331–340 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah I prefer to discuss with people who have some basic literacy or googling skills because if you search for "economist predicting the fall of china" you'll find both their articles and the commentary surrounding it. It ain't that hard!
The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah if an American tech firm had been working in the US for 5 years and then tried to close all US offices down and move its IPs and tech to a different country so that it can sell out to Alibaba or Bytedance, I'm sure the US would react in the same exact way. The sinophobia in this thread is ridiculous. Whether you agree or disagree with what China is doing, nothing is happening that wouldn't also happen in the US.
What sinophobia? I haven't seen anyone here talking shit about chinese indivuduals. Or are they trashing China (the nation-state)? If we count that as xenophobia, is any unjust criticism of USA "americanphobia"? If so, fine, but I'd rather not anthropomorphize megacorps with monopolies on violence.
You don't need to anthropomorphize anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm asking because I read regularly the Economist and don't feel that it's a true statement. For instance, the latest Chaguan column is quite balanced: https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-... So yeah, if you have wold claims, you better back them with sources.
I also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers. Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
Imagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
If I were discussing a formal argument in debate club sure. I don't do googling for others when the first 10 results in google for this is either source articles from The Economist of a half dozen forum threads commenting the same thing for the past 5 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sinophobia? I haven't seen anyone here talking shit about chinese indivuduals. Or are they trashing China (the nation-state)? If we count that as xenophobia, is any unjust criticism of USA "americanphobia"? If so, fine, but I'd rather not anthropomorphize megacorps with monopolies on violence.
You don't think it's possible that Japanophobia could fuel criticisms of Nintendo? Or that Russophobia could fuel criticisms against a Russian company? You don't need to anthropomorphize anything.
Since you mentioned Nintendo, do you think the many criticisms(fair or otherwise) against Nintendo and their games are due to Japanophobia?
I think its fairly clear that, when talking bad about China, they are focusing on its goverment, not its people nor ethnicities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
Imagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the American ethnicity? Should all other ethnicities be subjected to the same round of questioning before the United States Congress? I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he though…
Maybe it is about idealistic concepts like "ethnonationalism", but a pragmatic perspective is just that: someone with critical ties/stakes with PRC makes them vulnerable to PRC pressure (just look up PRC overseas police services, or the expanding reach of its National Security Law). Tbh, its either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised that powers with stakes on an issue won't pressure to have outcomes lea…
Should American CEOs who do business in China be subjected to the same lines of questioning re their citizenship? You think Americans who do business in China aren't influenced or "vulnerable to PRC pressure"? China is a huge market, one of (if not perhaps the most) desirable in the whole world. You think American companies don't behave to please the PRC when operating in China?
Tbh it is either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised at the idea that American citizens running international businesses are somehow immune to "PRC pressure" given the PRC is the government of one of the largest and most desirable markets in the entire world.
Tom Cotton's line of inquiry is embarrassing on all grounds. The fact you have to draw up a strawman to defend it says a lot. As with the claim of "ethnonationalism", if he had even a shred of concrete evidence re PRC pressure he could have brought it to bear and dispensed with the repetitive citizenship questionnaire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is bad. It's a hyper authoritarian state using information collected from accounts for nefarious purposes, including informing their influence campaigns, targeting and they were censoring for specific issues. It's unthinkable that any free nation would allow a fairly oppressive and powerful entity to have that kind of power. China had (has) it's own police force in Canada, monitoring ex-pats and students, and v…
As I said, National Security ghouls.
The 'National Security Ghouls' are those arresting people for comments such as yours, putting them into camps, cutting access to information, disabling travel or access to services, shutting down expression and dissent, intervening in judicial affairs, arresting journalists, telling students what they cannot say, threatening and intimidating ex-pats etc..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers. Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for w…
I asked for a single article representing this point of view. If it is so common, it should be easy to find? No?