Trump gives China one day to end retaliations or face extra 50% tariffs

China expects to outlast US in trade war, alarming Big Tech.

See full article...

 

[Constructor]

China's current system resembles that, in a lot of ways. There's one hell of a lot more meritocracy than the USA has, that's for certain. Is it a perfect meritocracy? No. But they certainly seem to be able to separate wheat from chaff for their governance far more effectively than we ever have.

That is a very low bar in view of current events with the practically complete collapse of any merit-based power distribution in US governance. No wonder even the autocratic and corrupt chinese regime could clear that bar without much difficulty now.

 

[orwelldesign]

That is a very low bar in view of current events with the practically complete collapse of any merit-based power distribution in US governance. No wonder even the autocratic and corrupt chinese regime could clear that bar without much difficulty now.

Just saying: if I had the choice, I'd rather China's autocracy than the USA's. China isn't arbitrary, feckless, or stupid. They've a pretty good idea what they ought to be doing and why, and their actions are now, and will continue to be, rational. "Evil"? Sure, I'll concede that. But I'd rather lawful evil than chaotic stupid any day of the week.

Stupid bugs the crap out of me.

 

[GTROME]

Throw a tantrum. As usual.

You would have been much better assured with Tim…

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

In CJ Cherryh's Cyteen there is a thought experiment in Cyteen governance: there's the "council of nine" which has nine different directorates. Citizens, Defense, Information, Science, etc.

Elections for the Nine? First, citizens are registered in one of the nine directorates, so it's mostly scientists who elect for Science, mostly military who elect for Defense, etc. And... depending on one's professional qualifications and professional position, one's vote can be counted more than a basic vote -- such that, basically, a tenured professor with a PhD, or someone whose employ is at the top levels of scientific inquiry, their vote counts for more. Like an impact score, almost, as we do for academic papers -- so a Berkeley professor's vote counts 10x what Joe Schmo's does for the purposes of electing Science councillors.

China's current system resembles that, in a lot of ways. There's one hell of a lot more meritocracy than the USA has, that's for certain. Is it a perfect meritocracy? No. But they certainly seem to be able to separate wheat from chaff for their governance far more effectively than we ever have.

The chinese found out, or lucked out on one specific thing I keep thinking may be tge sole foundation of their national stability.
Even thousands of years ago, they made education the key to upwards mobility. Several examples exist of prime ministers whose fathers were humble peasants.

That being the case, even under the worst emperors, chinese people have always felt they had a stake in their nation. They could make money if they were good merchants or craftsmen and become upper crust, ennobling themselves and their families, by doing well in the academic trials for the bureaucracy.

And that, to some extent, exists now as well, which is why their tolerance for authoritarian rule is so high, I think. They know that if they hit the books and pull their weight in the party, they too can become part of the ruling order. Deng Xiaoping was the son of peasants, for instance, and when Xi Jinping joined the party he literally lived in a hole in the ground in the boonies.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Just saying: if I had the choice, I'd rather China's autocracy than the USA's. China isn't arbitrary, feckless, or stupid. They've a pretty good idea what they ought to be doing and why, and their actions are now, and will continue to be, rational. "Evil"? Sure, I'll concede that. But I'd rather lawful evil than chaotic stupid any day of the week.

Stupid bugs the crap out of me.

Rather Asmodeus than Cyric.
It's one hell of a choice.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

Rather Asmodeus than Cyric.
It's one hell of a choice.

Just go Juiblex. Push that blind unthinking chaos to the firewall.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Just go Juiblex. Push that blind unthinking chaos to the firewall.

Juiblex already has his champion in the white house, mounted on the gibbering mouther it uses as a steed.

 

[VoidWeaver]

Perhaps your whole existence would benefit from the occasional "whoops, I was wrong about what you said, I didn't read carefully," or an "I'm sorry I told lies about what you said."

Sweet sullen teenage Jesus, you're tedious. Are you stupid, a liar, or a stupid liar? I didn't defend the BEV tariffs. I haven't done so in this discussion, and I haven't done so previously,. You made that up out of whole cloth which is, frankly, disgusting. I hold nothing but contempt for liars, and even more contempt for those who can't read. Rather -- those who just refuse to do so.

