8
Freedom (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 6 months ago (21 children)

@Cowbee@lemmy.ml

New thread as max thread length reached.

Let's move on.

How does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks look like to you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    What do you mean by "holding them accountable?" How can any of us do so, if we aren't Chinese, and aren't in any position of power? We should support positive movements where they happen, and focus on improving where we lack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (19 children)

    I mean taking into account and consideration where the country is lacking or has flaws.

    This does not require one to be a member of the same ethnicity as the nation one is critiquing.

    This is just about views so being in a position of power isn't relevant right now.

    You mention focusing on improving where we lack, but where does China lack in your view?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    I'm not talking about ethnicity, I mean neither of us live in China. Neither of us can hold them accountable. If you mean what problems China is working on that I consider to be pressing, there's the rural/urban development gap, the continuing improvement and struggle for better queer rights, the importance of electrification and energy independence, and more.

    I don't frame this as "lacking," because again, China is the fastest developing and improving country in history, and all of these areas are being actively worked on. They are not regressing. They still have areas to improve, but framing them as "lacking" implies a regression.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (17 children)

    The same applies; if one must live in a country to critique it that means everyone can only critique one country and no other countries at a time.

    Also, you are framing it again as "problems China is working on" and not just "problems in China" which is narrower and filters any issues China may not be working on. The result would be a more positive outlook on the country than could be warranted by reality.

    What evidence exists that the state of china is actively working on queer rights? Specifically the state.

    Fastest developing, in what regard?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (16 children)

    There's a difference between critique, and "holding accountable." One is a matter of judgment, and the latter is not possible without control. As for judgment, it's important to actually have an all-sided view, not just those of foreigners looking in. As for problems in China, the positive is that the CPC is working on the pressing problems in China as seen by the Chinese people.

    As for China working on queer rights, here's a video from CGTN talking about the progress of queer rights, and here's one from Jin Xing on CGTN talking about the progression of trans rights. The state controls media like CGTN, the purpose here is to gradually improve public perception of LGBTQ rights and bring the people upward on it, as in China policy generally comes from below, not above.

    As for fastest developing, in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, literacy rates, you name it. Compare the China of today with 10 years ago, 20, 50, and 100. It's an incredible feat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (15 children)

    By "holding accountable" I meant balanced critique that doesn't exclusively focus on the positives of the country.

    If the state is accepting of queer people (or tries to project that image), it seems hypocritical that the police don't act in accordance to this, given that the police is an instrument of the state.

    We've had police raids on queer events and censorship of gay couples on TV in recent times (as recent as 2023).

    More elaboration on China's state-sponsored censorship of queer populations in media from equaldex:

    Since 2016, China censors LGBT content, including LGBT-themed films, TV shows, and media, under the General Principles for the Production of TV Drama Content which took effect in March 2016. According to The Guardian, the Chinese government has "banned all depictions of gay people on television," calling it "vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content." The popular "boy love" (BL) TV drama "Addicted" was banned in 2016.

    A Chinese broadcaster, Mango TV, which broadcasts Eurovision blurred a rainbow flag during the semi-final of the show.

    In April of 2022, a few lines of dialog were removed from the Chinese release of the film 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.' The dialog referenced the gay romance between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald.

    In August of 2023, Chinese officials removed an LGBTQ song from the set list of popular Taiwanese pop star A-Mei, ahead of her concert in Beijing. Security guards at the event forced fans to remove rainbow symbols and clothing. On the 22nd of August, Chinese officials shut down a handful of popular social media accounts on the Chinese social networking service WeChat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    As I already explained, China is not a monolith. You can look at any western country and find similar state repression at the local level, which is even more varied in China due to having 1.4 billion people. You are looking at it one-dimensionally, which is the problem I was getting at earlier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (13 children)

    You say I'm looking at it one-dimensionally, but you always dismiss or shrug off any negatives that may come about w.r.t. China, or frame it as being positively worked on, when you don't do the same for other countries. If I mentioned a different country in such a context you would have called it deflection.

    A monolithic representation of the positive is still a monolith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    I don't present China as universally positive, I have drawn a clear line between socialist countries that are generally working towards a better society, imperialist countries that have been declining and are a net drain on the world, and non-socialist countries in the periphery that ultimately are progressing, albeit not necessarily as much as they could be if they were socialist.

    There's also the fact that we aren't at all on the same page when it comes to dialectical materialism as being the start point for any genuine analysis, and as such I tend to reject framing that involves metaphysics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (11 children)

    You say you don't, but you exclusively discuss positivity or progress w.r.t. China and socialist countries. When anything negative is reframed out of the equation, the resulting assessment necessarily becomes unilaterally positive.

