China expanding surveillance state is a dream come true for true power and utopia

[Leagon]

To me, this just shows the major difference in the feminine and masculine concept of freedom, which can never truly be made compatible with one another. At best, we can reach a healthy medium.

The feminine concept of freedom is freedom from responsibility, while the masculine concept of freedom is the freedom to assume responsibility.

The cost of having absolute freedom from responsibility, is to live under tyranny, and to have the government assume all responsibilities, like in Saudi Arabia, and other such places.

I like your gendered model, but the conclusion only makes sense if you believe that women prefer to live under tyranny. Which would imply that men prefer to be tyrants. I don't really see it that way.

 

[TheGreatA]

Ah, yes, makes sense. All the underprivileged people that exist in places you've never been to are truly downtrodden by oppressive regimes, but the underpriveleged people that you see first hand are loser, victimized scam artists who will never succeed even though nothing bad has ever happened to them.

The underprivileged people in China are well and truly oppressed, that's a fact that has been well-fucking-established by now. Stop serving as an apologist for tyranny. Or do you want to question the data presented by virtually all human rights organizations?

All the underprivileged people that I see first hand are not loser victimized scam artists. But some are. And to such people, the continuation of their self-belief in absolute, undeniable victimhood, is more important than the plights of foreign minorities, which serve to question whether such a person is truly the "absolute" victim after all.

The people I was talking about have lived in China for a long time. There are many industries in which foreigners are preferred.

They are preferred for as long as their native Chinese are unable to do such jobs properly. Once they have brought up a generation of Chinese capable of doing those jobs, good-bye to the foreigners.

Has happened to plenty of industries already. Let's not be blind to that fact.

 

[Madmick]

This has nothing to do with my post. If you're not going to respond to what I actually say, we can't really discuss.

I don't understand why you're playing stupid. My posts are quite focused and comprehensible. Is the point of this to establish that you are anti-#BLM, and that I have mistakenly presumed your sympathies based on past comments/conversations?

If so, kudos to you, sir, for your enlightened race-blind approach to security, and now we can return to the central tension here of liberty vs. security. This arose because you asserted that we in the West are victims of so much propaganda about China, and you can testify to this because when lived in China it was so safe. Personally, I was a bit confused by that, because I don't understand what lies I'm being told, or how that relates to violent/property crime in China.

Are they not forcing the installation of that app? Are they not developing this surveillance biometric? Furthermore, is there some sort of special knowledge about the veracity of these things gleaned by strolling through a park at night in the middle of some Chinese city?

 

[TheGreatA]

I like your gendered model, but the conclusion only makes sense if you believe that women prefer to live under tyranny. Which would imply that men prefer to be tyrants. I don't really see it that way.

It's not that women or men prefer to live under tyranny. Anyone can prefer to live under tyranny. But women, as a whole, due to their nurturing tendency, leading to a greater emphasis on safety over risk-taking, flight over fight, do have it "easier" in living under tyranny than the men, as long as their personal safety is guaranteed. And men, as a whole, do prefer to be the tyrant, than to live under the tyrant. That is quite obvious.

But that doesn't mean that a man cannot operate under the feminine concept of freedom, and sacrifice his liberties to guarantee a degree of safety, or that a woman cannot operate under the masculine concept of freedom, assuming greater responsibility at the cost of her safety. It's just that tendencies in each gender, as a collective, prompt them towards doing the opposite. That is why I separate the concepts based on their esteemed femininity, or masculinity.

Individuals can differ, and always have.

 

[Leagon]

The underprivileged people in China are well and truly oppressed, that's a fact that has been well-fucking-established by now. Stop serving as an apologist for tyranny. Or do you want to question the data presented by virtually all human rights organizations?

All the underprivileged people that I see first hand are not loser victimized scam artists. But some are. And to such people, the continuation of their self-belief in absolute, undeniable victimhood, is more important than the plights of foreign minorities.



They are preferred for as long as their native Chinese are unable to do such jobs properly. Once they have brought up a generation of Chinese capable of doing those jobs, good-bye to the foreigners.

Has happened to plenty of industries already. Let's not be blind to that fact.

Just because you think something is a fact doesn't mean it is.

You can believe whatever you want, though. But you don't seem to see the flaw in your view of oppressed people. It's classic attribution error.

