I don't idealize China. I do "defend" it, in the same way I do with every country. If someone makes a false or unfair criticism of any given country, then I'll push back against that on the basis of it being untrue. This is controversial because it means failing anti-communist purity tests.
For decades, it has been the norm that if someone talks shit about a socialist country, nobody challenges it, for fear of being labelled a Red, a Pinko, more recently a "Tankie." Everyone remotely on the left in the West felt the need to constantly prove that they were "one of the good ones." After actual communists were sidelined, blacklisted, kicked out of organizations like the AFL-CIO, then the tests only got more stringent, until even supporting or being involved with unions at all became suspect. Finally, we reached a point where people are out there labeling people like Obama and Biden as communists.
This state of affairs has resulted in the anticommunist myths and stereotypes to spiral out of control, and it has allowed the standards of what defines someone as a communist to shift to a ridiculous degree. This strategy of caving to anticommunist purity tests has been proven by history to be an abject failure, and is a major part of how we got to the place we're in today.
In this context, there are a handful of people like myself willing to try a different strategy, of refuting falsehoods and trying to ground the discourse in reality, unconcerned about what labels may be assigned to us as a result. Because only a handful of people are willing to do this, in anglosphere discourse that is generally heavily anticommunist, it is only natural that someone such as myself will spend a lot more time refuting misinformation about socialist states than criticizing them on the points that are valid concerns.
This does not mean that I consider China some kind of utopia or that I idolize it, or think it should be a model of emulation (although there are aspects that we could do well to borrow and learn from, like their trains). China has had a unique timeline of development and has it's own unique conditions to deal with. As I said previously, I don't believe there's anything I could do to affect Chinese policy regardless of what I think of it, other than through my own government, and that is not an option I'm willing to support.
I literally said that I have and do criticize China for things including LGBT rights. That itself is an acknowledgement of fault. The fact that you were so intent on this fucking gotcha, so confident that it could never possibly be true that I'm capable of criticizing the country, it's just ridiculous. What, did you genuinely think we're bots, as opposed to that being something y'all say to just write off any perspectives you disagree with? Don't drink your own Kool-Aid.
Yeah, if you completely ignore the fact that that sentence was in the context of talking about China, if you completely ignore the parts where I talk specifically about "China's modern day homophobia" then you might not be the bold-faced liar that you are. Talking about me gaslighting you while trying to pull this shit is incredibly rich.
Liberals only ask for evidence of criticism to use it in bad faith, exhibit #1684938
How is acknowledging that Chinese homophobia exists, is a problem, and comes out of a socialist intellectual tradition not a criticism of China? Wtf are you talking about? Obviously, that falls under "finding fault."
Yes, of course I'm going to contextualize and explain it, because the person in that thread asked me for an explanation.
This is ridiculous goalpost moving. No criticism would ever be enough for you, short of going full on rainbow imperialism, chauvanism, or exaggerating/making shit up. You're being blatantly intellectually dishonest.
Because you don’t. You explicitly don’t criticize China in this sentence.
This is just straight up lying. Acknowledging that a problem in China is also a problem in other socialist countries does somehow make it not a problem when China does it. Fuck off with that BS.
China’s modern day homophobia does not come from a place of “The Buddha said this was bad,” rather, it comes from seeing homosexuality as a Western invention, and a symptom of “bourgeois decadence.” Sadly, such brainworms are common in many socialist countries. There is a stereotype many people have that gay people all live in cities and spend all our time partying at nightclubs, because that makes for better TV than the reality does.
I generally don't go around shit-talking other countries that I don't live in and have never been to. The only real exceptions being ones that are receiving military aid from my own country, such as Israel, because that makes it relevant to me.
For the record, I have and do criticize China on certain things, such as LGBT rights. But again, that's pretty irrelevant to any political questions that are actually relevant to me and my life. What am I going to do about problems in China? What levers of power can I or should I assert to address their problems? It kinda seems like I should probably be a little bit more concerned about all the horrible things my own country is doing. Don't talk shit about a splinter in their eye when there's a wooden board in your own or something.
If there was a way for me to assert some lever of power against China, it would be through my own government. But that would only be a valid thing to do if my government wasn't doing worse things, which is why it's relevant to point out that the US is worse, in spite of the inevitable response of "whataboutism."
If the discourse around here was upholding China as some utopia that we should all try to emulate in every regard, you would see me criticize it more. But because the discourse is more about how evil every single thing it does is, how every accusation should be believed completely uncritically, how we should support Western governments acting against it, etc, it's only natural that that's what you see me pushing back against the most.
It feels almost trite to say “The child murder needs to stop”, but so much US policy - foreign and domestic - is about slaughtering children by the millions.
Classic "no way to prevent this" says only nation where this regularly happens. A part of me just wishes that the horrors could be contained to within our borders, but we have to make all of our shit everyone's problem.