    Imperialist countries being a drain on the world isn't something I'm arguing against, although we do not share a common understanding of imperialism.

    It's true that I don't believe analysis must be through the diamat outlook for it to be rational, though framing away negatives as metaphysical or any other framing that makes them to be other than what they are (i.e. negatives) isn't something that I find compelling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    I've said a number of things are problems, such as the urban/rural development gap. This is a problem to be solved, and thankfully it's one being actively worked upon. How is this not a "negative" in your view? You keep trying to look at things as a laundry list of pros and cons, and try to put things into neat categories, but that's not how the world works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (9 children)

    You did, as a list of "all things china is actively working on". It's the framing away of negatives that makes it not seem as much of a negative whenever you do mention them, however briefly.

    Maybe it's not how the world works, but it does strike me as strange if that's only the case when it comes to describing socialist countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    I don't really see any major issues China has that aren't being actively worked on, big or small. China of course has problems, but these aren't static and permanent. China is both socialist and anti-imperialist, so in that way it makes sense.

    Zoom out, 100 years pass. What do you think is going to get worse in China? What is China doing that's actively progressing in a bad direction?

    I think you're confusing my condemnation of imperialist countries as being unable to address their problems due to the faulty mode of production they rely on, with the belief that these are simply "negatives." I see them in the same way all societies have problems, the difference is that some societies are actually able to address these problems by putting needs over profits, and this goes back to the mode of production.

    Why do you think I constantly centered imperialism as a problem unable to be solved without revolution?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (7 children)

    It's not just China though, you approach other socialist countries the same way.

    You say China's problems aren't static or permanent, but you don't append such disclaimers or framing to issues outside of socialist regions.

    I don't see China as anti-imperialist, but I'll drop the words "imperialist" and "fascist" altogether for the purposes of this discussion since we use it to mean different things.

    Not everything is always changing significantly, some things can stay the same over time, but to answer the question, I'd say I see state surveillance, suppression of criticism, censorship, and things like that getting worse in China. Though this is kind of something I see happening globally, I'm inclined to believe this is worse in China because it's already etched into the system at a scale more prolific than in the west.

    You can routinely find criticisms of America online but China censors this. You do not personally take offense to this because in your view the capitalist should be suppressed ("communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat"), but I do. I will also say that it is this framing which makes it such that one has to be a capitalist in order to criticize the Chinese state (and thus be censored), but this isn't true; I'm not capitalist but I would certainly criticize the state. I am staunchly against the notion of a dictatorship altogether, but this is something not everyone is uncomfortable with, I suppose.

    My issue is that you don't frame away the negatives that you mention of non-socialist countries as being part of progress or being actively worked on the way you do for socialist countries.

    I don't see China as being innocent and I retain that China is violent and aggressive when it finds the opportunity, and I've seen examples of this prior but I'd have to research to get into that w citations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    I treat all countries the same way, my evaluation of them changes depending on the country.

    As for your critique of China, surveillance, suppression of misinformation and capitalist viewpoints, etc. are directed against capitalists. It's a working class state wielding authority against reactionaries. The west also uses state authority against class enemies, it just so happens that these class enemies are the working classes. Opposing socialist democracies is a reactionary viewpoint, even if you consider yourself to be anti-capitalist you'd still be going against both the will of the majority and the working classes.

    As for imperialist countries, they aren't generally improving. The reason for this is dependence on imperialism, and putting profit over need. They cannot effectively improve the lives of their people. This isn't me treating them differently, but instead evaluating them based on their own (lack of) merit.

    As for China being "violent and aggressive given the opportunity," this is silly and unfounded.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    I assumed you would say China's suppression and censorship is okay because it's anti-capitalist and I mentioned why that wasn't an adequate explanation. One could criticize the state without being a capitalist. It is not reactionary for one to criticize the state, unless you are asking for unconditional acceptance of the state. If criticizing the state is considered to be going against the will of the majority, then majority be damned.

    I also assumed you would say the west does the same thing, and I mentioned why that wasn't really true either. Despite their suppression you can still easily find and access criticisms of the state within their countries whereas this is not the case in China.

    In my view it is impossible to have a balanced view of a state if all dissent and criticism is cracked down. Labelling all dissent and criticism as capitalist is a wholly inadequate and frankly infantile response.