What I offered was the stated rationale for those tariffs to exist -- that state subsidy of industry is, in fact, a direct violation of world trade agreements. I also said "we should do that, too, instead of emplacing those tariffs."

Are you less than six months old? A year? That's when object permanence develops, after all, and you don't have any.

But, hey, go on and sit there in your feigned superiority, when the whole community now can see you're a liar who can't read.

((Note to the moderators: maybe this is less polite than it should be, but calling a spade a spade isn't a "personal insult," and it's far more rude to lie about what someone has said than to call a stupid liar a stupid liar.))

You're worthless, VoidWeaver. Discussion absolutely hinges on people being honest about what the other parties in the discussion have said, yet you're firmly unable to do so.

Stop lying, liar. That's not what I said, that's never been what I've said, and rather than say, "oh, sorry, I was wrong" you doubled down on your lies. That's a piece of shit move. And literally everyone but you knows it. You aren't privy to any special insights, and your lack of basic respect for the truth means no one should further engage with you.

Because, as I've said: liars are worthless, and you've just shown everyone that that's exactly what you are, have been, and will be.

Calm yourself. It's interesting to witness how quickly your rhetorical decorum descends into personal histrionics and vehement indignation. My criticism was never about accusing you specifically of directly defending tariffs, it was about your complacency within an echo chamber which consistently and loudly did so. You occupy a comfortable place within this collective, benefiting from and reinforcing its narratives, a fact which is plainly observable to anyone who frequents these discussions.

And while you're quick to denounce perceived misrepresentations, you remain conspicuously silent when your fellow travelers indulge regularly in precisely the sort of rhetorical excesses and distortions you claim to despise. If clarity is truly what you desire, then by all means, let’s be clear: the broader argument here is that the outrage over "dumping" rings hollow when juxtaposed against the vastly more damaging practices still dominating legacy auto in 2025, practices you appear unbothered by, or at the very least, insufficiently vocal about.

Spare me the sanctimony, then. Your evident sensitivity shows more than mere irritation at imagined slights, it reveals a disquieting discomfort with confronting the inconsistencies and contradictions of the collective position you've comfortably inhabited.

 

[orwelldesign]

Calm yourself. It's interesting to witness how quickly your rhetorical decorum descends into personal histrionics and vehement indignation. My criticism was never about accusing you specifically of directly defending tariffs, it was about your complacency within an echo chamber which consistently and loudly did so. You occupy a comfortable place within this collective, benefiting from and reinforcing its narratives, a fact which is plainly observable to anyone who frequents these discussions.

And while you're quick to denounce perceived misrepresentations, you remain conspicuously silent when your fellow travelers indulge regularly in precisely the sort of rhetorical excesses and distortions you claim to despise. If clarity is truly what you desire, then by all means, let’s be clear: the broader argument here is that the outrage over "dumping" rings hollow when juxtaposed against the vastly more damaging practices still dominating legacy auto in 2025, practices you appear unbothered by, or at the very least, insufficiently vocal about.

Spare me the sanctimony, then. Your evident sensitivity shows more than mere irritation at imagined slights, it reveals a disquieting discomfort with confronting the inconsistencies and contradictions of the collective position you've comfortably inhabited.

Nope, I just can't stand liars, and holy hell your language sounds like an LLM trained on Philosophy 101 students mixed with the sort of people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for an MFA from an unaccredited institution.

It's not overly sensitive to be upset when someone lied about what you've said. Which you did do. That's not an imagined slight at all, that's you straight up lying through your teeth, then refusing to back down when called on your bullshit.

I don't take myself all that seriously. I do take inquiry quite seriously, and I can't stand liars. Not your kind of liar, anyway. "Does this dress make me look fat?" Is the sort of question one can lie about.

"VoidWeaver is fundamentally against cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin, and thinks it's all a grand sham perpetrated by the state to allow rubes to think they've got financial autonomy, when it makes them more beholden to Systems than anything"?

That? Every word in that quote is a lie, even the articles and prepositions. And you wouldn't like anyone to say that's what you've said, would you? That you're ars's biggest cryptocurrency skeptic? That you single-handedly demonstrated to this community the folly of their ways, and that, be blessed, you're so glad you could correct their errors and get them to run away from crypto?

