Earlier quoted context omitted.
So… if China mistreats their citizens, reciprocity says we must mistreat ours? You don’t fight censorship with censorship. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory thought. You fight censorship with openness. As soon as you find yourself arguing that you have no choice but to engage in the same behaviors you claim to dislike, you have literally become the enemy.
> So… if China mistreats their citizens, reciprocity says we must mistreat ours? This is such a silly strawman. A better example would be that reciprocity would say that if China mistreated our civilians then we should mistreat theirs. Reciprocity doesn't mean "we do whatever China does". > You don’t fight censorship with censorship. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory thought. You fight censorship with op…
Good example, and thank god that is unconstitutional.
For example China can arrest American citizens in China without dual process. But we cannot arrest Chinese citizens, or anyone here in the U.S. and just put them to prison without dual process.
Americans in China have no freedom of speech. Should we ban Chinese citizens in the U.S. from speaking freely as well? Again, that is unconstitutional. U.S. constitution protects anyone within the U.S. not just U.S. citizens. Otherwise we can just send someone with a green card to jail without trial.
So your example only serves the counter-argument, which is that reciprocity is not something you should aim for when it comes to human rights.
> which is in turn used to spread CCP propaganda.
Since not even the U.S. government has been able to provide any such evidence, and have admitted that the threat is hypothetical, if you have any such evidence you should present it.