Only the Scandinavians - the whitest of the white Europeans - are allowed to claim anything approaching “Functional Socialism”.
The funniest part about this is how many people will be like, "The best approach is a mixture of socialism and capitalism" which is exactly what China is doing. I've tried so many times to get a coherent answer from the "China bad because billionaires" types as to whether the reforms in the 80's were good or bad. The only response you'll ever get from most of them is to call you a fascist for asking.
The ways chauvanism can manifest and reassert itself, even when people rational recognize it as a bad thing in the abstract, are so crazy. The internalized indoctrination works like some kind of demon constantly whispering in people's heads, trying to get them to come back around to "America #1!"
Criticism will either be overly specific, "This is just because of Trump, I miss when we had respectable Republicans like Bush," or it will be overly general, "Yes, the US is bad, but only in the sense that all governments are bad." Anything to avoid the conclusion that the US just fucking sucks.
If the American government fails it must either be an exception, or an inherent flaw in all governments, because we're the smartest, best, most moral and freedom-loving people in the world. Impossible that foreigners could succeed where we failed, if we failed, it could only be because the task is impossible. That's how the chauvanists think, and so the conclusion is already determined before a single actual fact is considered.
And proud of it. Because anyone who thinks critically, acknowledges basic, objective facts about reality, anyone who questions their own government and confronts their own presumptions and prejudices, is a "tankie" to you liberal, imperialist, chauvinists.
At least I don't have the blood of a million Middle Easterners on my hands like you do.
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas
That's still not the same as minor border disputes.
The US is bad too. If you’re going to be anti-imperialist then you need to be against all imperialism and not just the one you were told to hate.
Yes, decades long occupations, minor border clashes, both equally bad and equally requiring staunch opposition. You gonna go full "white lives matter" next? Or can we agree that focusing on the much, much bigger problem should be the priority?
The vitriol toward defending China in this second response, at any cost, gives you away.
"Gives me away" as what? If you're going to accuse me of something, say it to my face.
Any independent thinker should indeed seek to critically understand multiple perspectives, yes. Although even just being able to formulate perspectives of other countries, or being willing to challenge blatant misinformation will get you accused of being an imperialist by left-posturing Western chauvanists.
You can make the argument for Russia but I really don't understand how China, a country that has been at peace for over 40 years and which is developing an alternative economic sphere such that countries are not forced to accept whatever conditions the West imposes, could possibly be considered "imperialist." I'm guessing people will just be like, "Well what if they invaded Taiwan? The things happening purely in my imagination prove China bad."
Republican is when anyone disagrees with you for literally any reason. There are two types of people on planet Earth: people who think exactly the same way as you, huff your farts, and agree with every single word that comes out of your mouth, and Republicans.
God, y'all are insufferable.
Meanwhile, you're out here actually falling for the same kind of obvious bullshit your Red MAGA counterparts do, but it's about the evil foreign CCP rather than Planned Parenthood or ACORN so that makes you totally different.
A black man comes to a crosswalk and, after checking the road is clear, starts crossing even though he doesn't have the light. Suddenly, a cop rolls up, sirens blaring, and starts arresting him for jaywalking. While the arrest is ongoing, a white man starts walking across the street without the light and the cop does nothing. The man being arrested says, "This is bullshit! You're not doing anything about it when he does it!" The cop slams his face against the car and says, "Nice whataboutism, perp. You just committed a tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone else does something bad doesn't justify your own actions. In fact, I don't necessarily approve of what he's doing either. Now let's get you down to the station, punk."
Either "whataboutism" is just complete bullshit, or the vast majority of times it's invoked it's bullshit. The fact that a rule or criticism is applied selectively is extremely relevant. It's obvious in my example that the cop is just using the jaywalking as a pretext, but I'm not sure what the victim is supposed to say in that case in response that wouldn't make him an evil authoritarian tankie fascist, but whatever it is, just assume I said it to you because it's the same bullshit in both cases.
If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.
Yeah, because telling the court it's full of shit generally isn't the best legal defense. However, it would demonstrate that the court is not upholding it's principles consistently. It would be a valid logical and political argument to challenge the court as biased, it's just not the most practical when the court is the one making the arbitration.
That’s not singling out, that’s reporting on current events.
You might be right. It wouldn't be singling out, except for the fact that the author specifically does single out China and claim that the West is innocent of similar crimes, which is why I said that calling me out on "whataboutism" would be even more spurious than usual in this case.
Sure. It doesn’t entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.
It kinda does though? The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things, and the reality is that the West does worse things, so it is a pretty spurious criticism.
"Whataboutism" isn't even a real thing. Random internet people just started saying it one day but it has no logical basis. When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it's relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is "tyrannical" by your standards, or whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted? What exactly have they done that is "indefensible," or do you just mean that government in general is indefensible?