I don't think you'd like that very much at all.

And it still would absolutely fucking kill you to say "I'm sorry I misrepresented what you said, Orwell, that wasn't fair of me."

You'd rather spend several paragraphs excusing your shitty behavior than acknowledge that you're a liar who tells lies, apologize, and then stop lying.

Shouldn't be surprising to anyone, at this point. You are so obviously a liar who tells lies that a significant fraction of the community has you on ignore.

But hey, 11/10 masterful trolling, if it's just you, or do tell us what LLM you're using if it isn't -- I've often wondered where to find examples of "flowery complicated language isn't always better than simple direct language." I'll probably cite your posts to my oldest daughter; she's working on her master's and this whole thread is a masterclass on "how to not say much at all using an awful lot of words."

Do go on, though, taking yourself far too seriously, or misrepresenting the output of an LLM as your own. It's got to be one or the other.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

Juiblex already has his champion in the white house, mounted on the gibbering mouther it uses as a steed.

Is that a venerable orange slime going white, or a white pudding that's devoured Chester Cheetah?

 

[GTROME]

You’ll get over it in time...Orwell. Once you understand that there are critical thinkers out side you tiny chorus.

Can I send you my bunny Easter eggs Kit?

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Is that a venerable orange slime going white, or a white pudding that's devoured Chester Cheetah?

I have no idea what the particular species name is of the eldritch horror riding around the stiffly moving withered orange-painted carcass in that image. As with all things Juiblex it may just be better not to ask.

I did anyway, but my usual primary source of all things unknowable just kept shouting "N̸̡̛̳̝͍̠̻̘̼̬͌͌̈́͌͠͝ơ̸͍̩͇̤̘̩̬͍̱̯̖̣͍̯̾̓̾̉͆̓̌̋́͆͜͝p̵͇͇̹̺͊̂́̐̆͂̊͐̿̏̽̋̈́͋͑͜ȅ̴̛͚̲̙̞̭͕͈͍͇͌͑̈́̚͘̕͘!̷̧̛̱͇̝͍̩͉̫͎̪͒̊̍̆̔͆̎͝͠͠ ̷̧̧̧̢̦͚̺̘͖̝̳̰̳̘̓͆́̎̈͛̀̑̀̚̕͠Ň̶̝̬̫̱͕̜̪̩͙͙̈́̍͜ớ̸̭̩̪͍̓̈͂̉̿̄p̴͓̦̦͕̼̙͖͓̼̱̩̦̗̊͌͊͑̌̚͝é̸̛͌͑̀̌̽̾̓̾̉͌̈́͘͝ͅ ̸̨̹̯̞̥̫̺̘̮̦̘̼͖͔͓͑̇̈́̾̆̂̃͒̾͆̉͘n̶̫̩̫̘̩̜͆̾́̌̀͑͐̓͝͠o̷̺̗̠̱̳̘̩͚̒́͛͗͋͛͐́́̕̕͝͝ͅp̴̡̧̢̝̬̗̘̦̩̫͚̳͔̲̉͊̂̈́͗̓͊͂̀̋͛̕ͅe̶͔̭̅͌͝͝ ̷̬̜͎̭̫̬͍̻̺̟͂͆͒̊̅͋̔͝N̶̛̛͖̼̮͍̗̦͕͙͍̓͂̀̈́̾̈́̀͌O̴͗͐̓͊̈́̎͝ͅP̶̢̢̮̦̖̣̩̱̦̲̞̑͊̔̅̇͝E̷͕͉̬̪̱̘͉͈̼̩͆̋̀̑͆̈́̃̚̚ͅ!̶̩̹̬̘̠̳̰̫̰̣̪̝͈̈̓̽͜͝ͅ" through the gate of R'lyeh.

 

[EnPeaSea]

It's not 1985+40

It's Animal Farm Part II

 

[orwelldesign]

You’ll get over it in time...Orwell. Once you understand that there are critical thinkers out side you tiny chorus.

Can I send you my bunny Easter eggs Kit?

Over it? Was already over it, frankly. If voidweaver wants to be a piece of shit liar who tells lies unapologetically, that's much more of a him problem than a me problem.

