In practice, Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country. It doesn't get to participate in many important international bodies like the UN or WHO, for instance. I get your implied point that this doesn't mean much because it really only matters on the diplomatic level, and true enough a lot of that works out to semantics, such as their having "Economic, Trade, and Cultural Offices" instead of formal embassies despite them doing largely the same thing.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's still a nation-state. It's fully independent and autonomous from China in every sense of the meaning.

Whether other countries recognize your seat at the UN is functionally irrelevant.

[–] randint@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah! Whether other countries let you have a seat in the UN or not is not relevant to sovereignty.

[–] diablexical@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I appreciate this last comment in contrast to the former which glibly compares 24 million peoples national identity beliefs to religious views. Belief in a national identity manifests the identity whereas the other are supernatural sky fairies.

and true enough a lot of that works out to semantics

Not sure what the dispute is then. As things stand, a much more powerful nation uses its influence to deny another representation on a world stage. That doesn't make them "not a country." They rule within their borders and those that live there by and large consider themselves Taiwanese. The OP I replied to was denying this, I think you and I made good points that they are self sovereign.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The dispute at this point is over how we define a country, especially because Taiwan clearly falls in a grey area within that definition. I claim that they are fundamentally unable to exercise their sovereignty given they aren't formally recognized as a country by even their greatest allies and benefactors, thus they fail. You claim that they can fulfill the roles of the state, have a national identity, and have various semantic work-arounds for that fundamental illegitimacy, thus they pass. There's also the question of the legitimacy of their founding, with me saying that the ROC was originally an oppressive colonial military dictatorship, but then you would say that it's been long enough and their government has changed enough that it doesn't matter, then we bicker over what constitutes a democracy.

Ultimately the argument would continue indefinitely and I don't think there's much chance either of us would be convinced by the other.

As an aside, the point of the prior comment was that surveys of beliefs can very easily be detached from reality, and so aren't good evidence for claims.

[–] diablexical@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The dispute at this point is over how we define a country, especially because Taiwan clearly falls in a grey area within that definition. I claim that they are fundamentally unable to exercise their sovereignty given they aren’t formally recognized as a country by even their greatest allies and benefactors, thus they fail. You claim that they can fulfill the roles of the state, have a national identity, and have various semantic work-arounds for that fundamental illegitimacy, thus they pass.

I am willing to agree with you (albeit with some rephrasing there) if you were at least consistent. So, do you consider Palestine to be sovereign or not. I consider them sovereign. I am consistent. For you to be consistent in your views would require you to view Palestine to lack sovereignty. Mind you China recognizes Palestine as sovereign. If you say yes they have sovereignty then it demonstrates you're just trying to bring politics into semantics which in truth is what's going on in this whole thread. A political faction is attempting to coop the language to suit their narrative whether it requires logical consistency or not.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Given that Israel is militarily occupying and actively colonizing Palestine, I would say that Palestine is unable to exercise its sovereignty. Should it be granted more sovereignty? Yes, but that seems as though it will require either the radical reformation or outright destruction of Israel.

[–] diablexical@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"unable to exercise its sovereignty" is falling a bit short so if you'll allow me to put words in your mouth:

Palestine is not a sovereign state.

barrbaric

I think most of the hex bear posters in this thread would not make this statement so kudos to you for being consistent, we agree to disagree on the meaning of sovereign and whether Taiwan and Palestine meet that mark.