 

[Leagon]

I don't understand why you're playing stupid. My posts are quite focused and comprehensible. Is the point of this to establish that you are anti-#BLM, and that I have mistakenly presumed your sympathies based on past comments/conversations?

If so, kudos to you, sir, for your enlightened race-blind approach to security, and now we can return to the central tension here of liberty vs. security. This arose because you asserted that we in the West are victims of so much propaganda about China, and you can testify to this because when lived in China it was so safe. Personally, I was a bit confused by that, because I don't understand what lies I'm being told, or how that relates to violent/property crime in China.

Are they not forcing the installation of that app? Are they not developing this surveillance biometric? Furthermore, is there some sort of special knowledge about the veracity of these things gleaned by strolling through a park at night in the middle of some Chinese city?

You do this a lot. You go on the sudden, unhinged offensives wherein you seem to have limited access to the actual substance of the conversation. Ironically, you did it in that post you linked to (in which BLM isn't mentioned at all).

I never said that I can attest to Western propaganda because China was safe. There is no causal relationship between those two points and I never made one. That is entirely your brain doing what it do.

 

[Leagon]

It's not that women or men prefer to live under tyranny. Anyone can prefer to live under tyranny. But women, as a whole, due to their nurturing tendency, leading to a greater emphasis on safety over risk-taking, flight over fight, do have it "easier" in living under tyranny than the men, as long as their personal safety is guaranteed. And men, as a whole, do prefer to be the tyrant, than to live under the tyrant. That is quite obvious.

But that doesn't mean that a man cannot operate under the feminine concept of freedom, and sacrifice his liberties to guarantee a degree of safety, or that a woman cannot operate under the masculine concept of freedom, assuming greater responsibility at the cost of her safety. It's just that tendencies in each gender, as a collective, prompt them towards doing the opposite. That is why I separate the concepts based on their esteemed femininity, or masculinity.

Individuals can differ, and always have.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm a bit confused by your use of "tyranny" here. It has a lot of negativr connotations and I can't tell if you are invoking them. Would you be willing to replace it with a less negatively connoted word or is tyranny the more precise term you're intending?

Your current presentation almost presents tyranny as a default condition.

 

[TheGreatA]

Just because you think something is a fact doesn't mean it is.

You can believe whatever you want, though. But you don't seem to see the flaw in your view of oppressed people. It's classic attribution error.

I will gladly admit any flaws in my views, if they are pointed out. But I don't see how they are being pointed out.

A caricature strawman of my views on the subject, does not prompt me to believe that I'm somehow incorrect.

I'm just saying that the cost of running those "fine" cities in China, is pretty steep. And much of that "cost" is the complete and utter disregard of any "minority" opinion.

China is one of the purest examples of utilitarian majority rule. Sure, it works, it's effective, but I'm not sure if a member of a minority group, should look towards them as a leading example.

 

[Leagon]

I will gladly admit any flaws in my views, if they are pointed out. But I don't see how they are being pointed out.

A caricature strawman of my views on the subject, does not prompt me to believe that I'm somehow incorrect.

I'm just saying that the cost of running those "fine" cities in China, is pretty steep. And much of that "cost" is the complete and utter disregard of any "minority" opinion.

China is one of the purest examples of utilitarian majority rule. Sure, it works, it's effective, but I'm not sure if a member of a minority group, should look towards them as a leading example.

I've been a minority in both China and the US. Utilitarian majority rule is not, by design, exceptionally oppressive to minorities. It depends on the values of the majority and the nature of the minority.

Attribution error perfectly explains your flawed reasoning on this: the underpriveleged groups with which you are most familiar are not simply underprivileged. They are complex and have reached their position due to many overlapping factors. Whereas the underprivileged groups with which you are least familiar are just as they appear to be.

 

[TheGreatA]

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm a bit confused by your use of "tyranny" here. It has a lot of negativr connotations and I can't tell if you are invoking them. Would you be willing to replace it with a less negatively connoted word or is tyranny the more precise term you're intending?

Your current presentation almost presents tyranny as a default condition.

Tyranny is the default condition. It has taken us quite a bit of work, to carve out a level of freedom for ourselves, from under tyranny. When it wasn't other humans that dictated our lives, then before it all was nature, forcing us to obey its will.

