(Preferably with sources)
I've overcorrected from "China bad" to "China is infallible." I know that's incorrect, but it's hard to decipher US propaganda from actual issues.
In discussions in the past, providing a positive counterpoint is plenty, but since more folks are already realizing the narrative about China is incorrect I would like to have more nuanced discussions where I can present both praise and criticism. I think it's also important that we don't end up in a USSR situation where Communism is synonymous with the actions of a single country.
- I know they're trading with the genocidal zionist entity. Even if their policy is to be apolitical, that's very bad.
- I'm unsure of what the internal restrictions look like in general
- I saw that the "social credit score" was a small experiment in one province that got way overblown
- Great firewall...? I know it's a thing, iiuc you can use a VPN to get around it, but only ones provided by the state (which could easily backdoor them)?
- Limitations on speech? Do people get disappeared?
- Are they monitoring everyone? "You can't monitor 1.5 billion people" idk computers are pretty fast. Also you can def use big data to find the people you do need to monitor more closely
- Dengism? Reintroducing capitalism looks like a retreat at face value and has the obvious problems of capitalism, but I saw someone on here talking about it being a genius way of deindustrializing capitalist nations while building China's own capacity
Are there others? I'm happy if you also include justification for their policies, but I do want to know where you genuinely think they're making mistakes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Why make your contribution in the first place.....? Still sounds like a waste of time based on your own claims.
On hexbear?
Pushing back on the chauvinism or pushback on criticism of China?
So you are contradicting your last post, okay.
I'm sure you're just as bright of a ray of sunshine in-person.......
Maybe practice what you preach? You seem to be pretty opinionated, and there isn't really any way to verify your experience or knowledge about anything.
This is the inherent problem with telling people to not have opinions without being knowledgeable, how do you determine if someone is knowledgeable without them first sharing opinions on an internet forum.
Uh I just responded to this. Just... read the thing you quoted? I'm happy to repeat things but I'm confused about what you want.
Yep
Pushback on the defense of China.
I'm not actually you just incorrectly described it in the first place. I didn't see a point to correcting it at the time when I could just elaborate with a different phrasing.
Yep I'm great thanks for the compliment.
Oh? What have I been talking about that I haven't investigated?
If there was I would be a bad organizer, sharing sensitive information publicly on the internet. But you're not noting any hypocrisy, my criticism was not requiring verifiability to have a position.
You're wondering how someone could realize whether they've done enough investigation aside from just throwing their opinions out there on an internet forum, no matter how well-studied?
What you said was still contrary to your overall argument.
What does it matter if the pushback is of poor quality compared to the defense. If the defense is well made then people unfamiliar with the subject can still learn.
Sure....
You have no way of proving your opinions on the matter outweigh anyone elses. So why voice you opinion?
Convenient..... "You see my lack of evidence is the evidence"
Your whole argument is hypocritical.
Unless you are reading peoples minds..... Yes, claims must first be made to be investigated.
At the end of the day, this is a forum made to spread information. Yes there is pushback to leftist theory on here but that doesn't invalidate that plethora of good theory that people are introduced too.
No it isn't.
The upvote patterns and participation suggest the opposite trend.
So you're uninterested in discussing that further?
First, recognize that this is not the point I made. Then I'll happily answer your question once you've gotten over your misperception of hypocrisy.
That's not what I said at all.
It isn't at all. You can't even name a hypocrisy. You're just belaboring a straw man that I implied you shouldn't forward an argument without evidence - something that is not my position nor what I said.
???
I'm saying people who haven't investigated shouldn't feel entitled to speak. That doesn't require reading minds it's really just basic practical humility. I raised it in this context because of Western leftist tendencies to be hypercritical of others' revolutions despite not knowing much about them, or acting aggrieved when they are not, in fact, aggrieved.
How generous are we being in terms of what counts as information? By a wide definition, someone could call Stormfront a forum made to spread information. I don't think this statement means anything.
Who said it did? What does this have to do with me being wrong in telling people to be okay not saying anything about China if they aren't taking it seriously and investigating - or in the example I led with, questioning the degree to which they can be personally aggrieved?