This is the problem with these conversations, you don’t honestly engage at all and instead resort to ad hominims, irrelevant tangents or even in this case straightuplying. Copying and pasting from scripts that fail to address the point is not doing you any favours.
It’s not a football match. You don’t have to pick a side and defend it no matter what. You can and should be equally be critical of immoral actions regardless of where they come from. By playing the whatabout game to ‘defend your side’ all you do is normalise these things by implying that it’s fine because everyone does it.
You accept Five Eyes corporate media uncritically because you don’t understand media, which I tried to explain, but you decided that it was an irrelevant tangent.
you don’t honestly engage at all
I don’t have all day; I’ll address two.
Xinjiang/The Uyghurs
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just a few weeks ago.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
It’s not a football match. You don’t have to pick a side and defend it no matter what.
It’s not; I’m not; and neither do you.
Edit to add: I’m certainly not picking “our” side. I mean, have you seen our side? The side that’s providing political and material support for an actual genocide as we speak?
So your response to my comment pointing out that you’re just attacking me, posting from a script and not engaging with the discussion is to what… Attack me, post some scripts and continue not to engage? If you just want to monologue, maybe make a separate post.
I pointed out the irony in your original reply and you’ve yet to address it except to make the courageous claim that there is no censorship in China. When I show counter examples it’s back to ad hominims. Can you address the specific points of censorship please? I That’s what we are talking about. “Addressing” two points as you have done gets you nowhere to defending your original claim that there is no censorship in the China.
Also another obviously dishonest point you added in your edit. Clearly your side has nothing to do with where your born, I don’t know where you’re from or who you are mate, it’s about selective criticism where you only criticise one side and never accept criticisms of another side. I am happy to criticise any ‘side’. I’m critical of the country I was born, of the US, the CCP and everyone in between.
you’ve yet to address it except to make the courageous claim that there is no censorship in China.
I never made the claim that there is no censorship in China. That would be a ridiculous claim to make considering that there is indeed censorship in China. There is censorship in the West as well, though it is of a different character.
Edit to add: Chinese people aren’t afraid to discuss the Tiananmen riots, as smug online Westerners seem to enjoy believing. That’s ridiculous. But Westerners smugly believe it, in fact it seems as if they want it to be true.
I feel like we’re playing word games now but maybe I just misinterpreted you. Are these topics censored on the Chinese internet or not? That was the whole point of my original comment.
Chinese people aren’t afraid to discuss the Tiananmen riots
I never said they were afraid to discuss them. Just that they were banned on the Chinese internet.
smug online Westerners
Ad hominim ad nauseum. This just makes it seem like there is no substance to what you’re saying if you keep resorting to ad hominims.
This is the problem with these conversations, you don’t honestly engage at all and instead resort to ad hominims, irrelevant tangents or even in this case straight up lying. Copying and pasting from scripts that fail to address the point is not doing you any favours.
It’s not a football match. You don’t have to pick a side and defend it no matter what. You can and should be equally be critical of immoral actions regardless of where they come from. By playing the whatabout game to ‘defend your side’ all you do is normalise these things by implying that it’s fine because everyone does it.
How people in the imperial core are propagandized is not an irrelevant tangent.
You accept Five Eyes corporate media uncritically because you don’t understand media, which I tried to explain, but you decided that it was an irrelevant tangent.
I don’t have all day; I’ll address two.
Xinjiang/The Uyghurs
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just a few weeks ago.
.
The blueprint of regime change operations
Tiananmen riots
It’s not; I’m not; and neither do you.
Edit to add: I’m certainly not picking “our” side. I mean, have you seen our side? The side that’s providing political and material support for an actual genocide as we speak?
So your response to my comment pointing out that you’re just attacking me, posting from a script and not engaging with the discussion is to what… Attack me, post some scripts and continue not to engage? If you just want to monologue, maybe make a separate post.
I pointed out the irony in your original reply and you’ve yet to address it except to make the courageous claim that there is no censorship in China. When I show counter examples it’s back to ad hominims. Can you address the specific points of censorship please? I That’s what we are talking about. “Addressing” two points as you have done gets you nowhere to defending your original claim that there is no censorship in the China.
Also another obviously dishonest point you added in your edit. Clearly your side has nothing to do with where your born, I don’t know where you’re from or who you are mate, it’s about selective criticism where you only criticise one side and never accept criticisms of another side. I am happy to criticise any ‘side’. I’m critical of the country I was born, of the US, the CCP and everyone in between.
I never made the claim that there is no censorship in China. That would be a ridiculous claim to make considering that there is indeed censorship in China. There is censorship in the West as well, though it is of a different character.
Edit to add: Chinese people aren’t afraid to discuss the Tiananmen riots, as smug online Westerners seem to enjoy believing. That’s ridiculous. But Westerners smugly believe it, in fact it seems as if they want it to be true.
I feel like we’re playing word games now but maybe I just misinterpreted you. Are these topics censored on the Chinese internet or not? That was the whole point of my original comment.
I never said they were afraid to discuss them. Just that they were banned on the Chinese internet.
Ad hominim ad nauseum. This just makes it seem like there is no substance to what you’re saying if you keep resorting to ad hominims.
You’re looking at it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.