BlueOak

Before I was vegan I barely had any conscious thoughts of animals. I was shoving fast food down my gut every week. For me at least it created a profound shift in awareness. It brought one of the biggest jumps in enlightenment i've had. Both towards my body awareness, diet and animals right down to insects. @PurpleTree Grain + vegetables can be delicious when cooked well with the right sauces. Your cravings come from what you are used to eating. Its a biological reaction that changes.

Now on to Sri Lanka and 'ports' or moving into Africa more broadly. https://theconversation.com/why-china-is-seeking-greater-presence-in-africa-the-strategy-behind-its-financial-deals-238468 or https://nationalinterest.org/feature/takeover-trap-why-imperialist-china-invading-africa-66421 This is perhaps where I have the most problem with everyone say Imperialism, 'what'? Ports and airbases allowing access into Africa and the Middle East is exactly how imperialism is conducted. It's how a trading empire is formed. The replacement of the dollar by a currency BRICS control is the same s*** different day. You think these people are somehow more enlightened and not driven by the exact same 6 human needs we all are? Someone threatens those ports or the resulting resources, and we have a war over it. That's EXACTLY WHAT THE US or EUROPE DOES. They don't go to war because they just feel like it one day. Is it because China has a better image? And isn't as bad as the other guys, because they've only genocided a couple of cultures in the last century? To All: Stop gaslighting and just own it. *I didn't even touch on Myanmar and how when that has a coup with a significant Chinese population, nobody bats an eye. If that were anywhere near a western power every accusation under the sun would be flying.

As you asked, try to broaden the discussion a bit beyond: 'America bad'. Because yes America bad. @Bobby_2021 Chinese Imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism East Turkestan or Xinjiang Conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict Which then followed the genocide of the local population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China Including the use of Xinjiang internment camps Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People's_Republic_of_China Which has led to the erosion of Tibetan culture. https://www.dw.com/en/exiled-leader-says-china-is-erasing-tibetan-culture/a-67659867 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet This is how China slowly moves its borders outward and then wants more until it hits another power stopping it. Belt and Road initiative: Belt and Road Initiative § Accusations of neocolonialism and Debt-trap diplomacy Jeffrey Reeves argues that since 2012, CCP general secretary Xi Jinping has demonstrated "a concerted imperialist policy" towards its developing neighbor states to the south and west, especially Mongolia,[ Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. This is associated with criticism of debt trap diplomacy. East China Sea disputes Further information: East China Sea EEZ disputes With the 1978 Chinese economic reform launched by Deng Xiaoping, China has increased its political stance, its influence and its power abroad. China has increased its influence, while using military and economic wealth and claims to island territories that have caused anxiety in neighbors to the east, such as the Philippines and Japan. South China Sea disputes Further information: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea Nine-dash line The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime claims of China and the claims of several neighboring sovereign states in the region, namely Brunei, the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The disputes are over islands, reefs, banks, and other features in the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands. The main point of criticism is that the PRC is building artificial islands to extend its claims into other nations' territorial waters and militarizing the islands. Chinese salami-slicing strategy and cabbage tactics describe the way the PRC has used small provocations to increase its strategic position.

Whatever part of you is doing that task.

Love Egos. Love is a lower state of consciousness. Someone said it simply. You are everything, including these things. Including everything out there you've ever labelled bad or negative.

There is a radical shift psychologically toward a subject when something is food or not.

@zazen When you talk about all sides worried about their security having reasons to fight or invade 'defensively' (this term is an oxymoron), you are in essence talking about a broader or continuous war in the future. I could agree with your premise but then I am blindly following that course. Because borders will shift, they are not static, so the problem cycles back around. In my view you are also saying its fine to fight these wars with anyone when they are viewed through the lens of preserving the status quo of the state. Anyone can use this justification for almost anything. Yes, lots of people you hate and I also resisted said the exact same thing. I wish I could shake some people in this thread but I can't. I have to watch intelligent, often caring people, twist themselves in knots to 1) Recreate the definition of imperialism or ignore its aspects, like Wagner or any mercenary group in Africa or funding arms, that don't fit neatly into the current world dynamic. 2) Don't factor in spheres of influence; shifting never ends, so they are arguing for perpetual war. 3) Will react negatively when another country does what Russia is doing but justifies it for them. - That's almost everyone here, even leo. Unless we are going to say all three bordering powers in Syria are fine just carving it up. I have and will always criticise the use of force on a state level as a justification for invading another country. Buffer zones seem to be accepted now as the norm, okay well when Russia's western or eastern oblasts rebel I'll just respond with that also. Its so short-sighted when applied universally.