(And entirely unsurprising, to boot. Y'know what you'll frequently see me post, and what I frequently say IRL? "I'm sorry, I was wrong to say that, and I apologize."

That's what grownups do. Admit fault, apologize, and try to do better in the future.

Of fucking course he can't do that, and it's somehow less surprising to see you white-knighting for a lying buffoon.

 

[VoidWeaver]

Nope, I just can't stand liars, and holy hell your language sounds like an LLM trained on Philosophy 101 students mixed with the sort of people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for an MFA from an unaccredited institution.

It's not overly sensitive to be upset when someone lied about what you've said. Which you did do. That's not an imagined slight at all, that's you straight up lying through your teeth, then refusing to back down when called on your bullshit.

I don't take myself all that seriously. I do take inquiry quite seriously, and I can't stand liars. Not your kind of liar, anyway. "Does this dress make me look fat?" Is the sort of question one can lie about.

"VoidWeaver is fundamentally against cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin, and thinks it's all a grand sham perpetrated by the state to allow rubes to think they've got financial autonomy, when it makes them more beholden to Systems than anything"?

That? Every word in that quote is a lie, even the articles and prepositions. And you wouldn't like anyone to say that's what you've said, would you? That you're ars's biggest cryptocurrency skeptic? That you single-handedly demonstrated to this community the folly of their ways, and that, be blessed, you're so glad you could correct their errors and get them to run away from crypto?

I don't think you'd like that very much at all.

And it still would absolutely fucking kill you to say "I'm sorry I misrepresented what you said, Orwell, that wasn't fair of me."

You'd rather spend several paragraphs excusing your shitty behavior than acknowledge that you're a liar who tells lies, apologize, and then stop lying.

Shouldn't be surprising to anyone, at this point. You are so obviously a liar who tells lies that a significant fraction of the community has you on ignore.

But hey, 11/10 masterful trolling, if it's just you, or do tell us what LLM you're using if it isn't -- I've often wondered where to find examples of "flowery complicated language isn't always better than simple direct language." I'll probably cite your posts to my oldest daughter; she's working on her master's and this whole thread is a masterclass on "how to not say much at all using an awful lot of words."

Do go on, though, taking yourself far too seriously, or misrepresenting the output of an LLM as your own. It's got to be one or the other.

If brevity is what you crave, allow me to offer it now: You are overly sensitive, dramatically indignant, and far too eager to cry foul at a perceived slight rather than engage with the real criticism offered.

 

[orwelldesign]

If brevity is what you crave, allow me to offer it now: You are overly sensitive, dramatically indignant, and far too eager to cry foul at a perceived slight rather than engage with the real criticism offered.

Yo, you absolute meatloaf: you lied about what I said. That's not a perceived slight at all. And still you can't "sorry I misrepresented what you said, that wasn't fair of me."

You could start there. About what I'd expect, though, this sideways evasion and refusal to take personal accountability. That? Surprises me a total of zero percent.

Once a piece of shit liar who tells lies, always such. Only, I had merely suspected that, prior to this latest engagement. Now? Now I know that about you -- that you're a liar, and that no one should trust a word that comes from your mouth. Ever, at all. Because grownups? Real actual adult humans worth the title? Don't have any problem saying "I'm sorry, that wasn't cool of me."

Reminds me of when Sracet said that I said he was a rape apologist. That clown wouldn't back down either. And then he went and found the quote which a) wasn't from me and b) said no such thing regardless. Same thing from him, same bullshit sideways "oh you're so mad, it's a perceived slight, and it's out of proportion."

It takes years to earn trust, and moments to piss it away. Every second you continue to excuse your piece of shit liar behavior, instead of apologizing? We see you, dude unit. Check with your programmers -- you're starting to fail the Turing tests. You're either a malfunctioning LLM or a (very articulate) child.

 

[orwelldesign]

It's fucking wild, isn't it, how it's precisely the people you'd guess that are the ones who refuse to admit they were wrong.

Like they've got so much invested in "being right" that their brains can't admit the possibility they weren't. And it does, weirdly enough, seem to be the same "sort" of people, always.