I don't idealize China. I do "defend" it, in the same way I do with every country. If someone makes a false or unfair criticism of any given country, then I'll push back against that on the basis of it being untrue. This is controversial because it means failing anti-communist purity tests.
For decades, it has been the norm that if someone talks shit about a socialist country, nobody challenges it, for fear of being labelled a Red, a Pinko, more recently a "Tankie." Everyone remotely on the left in the West felt the need to constantly prove that they were "one of the good ones." After actual communists were sidelined, blacklisted, kicked out of organizations like the AFL-CIO, then the tests only got more stringent, until even supporting or being involved with unions at all became suspect. Finally, we reached a point where people are out there labeling people like Obama and Biden as communists.
This state of affairs has resulted in the anticommunist myths and stereotypes to spiral out of control, and it has allowed the standards of what defines someone as a communist to shift to a ridiculous degree. This strategy of caving to anticommunist purity tests has been proven by history to be an abject failure, and is a major part of how we got to the place we're in today.
In this context, there are a handful of people like myself willing to try a different strategy, of refuting falsehoods and trying to ground the discourse in reality, unconcerned about what labels may be assigned to us as a result. Because only a handful of people are willing to do this, in anglosphere discourse that is generally heavily anticommunist, it is only natural that someone such as myself will spend a lot more time refuting misinformation about socialist states than criticizing them on the points that are valid concerns.
This does not mean that I consider China some kind of utopia or that I idolize it, or think it should be a model of emulation (although there are aspects that we could do well to borrow and learn from, like their trains). China has had a unique timeline of development and has it's own unique conditions to deal with. As I said previously, I don't believe there's anything I could do to affect Chinese policy regardless of what I think of it, other than through my own government, and that is not an option I'm willing to support.
I literally said that I have and do criticize China for things including LGBT rights. That itself is an acknowledgement of fault. The fact that you were so intent on this fucking gotcha, so confident that it could never possibly be true that I'm capable of criticizing the country, it's just ridiculous. What, did you genuinely think we're bots, as opposed to that being something y'all say to just write off any perspectives you disagree with? Don't drink your own Kool-Aid.
I think China is wrong on LGBT treatment.
Also, you are a fucking liar and asking in bad faith.
Yeah, if you completely ignore the fact that that sentence was in the context of talking about China, if you completely ignore the parts where I talk specifically about "China's modern day homophobia" then you might not be the bold-faced liar that you are. Talking about me gaslighting you while trying to pull this shit is incredibly rich.
Liberals only ask for evidence of criticism to use it in bad faith, exhibit #1684938
How is acknowledging that Chinese homophobia exists, is a problem, and comes out of a socialist intellectual tradition not a criticism of China? Wtf are you talking about? Obviously, that falls under "finding fault."
Yes, of course I'm going to contextualize and explain it, because the person in that thread asked me for an explanation.
This is ridiculous goalpost moving. No criticism would ever be enough for you, short of going full on rainbow imperialism, chauvanism, or exaggerating/making shit up. You're being blatantly intellectually dishonest.
This is just straight up lying. Acknowledging that a problem in China is also a problem in other socialist countries does somehow make it not a problem when China does it. Fuck off with that BS.
Sure.
I generally don't go around shit-talking other countries that I don't live in and have never been to. The only real exceptions being ones that are receiving military aid from my own country, such as Israel, because that makes it relevant to me.
For the record, I have and do criticize China on certain things, such as LGBT rights. But again, that's pretty irrelevant to any political questions that are actually relevant to me and my life. What am I going to do about problems in China? What levers of power can I or should I assert to address their problems? It kinda seems like I should probably be a little bit more concerned about all the horrible things my own country is doing. Don't talk shit about a splinter in their eye when there's a wooden board in your own or something.
If there was a way for me to assert some lever of power against China, it would be through my own government. But that would only be a valid thing to do if my government wasn't doing worse things, which is why it's relevant to point out that the US is worse, in spite of the inevitable response of "whataboutism."
If the discourse around here was upholding China as some utopia that we should all try to emulate in every regard, you would see me criticize it more. But because the discourse is more about how evil every single thing it does is, how every accusation should be believed completely uncritically, how we should support Western governments acting against it, etc, it's only natural that that's what you see me pushing back against the most.
Classic "no way to prevent this" says only nation where this regularly happens. A part of me just wishes that the horrors could be contained to within our borders, but we have to make all of our shit everyone's problem.
The funniest part about this is how many people will be like, "The best approach is a mixture of socialism and capitalism" which is exactly what China is doing. I've tried so many times to get a coherent answer from the "China bad because billionaires" types as to whether the reforms in the 80's were good or bad. The only response you'll ever get from most of them is to call you a fascist for asking.