Its also interesting that people forget Russia has spent as much time fighting in Africa and arming regimes this last century as anyone. Their biggest loss in Syria was the airfield and ports to project that power overseas. The Middle east have been something they've influenced for a hundred years, and now China's getting involved in Sri Lanka or building a trading empire in Uruguay. If that's not imperialism then I don't know what is. I also feel every time a democratic coup happens people point fingers, but nobody does it in reverse. It's amusing the hypocrisy I read every day.

@zazen While I agree clarification is helpful, imperialism only needs clarification because its problematic for the current direction the world is moving in, and so people want more room to manoeuvre their latest justifications for violence. In previous centuries when other powers were judged, that definition was fit for purpose. Do you think 1,000 years from now people won't be looking back at it all as barbaric just the same? You are disconnecting things that are naturally connected. Survival leads to security, which leads to wealth and eventually power. Its all one and the same. There is nothing keeping that power in check but other powers. No moral structure which cannot be bent, twisted, or ignored in the pursuit of it. Because all it takes is any one of millions of decisions, from millions of people enacted in policy at the expense of another country or local cultures, building up over time to create that imbalance. Russia frequently takes from its poorer minorities and gives to the Muscovite regions as an example, or just takes over their land ownership. As well as providing security or a buffer, the Ukranian regions are rich in food, ports and resources; where Turkey sits, it becomes the center of the world in a non-globalised reality, and Russia wants direct access or eventually control over much of it. It also wants manpower, because it lacks it and shorter more defensible borders to guard along the coasts and mountain ranges. A war is a war. Defence can be argued to be anything and is frequently argued by those you hate to be why they do what they do. Its been used as the justification for most wars for millennia. So if Europe go to war with Russia over them meddling in Poland and Romania I’ll turn around to you and say Europe is defending its eastern flank from Russia overthrowing their governments. Then people will argue whose sphere it is in. If Russia owns Ukraine you or someone with your view will argue its on their doorstep, and thus justified. Over any length of time where borders or spheres shift, it's all nonsensical, and I really wish that could be agreed upon, but we're still having to go over this, with you or others threading needles to tell me violence on any large scale has any justification whatsoever. People the world over need to handle their own insecurities and resource or security challenges via cooperation and not force. - That means every country. No ifs buts or why nots. It means everyone reading this eats their hatred of the other and does what they can to stop it. China keep expanding their borders, BTW, eradicating problematic cultures or absorbing them. I think it was you who asked me for a list of Chinese wars or atrocities last time? I can list them here if that helps. They have African ambitions for resources, and in the South China Sea, they want to replace the dollar in a trading empire. It’s the same pattern that any power wants to emulate until they meet a force or resistance to it.

That's all anyone ever does. Extend their sphere of influence outward until they can't anymore. All you are saying to me is the proximity makes it less imperialist. Russia is an empire of cultures and provinces, and its trying to extend it. Thus the problem will always be 'close' to hand and never ending. I think England invading ireland or scotland for example was extremely imperialist, and that distance is closer than what we are talking about. It makes little odds where in the world someone is fighting to conquer, only that they are doing it for the people involved. Once Russia gets X country they will push for Y just like everyone else does, its what they've been doing since the 90s and centuries before that. So let's be generous and say 20 years go by, Russia absorbs another culture just like @Scholar says, then considers the land 'Russian' and keeps going again. I think the problem I have with Han and Muscovite cultures specifically is they like to absorb other cultures into themselves (or eradicate 'problematic' cultures in the latter case), thus creating a never-ending problem. The Definition of Imperialism might help: Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.[3][4][5] While related to the concept of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.[6]

1) Without replying USA to me. How can you say Russia isn't imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories? 2) Your mind believes that wars with neighbours over land or influencing spheres are more morally justified than wars over oil or trade. Why? @zazen

@Nilsi I'll drop you a pm as this can take between a couple of sentences or several days to get across to someone, and so not to spam the forum, if any coders want to get in contact feel free to reach out.

Its about numbers. If you walk around in a city you see more women. If you work in customer service you meet more women. If you work outside or travel around more in your job you meet more women. All it usually is about is meeting plenty of women and talking to them. In a rural area this means you meet less people. I have direct experience of both types of locations as well as working in customer service vs a factory or small office for example. I don't buy that anyone in life can't find a woman, its just meeting enough of them.

Some people live in the middle of nowhere. Its is objectively harder to meet women in person in a rural area, especially where transport is limited. I know, i've done it. i remember as a kid, when a single girl moved into our village she usually got swarmed with teenage boys and had a boyfriend by the end of the week. Its also why most of my relationships were distance. Meeting women in a city is easy by comparison of my time in them.

I'll see if this lands a synchronicity. Are any coders interested in partnering with us to make a contracts portal for a percentage? I have some hobbyist knowledge, but honestly, I was just going to save up and drop some money on this, because I don't understand coding databases well enough to pull it off. My business partner is sales focused and nobody else I am looking at recruiting to the team is good at the technical side.