    On western countries not improving: I would say you're also not considering their existing state of development; it may be easier to develop undeveloped/less developed regions than it is to develop already developed regions further, I would expect plateaus to be a thing in any country's timeline of development to occur. Some decades from now when China reaches the same level of development one could see plateaus there too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Again, you can believe yourself to be anti-capitalist, but simply calling yourself one is not an adequate explanation for opposing proletarian state power. Further, you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China, and the west also censors to a dramatic degree against the proletariat. Censorship is less transparent and more malicious in the west.

    Not all dissent is capitalist. What's absurd is pretending that all criticism is censored in China, which is why I have been repeating over and over that you have no grounds to stand on to criticize China. You have no idea what China is like, just what you hear online, and as a consequence you have an utterly one-sided view.

    As for imperialist countries not developing further, it's because imperialism results in de-industrialization. The plataue for capitalist development was already reached, you need to transition to socialism to begin developing further. You continue to ignore real, material systems like imperialism, because you simply disagree with analyzing it as a stage in capitalism and instead wish to analyze it purely as a policy states take. This is not how imperialism works.

    Really, it's quite disappointing that this is what you seem to take away from this. You have a view of China that doesn't map to reality, and you have a view of imperialism that doesn't map to reality either. Without analyzing both concretely, we can't really move forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.

    You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn't an adequate explanation for censorship.

    Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.

    you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China

    Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.

    You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I've been saying that for a while now. It's just in the opposite direction.

    I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?

    Censorship is less transparent in the west.

    Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I'd put together.

    I am choosing to ignore the term "imperialism" because we don't share an understanding on the term, and I'm not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.

    Though it does seem we are at an impasse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.

    No, actually, they cannot.

    You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn’t an adequate explanation for censorship.

    You're right, belief alone is not adequate. What's instead adequate is analyzing the mode of production and distribution in China, the class character of the state, and the historical necessity to prevent capitalist disinformation from spreading uncontested. I don't just believe China has a working class state based on hope alone, but based on concrete evidence. Over 90% of the public supports the government, and China is ranked even by western organizations as a thriving democracy even by western definitions of democracy:

    Historically, capitalists have manipulated the press to spread disinformation. Radio Free Asia is an example primarily directed against China. In the USSR, Radio Free Europe contributed heavily towards pessimism regarding constructing socialism. Class struggle does not end under socialism, so the working classes need to continue to win the class war.

    Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.

    Of course you'll find extensive criticism of the west within China, the west is the world imperial hegemon.

    Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.

    Criticism doesn't work like that. People don't generally make hit pieces. If you want an example of more liberal press in China that desires more liberalization, see South China Morning Post. Institutions are prevented from mouthing off, but people on the ground often consider political critique to be a national pass time. The difference between the west and China is that there is a national hope in China, rather than pessimism.

    You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I’ve been saying that for a while now. It’s just in the opposite direction.

    No, I do not. Frankly, I've done far more research into China than you have, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the sense that I've actually had to grapple with my skepticism of China in the past. I already admitted to many currently existing problems in China, but you've continued to make baseless claims about "Chinese imperialism."

    I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?

    Correct, I have not lived there. That's why I focus on not making authoritative claims denouncing China, and instead seek to learn what I can from the outside while focusing on changing the world I live in, the west. That's where my activism takes me. Where we differ is that I have done far more study on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and the history of AES countries.

    Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I’d put together.

    Why not? Again, look at the polling from the Perception of Democracy index, China is ranked very favorably by its own people:

    I am choosing to ignore the term “imperialism” because we don’t share an understanding on the term, and I’m not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.

    You've committed to denying a concrete, materialist understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism. I've made it clear that imperialism is a necessary evolution within capitalism once it reaches the monopoly stage, with dominance of finance capital, and switches from export of commodity to export of capital. This is a clear and coherent system with an enormous breadth of study, even if you don't want to call it "imperialism," the fact is that this system exists, that it's the dominant mode of the west, and that China does not practice this system.

    It does not matter if you do not consider yourself a communist. This was first analyzed by Hobson, a liberal. You do not have to be a communist to recognize it, if you leave this entirely in the hands of communists then you're just ceding any right to be taken seriously in any geopolitical matter, as it's the primary contradiction in the modern era.

    I do agree that we are at an impasse, but I hope you'll reconsider your viewpoints and actually commit to studying phenomena in a materialist and dialectical viewpoint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You say the people of China view it “very favourably” but if you look at the columns for free speech and transparency it is on the lower side.

    Incorrect, China is near the top of the list. See the bottom:

    Free speech and transparency are the specific aspects I was talking about; public support is not a silver bullet and can be fabricated by state control.