The ways chauvanism can manifest and reassert itself, even when people rational recognize it as a bad thing in the abstract, are so crazy. The internalized indoctrination works like some kind of demon constantly whispering in people's heads, trying to get them to come back around to "America #1!"
Criticism will either be overly specific, "This is just because of Trump, I miss when we had respectable Republicans like Bush," or it will be overly general, "Yes, the US is bad, but only in the sense that all governments are bad." Anything to avoid the conclusion that the US just fucking sucks.
If the American government fails it must either be an exception, or an inherent flaw in all governments, because we're the smartest, best, most moral and freedom-loving people in the world. Impossible that foreigners could succeed where we failed, if we failed, it could only be because the task is impossible. That's how the chauvanists think, and so the conclusion is already determined before a single actual fact is considered.
Ain't done nothing if you ain't been called a
RedTankie, so you might as well ignore it, or love the word instead!And proud of it. Because anyone who thinks critically, acknowledges basic, objective facts about reality, anyone who questions their own government and confronts their own presumptions and prejudices, is a "tankie" to you liberal, imperialist, chauvinists.
At least I don't have the blood of a million Middle Easterners on my hands like you do.
That's still not the same as minor border disputes.
Yes, decades long occupations, minor border clashes, both equally bad and equally requiring staunch opposition. You gonna go full "white lives matter" next? Or can we agree that focusing on the much, much bigger problem should be the priority?
"Gives me away" as what? If you're going to accuse me of something, say it to my face.
Minor border disputes are not imperialism.
Projection.
Over 40 years ago lol. If the US had been at peace since Vietnam, I'd have very different opinions about it.
Any independent thinker should indeed seek to critically understand multiple perspectives, yes. Although even just being able to formulate perspectives of other countries, or being willing to challenge blatant misinformation will get you accused of being an imperialist by left-posturing Western chauvanists.
You can make the argument for Russia but I really don't understand how China, a country that has been at peace for over 40 years and which is developing an alternative economic sphere such that countries are not forced to accept whatever conditions the West imposes, could possibly be considered "imperialist." I'm guessing people will just be like, "Well what if they invaded Taiwan? The things happening purely in my imagination prove China bad."
Republican is when anyone disagrees with you for literally any reason. There are two types of people on planet Earth: people who think exactly the same way as you, huff your farts, and agree with every single word that comes out of your mouth, and Republicans.
God, y'all are insufferable.
Meanwhile, you're out here actually falling for the same kind of obvious bullshit your Red MAGA counterparts do, but it's about the evil foreign CCP rather than Planned Parenthood or ACORN so that makes you totally different.
fart noises
Alright help me out here. Let's use an example.
A black man comes to a crosswalk and, after checking the road is clear, starts crossing even though he doesn't have the light. Suddenly, a cop rolls up, sirens blaring, and starts arresting him for jaywalking. While the arrest is ongoing, a white man starts walking across the street without the light and the cop does nothing. The man being arrested says, "This is bullshit! You're not doing anything about it when he does it!" The cop slams his face against the car and says, "Nice whataboutism, perp. You just committed a tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone else does something bad doesn't justify your own actions. In fact, I don't necessarily approve of what he's doing either. Now let's get you down to the station, punk."
Either "whataboutism" is just complete bullshit, or the vast majority of times it's invoked it's bullshit. The fact that a rule or criticism is applied selectively is extremely relevant. It's obvious in my example that the cop is just using the jaywalking as a pretext, but I'm not sure what the victim is supposed to say in that case in response that wouldn't make him an evil authoritarian tankie fascist, but whatever it is, just assume I said it to you because it's the same bullshit in both cases.
Yeah, because telling the court it's full of shit generally isn't the best legal defense. However, it would demonstrate that the court is not upholding it's principles consistently. It would be a valid logical and political argument to challenge the court as biased, it's just not the most practical when the court is the one making the arbitration.
You might be right. It wouldn't be singling out, except for the fact that the author specifically does single out China and claim that the West is innocent of similar crimes, which is why I said that calling me out on "whataboutism" would be even more spurious than usual in this case.
It kinda does though? The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things, and the reality is that the West does worse things, so it is a pretty spurious criticism.
"Whataboutism" isn't even a real thing. Random internet people just started saying it one day but it has no logical basis. When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it's relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is "tyrannical" by your standards, or whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted? What exactly have they done that is "indefensible," or do you just mean that government in general is indefensible?
Lol what?
"Elon Musk is a shithead, that's why Albania's space program is the best in the world!"
"But Albania doesn't have a space program?"
"Whataboutism!"
That's not how anything works dude lmao. When the author says something blatantly false I'm allowed to call them on it.
Every single government that has ever existed since the dawn of time?