I guess that's what comes from being governed by dogma rather than rationality -- especially when it's dogma what thinks it's rationality. That, my friends, is dangerous territory. Dogma is dangerous to begin with, but it's unbelievably dangerous when one doesn't recognize it as such.

Oh well: you can't reason someone away from a position they didn't reason themselves into. That? That's literally impossible. C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[GTROME]

It's fucking wild, isn't it, how it's precisely the people you'd guess that are the ones who refuse to admit they were wrong.

Like they've got so much invested in "being right" that their brains can't admit the possibility they weren't. And it does, weirdly enough, seem to be the same "sort" of people, always.

I guess that's what comes from being governed by dogma rather than rationality -- especially when it's dogma what thinks it's rationality. That, my friends, is dangerous territory. Dogma is dangerous to begin with, but it's unbelievably dangerous when one doesn't recognize it as such.

Oh well: you can't reason someone away from a position they didn't reason themselves into. That? That's literally impossible. C'est la vie, I suppose.

Man, you need some healing….who hurt you ?

 

[orwelldesign]

Man, you need some healing….who hurt you ?

Liars. Piece of shit liars and their white knights excusing their piece of shit liar behavior.

How fucking hard is accountability? "I'm sorry, I was wrong, and that wasn't fair of me" just isn't the end of the damn world. Especially if (when) you were, in fact, wrong. When you were, in fact, lying through your teeth.

And here's why: I come here for rational discussion. You can't have a rational discussion with liars who tell lies, because you can't trust anything they say. Not one data point, thereafter. All of a sudden, you have to independently verify everything they say, forever.

It poisons discourse.

Frankly, the white knighting is more offensive than the underlying lie. It's gross, it's bad, and you should feel bad that you're doing that. What you just did? Minimizing valid feelings? Is the behavior of the classic malignant narcissist. I mean, own that shit but don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

At least VoidWeaver has an excuse (admitting you were mistaken can be difficult) but your white knighting and excusing? There's no excuse for that. That's just gross. Icky. I hope the other people in your life recognize you for what you are. That's the best curse there ever could be -- that everyone recognizes you for you.

 

[GTROME]

Breathe man. And get off the ritalin. It’s going to kill you.

I suppose you can say I am a white Knight as I’ve been representing criminal defendants for 30 years. Mostly involving 4th Amendment issues.

My script indulges getting all government out of our lives because our bureaucracy is shit. And government can’t do anything efficiently except maybe courthouses….

 

[orwelldesign]

Breathe man. And get off the ritalin. It’s going to kill you.

I suppose you can say I am a white Knight as I’ve been representing criminal defendants for 30 years. Mostly involving 4th Amendment issues.

My script indulges getting all government out of our lives because our bureaucracy is shit. And government can’t do anything efficiently except maybe courthouses….

I'm fine, in that sense. I'm breathing, I'm on the right side of the dirt, and I'm not a liar who tells lies, nor someone who just cannot say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry."

I hope you represent your clients better than that: "I am a white knight" and "white knighting" aren't the same at all. What you are doing is classic "white knighting," coming to the "aid" of someone who's done something shitty. To what end? That's a genuine question: what do you get out of coming to the defense of a liar? I can see plenty of reasons why OP would defend himself or at least do the shitty dance, the minimization, the pretending that I'm unjustly and unreasonably upset, that it's a perceived slight, rather than an actual slight.

This? This has nothing to do with government. That last paragraph of yours? It's the damn Chewbacca defense. That's not even getting into the fact that government inefficiency is by design -- because people like you have ideological blinders. There's plenty of things where a profit motive doesn't make any sense, and must, necessarily, eff things up. Medicare/Medicaid/MediCal? They're far more efficient than our health industry is otherwise. That's just the facts of it. Far more dollars in those programs go to actual healthcare than in the private insurance business.

You allegedly work in law, right? I mean, I don't believe you for one second, but we'll pretend that's true for a few moments: that whole edifice shows the need for bureaucracy, which isn't a government monopoly regardless. The law, flatly and plainly, doesn't work AT ALL without bureaucracy. You need the clerks. You need the calendars. You need the rules to be known, and for people to follow said rules. You need lawyers to file timely, you need them to do discovery properly, etc.

 

[EnPeaSea]

I suppose you can say I am a white Knight as I’ve been representing criminal defendants for 30 years. Mostly involving 4th Amendment issues.