    Free speech and transparency are high in China, assuming you're a part of the working classes, so you should have no problems.

    Capitalists manipulating the press to spread disinformation is not an excuse for the state to suppress and censor all criticism.

    Says who? And further, no, not all criticism is censored, institutionalized private owned disinformation is censored. The working classes need to be able to control which class's speech is allowed to propogate and dominate, otherwise capitalists manipulate the press to spread nihilism towards the socialist project. This has happened historically, and it sounds like you don't actually care if a socialist project succeeds as long as fascists and capitalists are given free speech.

    I meant in America over there, not China. It is not difficult for an American to fire up YouTube and find an English video openly criticizing the trump administration.

    Sure, it isn't difficult to find that, because liberal societies have effectively drawn attention to individual figures, rather than the system itself. Criticize Trump all you want, don't you dare start suggesting socialism as it exists in the real world is a better system though. What you are finding is Great Man Theory, the idea that history is driven not by material conditions but individual great men and women sporadically born throughout history, which serves as a pressure valve.

    You can easily find Americans criticizing trump or the US on YouTube with millions of views, if not more. So this is just false. I can easily provide you with such a video(s) if requested. Can you do the same about China, from Chinese nationals in china?

    Why would people in China make hit pieces on a beloved leader? Why are you taking the absence of such hit pieces as evidence that Xi Jinping is actually evil? You can find articles from South China Morning Post, itself a Chinese media platform, criticizing the CPC! You're trying to have it both ways!

    I have dropped the use of the term “imperialist” in this discussion, but yes I do believe China is violent and opportunistic.

    Yes, you unilaterally dropped one of the most critical parts of this discussion because it wasn't going your way, and you have not once provided evidence of China being "violent and opportunistic." You've hemmed and hawed around these lines.

    Yet you have no problem doing the inverse.

    Do you mean I have no problems highlighting structural issues with the west? I live in the west, I know its problems well. Do you mean that I am more comfortable making claims about China? It's because I have studied it far more than you have, including the ideology driving the CPC. I'm certainly no expert, but there's a clear gap in knowledge here that would be silly to not acknowledge.

    I’m not interested in discussing imperialism here. Jargon asides, I see China as being a violent state in its own ways, “imperialist” or not.

    Yes, again, you're not interested in discussing the single most crucial component of modern geopolitics. You've decided to ignore the topic completely because acknowledging it undermines your points. As for seeing China as a "violent state," this is definitely true with respect to how it treats fascists and capitalists, but not towards the working classes.

    I don’t find your views compelling so I’m not likely to reconsider my beliefs, much less to fit specifically within a communist box.

    It must be very convenient to be able to refuse to discuss topics that are widely acknowledged and studied even by non-communists, in order to retreat to idealism and metaphysics (like race science earlier). I'm being harsh now, because this has become a farce. I am sorry, but if you are going to continue to retreat into vibes and gut-feelings over materialist analysis, then there's nowhere for this conversation to go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I am part of the working class, but if criticizing the state takes me out of the category then I’d have a problem.

    Standing against the socialist state doesn't take you out of the working class, it just means you have become a class traitor. Critique is valuable, and necessary. Critique based on metaphysics, idealism, and all manner of unscientific grounding is not genuine critique for the sake of a better future, but instead just a tool to be magnified by the bourgeoisie in restoring their rule.

    Says me. That is my stance. You may be okay with that, I’d not be, though.

    If socialism is dependent on censorship for its success, then I do not see socialism succeeding as a good thing. If socialism is truly good for the country, then under a system without censorship and with an education system that adequately teaches people to use reason independently and come to their own conclusions without enforcing propaganda, I would assume it should lead to the majority being in favour of socialism anyway.

    And this, dear reader, is why we actually analyze history, rather than simply hoping that despite all historical analysis, surely this time letting capitalists have free speech will not backfire. There is no successful revolution that has not cracked down on the tools available to the bourgeoisie to restore their order, as all who failed to do so have crumbled. For the sake of your insistence that fascists and capitalists be given equal rights to that of the proletariat, you work against the socialist state, as a reactionary.

    It’s funny you say this given socialist states disallow criticism of socialism too, so it’s really not different in that regard.

    No, you're conflating the censorship of disinformation and fomenting anti-socialist sentiment with all criticism. Criticism is necessary for growth, but all criticism has a definite class character to it, a definite class outlook. It is only working class outlook that should stand in socialist society.

