The International Schools Review Forum

China is one place that I would absolutely never consider a job, no matter how great the pay. Nope.

@Heliotrope

The PRC dictates to airlines to list the ROC under China, as one example, how is that not control?
Why would they have to conquer something thats already theirs. Should the ROC declare independence over China, I have no doubt China would be victorious in putting down the uprising.

@Illiane_Blues

I woulnt say it in China either and absolutely not in a classroom.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> The PRC dictates to airlines to list the ROC under China, as one example,
> how is that not control?
> Why would they have to conquer something thats already theirs. Should the
> ROC declare independence over China, I have no doubt China would be
> victorious in putting down the uprising.

Well, that just means they control those airlines, not that they control Taiwan. Well, they bully these airlines into compliance by threatening to close their airspace for them if they don't.
It's not theirs, the PRC has never controlled Taiwan. If China wants to collect taxes from the Taiwanese, they really would have conquer it first.
Yes, they would be victorious if they attacked, just like the US would be if they attacked Greenland (since Trump's plan to buy it was met with laughter and a polite 'no'). That doesn't mean the US controls it.

@Heliotrope

If you can dictate the behavior of a . towards another . without consideration or care of that parties position, thats control.
China doesnt collect taxes from HK or Macau those are very clearly part of the PRC.
The US doesnt tell airlines to group them with the USA. China dictates under what heading Taiwan participate in the Olympic games, the US doesnt do that to Greenland.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> If you can dictate the behavior of a . towards another . without
> consideration or care of that parties position, thats control.
> China doesnt collect taxes from HK or Macau those are very clearly part of
> the PRC.

Well, then it's a matter of semantics. China also controls the US, and vice versa.
I would call that influence, not control. I'll happily admit China can influence Taiwan to a certain extent. Just not to the extend they would like, and they don't have dominion over Taiwan.

> The US doesnt tell airlines to group them with the USA. China dictates
> under what heading Taiwan participate in the Olympic games, the US doesnt
> do that to Greenland.

So? The US could easily do that. They have the influence to do so, just choose not to. The US does bully enough other countries in other ways, to obtain certain goals. That doesn't mean they control those countries, it just means just that bullies often get their way, by threat or by force.

@Heliotrope

China doesnt control the US. Its more a matter of definitions, we arent using the same definitions for influence and control, Influence is manipulating someone to cooperate with you.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence
China is directly exerting force, you will participate int h games this way, airlines will be list you as part of our country, thats not influence, thats control. There are different forms of control, we appear to be using different definitions for our terms.

No the US couldnt do that, Trump might think that, but no, regardless the US doesnt do it, and China is. Chinas getting its way, thats control

The airlines choose to change it themselves, China can't make that decision. They can't threaten to close their airspace if they don't, but ultimately the airlines could choose to accept that and not change it. So in my book that's influence. But we can disagree on that.

And yes, the US could absolutely do the same. They would be ridiculed internationally, and perhaps sanctioned by Denmark and some other countries, but they could do it just like China does it.

Let's agree that we disagree.

@Heliotrope

The airlines didnt wake up one day and decide on their own they were going to list TW as part of the PRC. China told them to do that and they did it, thats control.

That not influence, influence is when you motivate or inspire another . to see your way of thinking and reach a similar conclusion as you. This isnt that, this is China getting their way regardless how anyone else feels about it. China said do this or face the consequences there wasnt a meeting of minds.

We disagree.

It's just semantics then.
We indeed disagree.

@Heliotrope

We disagree, but you appear very dismissive of semantics, which I dont share.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> We disagree, but you appear very dismissive of semantics, which I dont
> share.

I'm not dismissive of semantics, but if I see that our disagreement revolves around what 'control' and 'influence' means to you and to me, then we're not really in disagreement, and I don't see the point of discussing it. You're welcome to use those words how you please.

@Heliotrope

We really are in disagreement, as those terms have very different meanings, you disagree with that, thus we disagree.

Yes, semantics.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2720XL

According to Reuters, American teachers could be imprisoned as pawns. Nope, Nope, Nope. Not worth it to take the chance.

@SCQTPY

It doesnt state "American teachers" it states "Americans". China isnt going to go after some ITs to make its statement, its going to detain someone (American) who is, for lack of a better word, 'important'.