Take away the technological advancements, which we have largely steered towards the further enhancement of individual freedom here in the West (unlike in China's case), and the liberties disappear into thin air. It's extremely important, atleast to me, that technology is not used for the purpose that the Chinese are using it, purely for the purpose of maintaining societal "stability" and "order".

 

[Leagon]

Tyranny is the default condition. It has taken us quite a bit of work, to carve out a level of freedom for ourselves, from under tyranny. When it wasn't other humans that dictated our lives, then before it all was nature, forcing us to obey its will.

Take away the technological advancements, which we have largely steered towards the further enhancement of individual freedom here in the West (unlike in China's case), and the liberties disappear into thin air. It's extremely important, atleast to me, that technology is not used for the purpose that the Chinese are using it.

Fair.

If we're on this train, I'd argue that tyranny is the default condition because safety, or the freedom from responsibility, has been far more valued than freedom, or the freedom to assume responsibility, for most of humanity. The idea that people should be "free" is rather novel and actually results in pretty poor situations for most people most of the time, hence constant regulation of the "free" market and the rampant poverty in "free" Africa.

This touches on what I was discussing with another poster. If you have to dig a well to get your own water, is that freedom? If someone could take a bit of your freedom by assuming responsibility for the consistency and cleanliness of your water, would you be willing to give that away for the security of clean, constant water?

This is why I think "tyranny" has the wrong connotations for this scenario. When someone takes responsibilities from me, it doesn't make me helpless; it actually and literally frees me up to do the things that I really want to do. I think the feminine model understands that. Slavery is tyranny, and slaves are responsible for every second of their survival. I think sometimes the masculine model doesn't understand that.

 

[TheGreatA]

I've been a minority in both China and the US. Utilitarian majority rule is not, by design, exceptionally oppressive to minorities. It depends on the values of the majority and the nature of the minority.

Attribution error perfectly explains your flawed reasoning on this: the underpriveleged groups with which you are most familiar are not simply underprivileged. They are complex and have reached their position due to many overlapping factors. Whereas the underprivileged groups with which you are least familiar are just as they appear to be.

You were a privileged Western visitor in China. Can't honestly draw your conclusions on how China treats its minorities, based on that.

Ask the Tibetans or the Uyghurs, about what they think of China's "utilitarian" rule.

The reason people feel "safe" in China, is because the criminal element gets smashed with utter contempt and disregard for their rights as citizens. They have none. Criminals, sentenced to death by courts controlled by the communist party, are taken to vans, and executed on sight. Their organs are often harvested and sold.

The Soviet Union was also a relatively safe country during its existence, compared to modern-day Russia. And we all know about the costs of keeping that place "safe".

 

[Leagon]

You were a privileged Western visitor in China. Can't honestly draw your conclusions on how China treats its minorities, based on that.

Ask the Tibetans or the Uyghurs, about what they think of China's "utilitarian" rule.

The reason people feel "safe" in China, is because the criminal element gets smashed with utter contempt and disregard for their rights as citizens. They have none. Criminals, sentenced to death by courts controlled by the communist party, are taken to vans, and executed on sight. Their organs are often harvested and sold.

The Soviet Union was also a relatively safe country during its existence, compared to modern-day Russia. And we all know about the costs of keeping that place "safe".

And in America, I'm educated and well paid and literate. I have plenty of privileges here.

Everyone likes to talk about Chinese muslims as if they are the only minority in China. How does China treat its Africans? How does China treat it's South Americans? Jews? Mentally ill? Disabled? Veterans?

The only reason people feel safe in America, it could be argued, is because we, and our closest ally, England, have spent decades/centuries destabilizing major regions of the world to maintain our global influence, which allows us to exploit those regions with impunity so that we can live in wealth and comfort.

The only reason a bear cub feels safe is because it's mother is a thousand pound killing machine.

Safety is a very difficult thing to provide. When people have it, they rarely care how it came about.

 

[Madmick]

You do this a lot. You go on the sudden, unhinged offensives wherein you seem to have limited access to the actual substance of the conversation. Ironically, you did it in that post you linked to (in which BLM isn't mentioned at all).

I never said that I can attest to Western propaganda because China was safe. There is no causal relationship between those two points and I never made one. That is entirely your brain doing what it do.

Then why mention propaganda at all? What relevance does that have to this topic if you aren't going to bring it to bear in the conversation?

