You don’t disagree with your government; you didn’t know what your government’s position was until right now.
You still don’t really know what your government’s position is, otherwise you’d understand that here, as in many cases, there’s an official stance for diplomatic relations and then a bunch of propaganda (for both domestic and foreign consumption) that undermines that official stance.
Bold of you to assume what I do and don’t know about geopolitics. I’m well aware of the fine line that the US government walks, but I don’t speak for the US government and my views aren’t informed by “propaganda” but by the simple observations that 1) the PRC is a totalitarian regime, and 2) that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state which broadly speaking doesn’t particularly want to be assimilated into the PRC. Where is the propagandistic angle here?
you’re only allowed to call the PRC “totalitarian” or undemocratic if you condemn the “democracies” of the english speaking world. the US president isn’t even the person who gets the most votes🤡
Taiwan does not “generally” have a stance against reunification, some independence parties are a bit more popular than they used to be, but them becoming a legally independent state requires vast constitutional and international changes no government has even begun to implement
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you can possibly equate the US government to the CCP without arguing in bad faith. The decidedly un-totalitarian nature of the US government is exactly why it’s basically not functioning right now. There’s plenty of valid criticism there, but to draw any sort of comparison to the Chinese form of government is insane.
On the contrary, I think that totalitarian states are moreso the exception than the rule in this day and age. Hell, I wouldn’t even group Russia in the same class. There are varying degrees of autocracy and the US president certainly wields more power than heads of state/government in many European countries, but it’s just a bad faith argument to try to draw a comparison to it when speaking about a regime such as the CCP.
“Totalitarian” is a buzzword with a hazy definition at best. Go ahead and substantiate it.
But my point is that using such a buzzword with no further explanation is a somewhat comical display of how propagandized you are for how thought-terminating your use of the word is.
You don’t disagree with your government; you didn’t know what your government’s position was until right now.
You still don’t really know what your government’s position is, otherwise you’d understand that here, as in many cases, there’s an official stance for diplomatic relations and then a bunch of propaganda (for both domestic and foreign consumption) that undermines that official stance.
Bold of you to assume what I do and don’t know about geopolitics. I’m well aware of the fine line that the US government walks, but I don’t speak for the US government and my views aren’t informed by “propaganda” but by the simple observations that 1) the PRC is a totalitarian regime, and 2) that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state which broadly speaking doesn’t particularly want to be assimilated into the PRC. Where is the propagandistic angle here?
lol
Just because you agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda
Do you disagree with either of those observations? They seem fairly indisputable to me.
you’re only allowed to call the PRC “totalitarian” or undemocratic if you condemn the “democracies” of the english speaking world. the US president isn’t even the person who gets the most votes🤡
Taiwan does not “generally” have a stance against reunification, some independence parties are a bit more popular than they used to be, but them becoming a legally independent state requires vast constitutional and international changes no government has even begun to implement
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you can possibly equate the US government to the CCP without arguing in bad faith. The decidedly un-totalitarian nature of the US government is exactly why it’s basically not functioning right now. There’s plenty of valid criticism there, but to draw any sort of comparison to the Chinese form of government is insane.
Of course you believe in American exceptionalism
On the contrary, I think that totalitarian states are moreso the exception than the rule in this day and age. Hell, I wouldn’t even group Russia in the same class. There are varying degrees of autocracy and the US president certainly wields more power than heads of state/government in many European countries, but it’s just a bad faith argument to try to draw a comparison to it when speaking about a regime such as the CCP.
I mean yeah one has a bourgeois state (US) and the other an proletarian one (PRC) so technically you’re right in that it’s not really comparable.
Do you know what hegemony means? And do you think it’s a coincidence that you hold the same belief as the US state department?
How does democracy in China work
“Totalitarian” is a buzzword with a hazy definition at best. Go ahead and substantiate it.
But my point is that using such a buzzword with no further explanation is a somewhat comical display of how propagandized you are for how thought-terminating your use of the word is.