this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1231 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8904 readers
3289 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh look, you finally decided to "respond" to my original analogy. To bad you entirely ignored it to obtuse about a direct reframing of your argument.
This you?
Ya, that's the exact argument I was responding to and showing you how ridiculous it is when used in the context of Israel instead of China.
Did you maybe notice something about the last two paragraphs of my last comment? They are almost identical with a few words and phrases swapped. It's a direct analogy to show that your claim, that it is sinophobic to say "the Chinese government doesn't let people talk about TS", is indistinguishable from "it's antisemitic to say the Israeli government is lying" for exactly the same reason. Maybe you're having a hard time grasping that because you also think it's antisemitic to disagree with the statements or actions of the Israeli government?
Do I need to copy and paste your exact paragraph with Chinese swapped for Israeli?
While I get how confusing it must be to talk to the same person about the same topic more than once, I didn't realize things were getting so serious. I have to admit, I'm not really one for monogamy, but I guess you could be exclusive if you want. Your jealousy is cute though. 😉
Maybe this time you'll bring even a shred of evidence showing that the claim is in fact false as I've asked for it numerous times and even provided evidence to the contrary. I know you won't, because for some reason you are stuck saying the same "it's false and racist" over and over again while failing to provide evidence it is false or a good argument that it is racist.
Leftist using idpol to attempt to defend authoritarian regimes certainly get "stuck in my craw" as you say. "Uh actually it's racist to say mean things about China because its government is made of Chinese people". Fuck outta here with that liberal idpol bullshit. And fuck the CCP for trying to ban and discourage discussion about TS or memorials of it.
It's indistinguishable from the liberals saying "uh actually its antisemitic to say mean things about Israel because its government is made of Jewish people." They can also fuck outta here with that idpol bullshit.
What the fuck does the distance between two countries have to do with this? Can we not compare China to America or any other country outside of Asia? Are there special rules for governments in Asia? Does the history of China somehow exempt their actions from criticism? Do governments made up of people who have historically faced racism get a hall pass because it would be racist to be mean to them? If your government does a bad thing, I will call it out. Whether in NA, Europe, Asia, or anywhere.
I have tried engaging with your "points" in every response and for some reason you keep failing to provide evidence that it is false or a good argument for why it would be racist. Liberal idpol isn't an argument I or anyone should accept and I have a feeling you reject it in most other contexts. Being an oppressed minority doesn't exempt you or your government from criticism of your actions.
Do you want to expand on those differences at all or just gesture vaguely at them? It's not misleading to compare two countries against each other just because they have different histories. All countries have different histories from each other. If country A is doing a shitty thing they should be called out for it. If country B is doing a shitty thing they should be called out for it. The history and race of the people who make up the government does nothing to change the math here.
Man, if only I had explained over and over using identical language to relate the actions of those two countries. Do you understand what an analogy is? Of course they don't line up exactly because they are different! You can't do an analogy with identical things! The whole point was that the reasoning you are using to excuse the CCP is exactly the same as liberals use to excuse the Israeli government. You can "but it's different because reasons" if you want, you are just showing that you have no consistent framework to evaluate the actions of governments.
Give me one example of me responding to something you didn't say or imply in what you wrote.
It would be cool if you actually provided any evidence or a substantiation of your claims even once. I guess quoting your exact words and responding to them is just putting words in your mouth! Maybe if you ever answered a single question I wouldn't have to assume your position on something. If you don't want to be misunderstood, maybe stop dodging questions.
Maybe you can help clear this up: is criticism of any government equivalent to criticism of its people? You argued that the government of China is made up of Chinese people which is a clear attempt to equate those things. After all, if it wasn't why would you have made that claim? Why would you feel the need to state the obvious unless you were trying to make a point related to my question?
And this one too: Is it ever racist to call out the bad actions of any government? If so, how could you ever criticize any country for its bad actions?
Maybe this one: How is this not just liberal idpol bullshit? What it really feels like is an attempt to use idpol to protect an authoritarian government from criticism. It feels like grasping at straws for any shield you could use to protect a government by foiling the racism its people have faced. As I've said before, sinophobic exists, but you don't get to point to valid criticism of the actions of China'a government as an example of that. That attempted connection is exactly the idpol shield bullshit I'm calling out.
And, just on a personal note, it also "gets stuck in my craw" when people who are supposed to be arguing for a better system for everyone bend-over backwards and tie themselves in knots trying to protect authoritarians who wear red. Any government that did what the CCP did both at TS and with the information surrounding it since can entirely get fucked. That says nothing at all about the people of China who are not their government by the way.
Are you going to provide a single piece of evidence showing that it's false to say " the Chinese government doesn't allow people to freely talk about TS or hold memorials for it"? Are you going to offer any logical reason why it would be racist to say "the CCP doesn't allow people to freely talk about TS or hold memorials for it" besides your liberal idpol?
So you chose "just gesture vaguely" then. It's disappointing but not surprising. After all, it's all you've been doing this whole time.
It also appears that you chose not to provide any evidence at all, in this entire multi-day conversation, that the original claim is false.
It also appears that you chose not to provide any reason why it would be racist other than the liberal idpol you keep going back to. You haven't even tried to claim it's not idpol, just that it's not "fair" to the CCP to judge them by the same rules I do every government. Do you know what that kind of thinking is called when you apply it to people? Bigotry of low expectations.
Why should they get special treatment? Why do their improprieties get dismissed while others don't?
