure they would be willing to listen to
 the users if they are shown that people
 are not happy with their choices
whatever you do, don't be like joshu.

whatever you do, don't be like joshu.

Snow, Team, and First: Recruiting my team for the first annual Snow Fort Building Competition!
Snow, Team, and First: Recruiting my team for the first annual Snow Fort Building Competition!

Recruiting my team for the first annual Snow Fort Building Competition!