My script indulges getting all government out of our lives because our bureaucracy is shit. And government can’t do anything efficiently except maybe courthouses….

I assume, when you defend someone you have reasonable certainty is dead-to-rights guilty, your aim is in keeping the prosecution honest, especially given your focus on the 4th Amendment. It should still be a "win" for you that you made the prosecution prove that they did their job correctly. I don't believe your aim is to "let murderer's loose" because I don't want a cop fuck-up to put a person actually innocent of charges in prison. You are part of the bureaucracy, you control against innocent people from being imprisoned at the expense of sometimes letting an evil fothermucker walk.

"Just asking questions" and "devil's advocate" in an internet forum are just disingenuous argument.

Heh, "fothermucker" was a typo of tying too fast, but I'll let it stand.

 

[GTROME]

I assume, when you defend someone you have reasonable certainty is dead-to-rights guilty, your aim is in keeping the prosecution honest, especially given your focus on the 4th Amendment. It should still be a "win" for you that you made the prosecution prove that they did their job correctly. I don't believe your aim is to "let murderer's loose" because I don't want a cop fuck-up to put a person actually innocent of charges in prison. You are part of the bureaucracy, you control against innocent people from being imprisoned at the expense of sometimes letting an evil fothermucker walk.

"Just asking questions" and "devil's advocate" in an internet forum are just disingenuous argument.

Heh, "fothermucker" was a typo of tying too fast, but I'll let it stand.

You make some good points but let me clarify.

About half of my clients are what you would call “guilty”. A lot of them find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. But yes, my job is largely about making sure that law-enforcement and prosecutors abide by our privacy rights and due process. It’s made a lot more difficult because of the fact that law-enforcement lies quite a bit regarding their own cases, I assume because it’s self justified, but nevertheless, nothing is ever done about it.

I am a private lawyer, and in no way am I part of the “bureaucracy“. In fact, clients that have private lawyers actually make the system operate a lot more efficiently as public defenders are pretty much overrun and act on concerns of triage rather than legal strategy.

 

[orwelldesign]

You make some good points but let me clarify.

About half of my clients are what you would call “guilty”. A lot of them find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. But yes, my job is largely about making sure that law-enforcement and prosecutors abide by our privacy rights and due process. It’s made a lot more difficult because of the fact that law-enforcement lies quite a bit regarding their own cases, I assume because it’s self justified, but nevertheless, nothing is ever done about it.

I am a private lawyer, and in no way am I part of the “bureaucracy“. In fact, clients that have private lawyers actually make the system operate a lot more efficiently as public defenders are pretty much overrun and act on concerns of triage rather than legal strategy.

Bureaucracy is a necessary part of the legal process. I am not a lawyer, but I spent several years working as a paralegal, primarily on disability law and ADA cases. Because of this, I'm more familiar with the nuts and bolts of legal procedure than any freshly minted law school graduate. Law schools don't teach the practice of law, rather, the law itself.

You need bureaucracy: you need lawyers to file timely, you need the rules of discovery to be clear and to be followed. You need the appeals process to be clear. Unless plaintiff is appearing pro se, you need the paperwork to be appropriate to the court in question (yes, there's a reason why the proper formatting is required -- not suggested, required) You, if you are indeed a lawyer, already know why that is.

The whole edifice is bureaucratic to the core. You, if you are in fact a lawyer, which I very much doubt, are a daily participant in bureaucracy. It's what makes "your" job possible. Quite literally -- because without that bureaucracy, you end up at summary justice, or at vigilante justice, neither of which are good things.

As far as public defenders? The OPD should, by all that's holy, have just as many resources as the District Attorney. That's the problem with public defenders -- they're underfunded. There isn't any other problem, there.

...

That's neither here nor there with why you jumped in to defend a liar who tells lies. Even if you are an attorney, you're not his attorney, and this isn't a courtroom regardless.

We see the dance away from accountability from you, as well. The sidestepping, the dodging, the refusal to acknowledge. If this were a courtroom, you'd either be held in contempt, or you'd be guilty of malpractice. That? That's on you. That says an awful lot about the kind of person you are -- and none of it is good.