I countered your own anecdote of not being molested by the police with an Atlantic article about authority abuse, and buttressed that with video evidence of their freaking food inspectors stomping on citizens's head and bulldozing people's businesses with impunity.

Your ultimate sentiment was that the Chinese are "far ahead of us...in ways that we won't realize until we're far, far behind." This includes "morally", a conclusion anchored by the preceding paragraph which marvels at China's ability to keep itself safe despite its population size and gender imbalance, and even suggesting a link here to their rapid economic development. You then go on to assert that anybody who perceives their system as "totalitarian" or "backwards" is "probably going to be very confused..." because it is a "vastly superior, far more intelligent system".

Knowledge gleaned from the experience of a glorified vacation with a western-stamped passport.

I lived in China last year. It is the safest country that I've ever been to. That in and of itself isn't particularly impressive, but when you factor in the fact that they have over 4 times the US population and a society with an imbalance of males, many of whom are single and many of whom have few job prospects--and you compare that to the events in America and, recently, Canada in which similarly young men have wreaked tragedy on innocent people--and the fact that their society functions at all is a goddamn miracle. Not only is it safe and functioning, but the country is thriving and has made faster economic and quality of life gains in the last few decades than any country in recorded history.

My point is that I left there with the impression that they were, in fact, far ahead of us--morally, organizationally, intellectually, competitively--in ways that we won't realize until we're far, far behind. Their success is not an accident, and anyone who looks at their system and thinks they are dumb or totalitarian or backwards is probably going to be very confused very soon.

I was never hassled by police there. Not once. I rarely even saw police. I can't say the same about America. I was free--both financially and legally--to travel in and out of China without hassle. Again, I can't say the same about America.

Again, the people who think it is a totalitarian or authoritarian state are going to be really surprised. They aren't using the model we've been told they're using. They're using a vastly superior, far more intelligent system. I think we'd be smarter to adapt it for our own purposes than criticize it, but I think Western propaganda is very powerful and most Westerners will always rationalize that our systems are better, even when the evidence very obviously says otherwise.

It appears I'll have to draw a map so that you can connect-the-dots of my thoughts. I did not struggle to understand yours.

Forcing people to communicate the entirety of their smartphone data to the State isn't "totalitarian"? I assert that it is. Selectively and aggressively surveilling their most densely Muslim population without regard for civil rights or widespread dissent isn't something that a pro-#BLM liberal would regard as politically regressive i.e. "backwards"? I assert that they would.

So explain to me. How am I confused?

I don't think you're upset that I cannot "access" the substance of the conversation. I think you're upset because I understand the indications of your own language better than yourself, just how phenomenally ignorant these utterances are, and how shallow your consideration of these matters has been.

 

[TheGreatA]

Fair.

If we're on this train, I'd argue that tyranny is the default condition because safety, or the freedom from responsibility, has been far more valued than freedom, or the freedom to assume responsibility, for most of humanity. The idea that people should be "free" is rather novel and actually results in pretty poor situations for most people most of the time, hence constant regulation of the "free" market and the rampant poverty in "free" Africa.

This touches on what I was discussing with another poster. If you have to dig a well to get your own water, is that freedom? If someone could take a bit of your freedom by assuming responsibility for the consistency and cleanliness of your water, would you be willing to give that away for the security of clean, constant water?

This is why I think "tyranny" has the wrong connotations for this scenario. When someone takes responsibilities from me, it doesn't make me helpless; it actually and literally frees me up to do the things that I really want to do. I think the feminine model understands that. Slavery is tyranny, and slaves are responsible for every second of their survival. I think sometimes the masculine model doesn't understand that.

The problem with the feminine ideal of freedom is that it often assumes that an individual is not capable of fulfilling even his or her most base responsibilities. And the further we descend down that path, the more incapable we truly become of fulfilling them. A domesticated farm animal is taken care of, and lives a relatively secure and stable life, but I do not think anyone would pretend that it is more "free" than the wild animal. Even if it may be less responsible for its own existence. Given enough time, the animal that lives in the farm, is no longer even capable of being "free" in the wilderness, and can only continue to exist under others' care. Is that how we wish to live?

To have someone else carry your water, for a reward, is a mutually beneficial trade deal. To have someone else carry your water, because it is assumed that you are unable to do it as a man, is pity. An inequal deal where one has no bargaining worth whatsoever, outside of an appeal to continued sympathy. And once the pity runs out, you may no longer have anyone carrying your water.