    Alright, if there was criticism against CPC that would be helpful, but the south china morning post you linked to apparently doesn’t have anything to do with the CPC but is about BiliBili cracking down on adult content? Searching for the terms “CPC” and “party” returned 0 results on that link.

    Who do you think is censoring posts in BiliBili?

    Positive claims, yes, I mean that. You’re admitting to working from a biased position where you don’t have a problem making authoritative claims about China when it comes to the positive, but then not doing the same when it comes to the negative (or discouraging others from doing so).

    Everyone has biases. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" position. I have regularly encouraged you to do 2 things:

    1. Study more, be it theory, history, and practice.

    2. Focus on problems that you actually can impact, in your country. Oppose your country's imperialism (as I'm near certain you live in an imperialist country). Organize for socialism.

    I am not about to restrict myself to a hyperspecific and narrow definition of the type of violence that matters and warrants discussion. I will not waffle over specific jargon either because pedantic usage of certain words is not important to me. Violence is something I am concerned about and is however something I’d want to discuss, and China is not as innocent as you like to portray it as.

    Class analysis is critical. If you ignore it, you equate all violence, when violence is sadly an unavoidable aspect of the class struggle itself. There have been no non-violent revolutions, and revolutionary violence is violence that ends the daily violence of capitalism and imperialism.

    I can provide evidence for this, but I already know you won’t waste a moment to assert that every single instance of China’s human rights failures are a hoax and never happened to begin with, or that they are progressing, or some other framing that makes them less than what they are.

    Let's see what you have to offer.

    China being the country with the highest number of yearly executions, in the thousands, being higher than Iran and Saudi Arabia: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/05/executions-surge-highest-recorded-figure-44-years/

    China is the second most populous country on the planet. You'll need to do more than that.

    China on the erasure of Tibetan and minority languages: https://www.tibetanreview.net/chinas-new-language-law-to-criminalise-advocacy-of-ethnic-minority-rights/

    This is bullshit. Tibetan culture is protected, not erased. What's criminalized is the desire to restore the slave-based system of earlier Tibet, back when the Dalai Lama was backed by the CIA and the PLA liberated it. Tibetan Review is funded by the exile government, the state based on slavery and torture.

    China on creating laws to bury evidence of the Uyghur genocide: https://uyghurtimes.com/china-enacts-sweeping-secrecy-law-in-uyghur-region-to-silence-witnesses-and-bury-evidence-of-crimes/

    Epistemic violence against the Uyghur population: https://globalvoices.org/2026/03/11/the-normalization-of-uyghur-repression-in-the-name-of-social-governance-in-china/

    There is no Uyghur genocide, this is an example of China censoring disinformation, and you're proving this to be the correct decision. After all, the west gets to accuse socialist countries of all manner of atrocities in order to manufacture consent for war. Sorry to tell you, but the "free flow of information" you value in the west is just the free flow of disinformation. Read Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation, nearly the entirety of claims of genocide circle back to US-paid propagandist Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

    After the introduction of the vocational schools and other de-radicalizing programs, western-backed ETIM terrorist attacks and mass murders went down dramatically, to practically 0.

    Chinese authorities blocking life-saving treatment for human rights (land) activist: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/china-authorities-block-life-saving-kidney-treatment-for-woman-activist-ahead-of-major-government-meetings/

    As for Yang Li, I cannot find much on her, only that "human rights organizations" like Minsheng Guancha that seem to always be in trouble for opposing socialism seem to have her in a few articles. She may or may not even be real, or her story may be heavily doctored for western uses. The west uses accusations of "human rights abuses" all the time in order to give ammo against geopolitical enemies.

    Given what you count as "proof" elsewhere, I'll remain skeptical.

    I have seen enough videos of Uyghur people being oppressed by China and them coming out and speaking about their terrible experiences to know the Uyghur genocide is not a hoax, and that is not something I am debating.

    If that's all it takes to get you to believe in atrocity propaganda, I can only assume you believe white genocide in South Africa is real, that Iraq had WMD, that Iran killed 40,000 protestors recently, and that Hamas beheaded numerous babies during Al-Aqsa Flood. If you aren't already familiar with how disinformation works, and are more than comfortable using it as ammo, then yes, you probably would fall into the category of reactionary.

    Though I don’t expect you to place any weight on any of the other areas either.

    I've done more research on each of these topics than you have, I guarantee it. I place far more weight on them than you have, it seems you're more interested in the narrative they present than their factual basis.

    I am not trying to “win” this. You are free to view my disinterest as convenient.

    More than that, I view it as dishonest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)