As if these are the only two options lmao

The law does NOT have any requirements that schools STOP educating in their ethnic language.

That's literally the requirement in the law. You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no point in discussing the law if you don't even understand what it says.

Bilingual education is a far cry from what the West does

It's not bilingual education, it's Mandarin only:

Article 15: The state is to fully promote the spread of the nation’s common language and script. Citizens’ learning and use of the nation’s common language and script must not be obstructed by any organization or individual.

Schools and other educational institutions are to use the nation’s common language and script as the basic language and script for education and teaching. The state is to promote preschool students’ learning of Mandarin, so that youth who have completed compulsory education have a basic understanding of the nation’s common language and script.

But you don't see Chinese newspapers in 1964/65 writing articles that say "The Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act is a law designed to assimilate ethnic minorities into white supremacy and eradicate them entirely", like we see here.

The CRA doesn't include similar provisions that are being criticized in the new Chinese law.

You don't see a right wing movement in China screaming about the poor and the browns and the islamists.

China is not a democracy, the CPC doesn't allow any other movements to scream about anything.

You don't see politicians running local or national narratives on the basis of fear of the other.

They don't have to, it's an election tactic used everywhere in the world but the CPC doesn't really have to worry about elections.

You seem to be under the strange delusion that there's zero racism, discrimination or xenophobia in China. If you want to believe that, fine, but it also tells me you never actually visited and properly spoke to the locals.

https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.

IIRC (but could be wrong) the EPP wanted stricter chat controls, not an extension of what was already there.

Yeah but he already clarified it had to be a limp-dicked one.

You've completely missed their point. They're saying that the words of the law are meaningless and not actual evidence. The Civil Rights Act also didn't end racism, discrimination and cultural oppression in the US.

Who's to say that the Chinese government actually enforces this as written?

On paper it says it promotes integration among the recognized ethnic groups, but some of the wording is much more dubious. For example, children won't receive their education in their native language anymore; they must now learn Mandarin (which is the classic tactic to erode other languages, inspired directly from the west). There's also text in there that may be used to justify breaking up certain ethnic/minority neighbourhoods.

To be fair there's several 'types' of Chess, like Bullet, Blitz, Rapid, etc..., and it's not uncommon for high-level players to specialize in some of them. But given that they didn't know what a GM is they probably didn't know that either.

IIRC he was considered a viable candidate for pope as well.

I dunno man ask him: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1918347089366667507

Loads fine for me. It's someone sitting in front of a desk with 15 large monitors surrounding them in a semicircle, 3 monitors stacked on top of one another in 5 columns.

If you actually looked at the statistics, you'd know that's not the case. Defensive gun use is not horseshit, but being a privileged liberal is.

I did, did you? Crime victims who respond with a gun are 2.5 times less likely to get away from the offender than those who respond without one and 10 percent less likely to avoid injury.

Guns are a tool of equality for all manner of marginalized and dispossessed people.

This is an unhinged statement. Guns by definition are used to oppress the marginalized, weapons to force people to do what they do not want to do. To claim that they're "tools of equality" is bizarre gun-industry propaganda. Women in abusive relationships are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun. Women in the US are 28 times more likely to die to firearm homicide. "Shoot first" laws increase the odds that a minority is a victim of a violent crime (an anecdotal example is Ahmoud Arbery, who was shot and killed for the crime of jogging while black).

You also mentioned that 69k is an "extreme low", but it's likely an overestimation since it includes non-legal DGUs. Even then, the statistics show that this is less than 1% of property crimes and in nearly 60% of those cases the perpetrators weren't even armed. The picture that the NRA likes to push, legally using a gun against an armed stranger in a home invasion, is so rare there's not enough reports to even find a semi-accurate number.

Meanwhile, violent crime goes up if gun ownership does (when compensating for other factors like GINI): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119025000269

Your argumentation reeks of "Gun Culture 2.0", the project that the NRA is pushing to promote guns for personal safety in a dangerous world (as opposed to "Gun Culture 1.0", where the main motivation for owning a gun was hunting and recreational shooting). It's heavily pushed through a lot of propaganda in pro-gun magazines and commercials, ignoring all statistics showing owning a gun makes you less safe, and that the world around you in general is becoming safer overall over time.