That's a bad situation to be in. It's better for us to assume that we are, at the end of the day, individually responsible for ourselves, to prevent others from having complete and utter control over our lives.

Compromises will always have to be made from our existence, for practical purposes, leading us to secure our well-being in exchange for a liberty that we deem unnecessary, but we should never let go of the ideal. To conform to our sense of safety, confines our level of existence.

In these times, especially, we should never allow ourselves to succumb to our innate wish for increased security. Think of what the past generations went through, and how they still reached for liberty, even through World Wars, starvations, disease, constant threat of violence. Had they simply been content to live under a "benevolent" tyrant, securing their well-being, as the Chinese are, we would have never reached this point. No democracy, no minority rights, nothing.

The level of violence today is bad, but it is menial compared to what the previous generations have dealt with. It is not worth derailing ourselves from the path that we've chosen, here in the West.

 

[Leagon]

Then why mention propaganda at all? What relevance does that have to this topic if you aren't going to bring it to bear in the conversation?

I countered your own anecdote of not being molested by the police with an Atlantic article about authority abuse, and buttressed that with video evidence of their freaking food inspectors stomping on citizens's head and bulldozing people's businesses with impunity.

Your ultimate sentiment was that the Chinese are "far ahead of us...in ways that we won't realize until we're far, far behind." This includes "morally", a conclusion anchored by the preceding paragraph which marvels at China's ability to keep itself safe despite its population and gender imbalance, and even suggesting a link here to their rapid economic development. You then go on to assert that anybody who perceives their system as "totalitarian" or "backwards" is "probably going to be very confused..." because it is a "vastly superior, far more intelligent system".

Knowledge gleaned from the experience of a glorified vacation with a western-stamped passport.


It appears I'll have to draw a map so that you can connect-the-dots of my thoughts. I did not struggle to understand yours.

Forcing people to communicate the entirety of their smartphone data to the State isn't "totalitarian"? I assert that it is. Selectively and aggressively surveilling their most densely Muslim population without regard for civil rights or widespread dissent isn't something that a pro-#BLM liberal would regard as politically regressive i.e. "backwards"? I assert that they would.

So explain to me. How am I confused?

I don't think you're upset that I cannot "access" the substance of the conversation. I think you're upset because I understand the indications of your own language better than yourself, just how phenomenally ignorant these utterances are, and how shallow your consideration of these matters has been.

Oh geez. Okay, this again.

You used that same line last time. The idea that you understand the implications of my position better than I do. I think the result is that you make these long rants respond to implications that you believe you have correctly interpreted rather than responding to what I'm actually saying.

I don't have this problem with any of the other posters I consider intelligent, so either you're honestly at a level of intelligence that is a notch above posters such as Zankou, Pan, InternetHero, etc, or you're a bit of a presumptive asshole. I'm genuinely open to either being possible, but your aggressiveness leads me toward the latter.

For example, I said there was no causal relationship between my mention of propaganda and my mention of China's safety. Your response is to ask why, then, I mentioned propaganda at all. Again, maybe you're operating at a higher level, but that seems to me like you either didn't read my comment before responding or you're not understanding what I'm saying. Not all comments in a post must relate to the same point.

If a third party can weigh in on this could help translate, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Leagon]

The problem with the feminine ideal of freedom is that it often assumes that an individual is not capable of fulfilling even his or her most base responsibilities. And the further we descend down that path, the more incapable we truly become of fulfilling them. A domesticated farm animal is taken care of, and lives a relatively secure and stable life, but I do not think anyone would pretend that it is more "free" than the wild animal. Even if it may be less responsible for its own existence. Given enough time, the animal that lives in the farm, is no longer even capable of being "free" in the wilderness, and can only continue to exist under others' care. Is that how we wish to live?

To have someone else carry your water, for a reward, is a mutually beneficial trade deal. To have someone else carry your water, because it is assumed that you are unable to do it as a man, is pity. An inequal deal where one has no bargaining worth whatsoever, outside of an appeal to continued sympathy. And once the pity runs out, you may no longer have anyone carrying your water.

That's a bad situation to be in. It's better for us to assume that we are, at the end of the day, individually responsible for ourselves, to prevent others from having complete and utter control over our lives.

Compromises will always have to be made from our existence, for practical purposes, leading us to secure our well-being in exchange for a liberty that we deem unnecessary, but we should never let go of the ideal. To conform to our sense of safety, confines our level of existence.

In these times, especially, we should never allow ourselves to succumb to our innate wish for increased security. Think of what the past generations went through, and how they still reached for liberty, even through World Wars, starvations, disease, constant threat of violence. Had they simply been content to live under a "benevolent" tyrant, securing their well-being, as the Chinese are, we would have never reached this point. No democracy, no minority rights, nothing.

The level of violence today is bad, but it is menial compared to what the previous generations have dealt with. It is not worth derailing ourselves from the path that we've chosen, here in the West.

Of course. But what about the problem with the masculine ideal of freedom?

 

[TheGreatA]

Everyone likes to talk about Chinese muslims as if they are the only minority in China. How does China treat its Africans? How does China treat it's South Americans? Jews? Mentally ill? Disabled? Veterans?

The number of Africans, Jews, South Americans, etc. in China are too miniscule to note. We speak of Muslims because they are one of the few substantial ethnic minorities that China have. Also because of how comically tyrannically they treat them, literally to the point of not allowing them to grow beards.

The only reason people feel safe in America, it could be argued, is because we, and our closest ally, England, have spent decades/centuries destabilizing major regions of the world to maintain our global influence, which allows us to exploit those regions with impunity so that we can live in wealth and comfort.

Maybe so. But perhaps it was all for nothing. Finland never had to destabilize anybody. Finland never needed any global influence. They're still doing just fine.

Perhaps an enormous "con" has been pulled at the expense of Americans, which has made them think that they're dependent on what others have provided for them. America is one of the most resource-rich regions on the Earth. They do not truly have a need for anyone else, in order to live a good life. A cabal of elites has led the Americans to think that they must continue to interfere with the affairs of others, to continue enabling their living standards.

Americans don't need anybody. They're fine on their own. It's the rest of the world that has got to look out for itself, if America decides to pull out of foreign affairs. Many have grown fully dependent on America as a provider.

The only reason a bear cub feels safe is because it's mother is a thousand pound killing machine.

Safety is a very difficult thing to provide. When people have it, they rarely care how it came about.

Not that difficult. You only have to be a thousand pound killing machine.

People in general might not care, but we should.

 

[TheGreatA]

Of course. But what about the problem with the masculine ideal of freedom?

The problems are numerical, but I honestly don't think that it's going to hurt any of us if we lean towards that side a little bit more than we have in recent times.

Just never be fooled into thinking that being part of a rigged system, designated for others to win, is somehow the measure of "being a man" or having freedom. I'm not here to defend robber-baron capitalism. Too long, have we allowed ourselves to sully the ideal of freedom, by having it represented by the lowest kind of scammers and conmen, with no moral base. A man who works 10 hours a day, to struggle to put a living on his table, is not being a "man". He's just being fucked over.

It is making many people yearn for the other kind of freedom, one where they'll be taken "care of". Unfortunately.

 

[Leagon]

The number of Africans, Jews, South Americans, etc. in China are too miniscule to note. We speak of Muslims because they are one of the few substantial ethnic minorities that China have. Also because of how comically tyrannically they treat them, literally to the point of not allowing them to grow beards.



Maybe so. But perhaps it was all for nothing. Finland never had to destabilize anybody. Finland never needed any global influence. They're still doing just fine.

Perhaps an enormous "con" has been pulled at the expense of Americans, which has made them think that they're dependent on what others have provided for them. America is one of the most resource-rich regions on the Earth. They do not truly have a need for anyone else, in order to live a good life. A cabal of elites has led the Americans to think that they must continue to interfere with the affairs of others, to continue enabling their living standards.

Americans don't need anybody. They're fine on their own. It's the rest of the world that has got to look out for itself, if America decides to pull out of foreign affairs. Many have grown fully dependent on America as a provider.



Not that difficult. You only have to be a thousand pound killing machine.

People in general might not care, but we should.

Except that every non-Muslim country mistreats its Muslims. I agree that China's situation is indeed almost comical, but I don't think it is indicative of how they treat minorities. It's indicative of how much they hate Muslims, lol (or, more accurately, potential/actual political dissent).

With regard to Finland, you can only play the hand you are dealt. America wasn't dealt Finland's hand.

It takes consuming a lot of calories to be a thousand pound killing machine.