Why is it so hard for you to justify anything you say? It wasn't hard for me to provide a HRW article specifically about how the Chinese government censors and discourages discussion about the events of TS. It's not hard for me to explain my consistent framework for understanding and criticizing the actions of a government. Why is defending your position so difficult for you? Do you not have any evidence to support the "false" narrative you've been pushing this whole time? Do you not have a consistent framework that you use to evaluate the actions of any and all governments regardless of the type of people that make up that government? Why should I, you, or anyone hold China to a different standard than Israel, Kenya, America, or any other country? You do see how giving them a pass because the people who make up the government are one specific race is racist, right?
It would be just as racist to excuse the Israeli government for it's actions just because the people who make it up are Jewish, it would be just as racist to excuse the actions of the Kenyan government just because the people who make it up are black, and it would be just as racist to excuse the actions of America because the people who make it up are predominantly white.
Your argument, steel-manned into a syllogism, is:
P1) Making a claim related to the actions of a government that is both false, and correlates to racist claims about the predominant people-group of that country is racist.
P2) The claim that the government of China does not allow people to freely discuss the events of TS or hold memorial events for TS is both false and correlates to racist claims about Chinese people.
C) It is racist to say that the government of China does not allow people to freely discuss the events of TS or hold memorial events for TS.
Congratulations! It is a logically valid argument! But, you have not demonstrated it to be sound. I reject both premises for lack of supporting evidence.
P1 is what most of our discussion has been about. I reject it because people == government. Even if the attacks against the CCP were rooted in racism, systems don't have a race or personhood, governments don't have a race or personhood. Systems deserve no respect unless it is earned and have no value outside of what they do to improve people's lives. Demonstrate to me why I should hold any government at all to be inherently deserving of respect in the same way that people are.
P2 has two things you would need to prove. Even if I grant that it is correlated to racist claims, you'd still have to demonstrate it is false. Something you've made no effort to do this entire time and appear to have dropped entirely since you haven't even attempted to claim it's false in the last few replies.
The conclusion is only demonstrated to be true when the argument is shown to be valid in structure (Hooray! It is) and sound (something you've yet to demonstrate even though I've been asking for it since we started this conversation). You can still believe it if you want, but you are, by definition, being irrational about it. In particular, I'd recommend looking up special pleading.
Again, this is your attempt to give special treatment to this specific authoritarian government, presumably because you think they are some kind of vanguard for an ideology you like. If we can't call out the actions of countries that are ostensibly "on our side" as leftists then we have already lost. No government, whether capitalist or anything else, has the right to deny basic human rights. To say otherwise is an acceptance that we must sacrifice human rights to move towards a better system. I fundamentally reject that kind of thinking, that kind of giving up. A better system is only worth fighting for if it makes people's lives better, rights and all.
One is big and one is small, one has lots of people one has fewer, and they have different histories in their formation. You see China as the victim of the imperial West and Israel as an extension of that imperial West into the Middle East. Got it.
Does any of that mean that it's acceptable to be racist to one but not the other? Does China get more of a hall-pass because of their previous mistreatment? If so, why shouldn't the Jewish people, who faced an attempted extermination, get that same pass? Why wouldn't the Kenyan government get a pass for their mistreatment of LGBTQ people since they've long been the subject of imperialism and racism too?
Again, this is inconsistent. I hold all governments to the same standard regardless of any previous mistreatment the people have faced. Why should I not? Why fall into the bigotry of low expectations?
You can compare any two things, even things that are wildly different. They don't have to be a certain level of similar to compare and contrast two things. I can just as easily compare sinophobia to antisemitic as I could antisemitic to anti-black racism. In this case, they are not even that different from each other. Both are bigotries towards a group of people that are based on perceived race and correlated factors.
What more questions would it raise? Why is it forbidden to compare two different kinds of racism against each other? Is one kind ok but the other isn't? How does any of this relate to bigotry against an institution like a government instead of against people or groups of people? Since they don't have personhood, what does it even mean to be racist against an institution?
I feel like you won't answer because you haven't so far, but what words have I put in your mouth? If you think I have misunderstood your argument then clarify it.
You said:
And my shortening was:
How are those meaningfully different? Were Chinese people not victims of those imperial holders when they were subjected to chattle slavery? Those holders were in the west right? Therefore they were the victims of imperialism from the west. Israel as a settler state is also the act of an imperial West right? Europe (in the west) used imperialism to settle in the middle east. Those aren't new words with new ideas in your mouth, it was a restatement of what you said in fewer words. What specifically do you disagree with? You didn't use the word victim or West, but those are both true logical extensions of what you said, right?
I wanted you to defend your claims the same way I would anyone else. Just because you've been unwilling to provide any evidence at all doesn't make it my fault. I provided you evidence yesterday you never even mentioned or responded to. I steel-manned your argument into a syllogism for you just to help you understand the argument you were making, the flaws with it, and how it is being inconsistently applied. I didn't have to do any of that, I could have just called you a "dumb tankie" and walked away if my goal was to dunk on you or shadow box.
As I said before, the reason I chose to do all that is because claims like you expressed are detrimental to the cause I believe you and I share. Maybe you don't, I don't know you, but I certainly get the impression that you and I share similar sentiments towards capitalism, imperialism, and the end goals of improving the lives of everyone on earth through fundamentally different and better institutions than we have today. Claims like the one you made chain us to the worst attempts at making a better world. Defending the authoritarian governments that spawned from them shows an (in my opinion unacceptable) defeatism towards fundamental human rights and freedoms. When claims like yours speak the loudest, we risk being forever bound to those mistakes of the past and being forced to bend over backwards to find reasons to excuse unacceptable behavior.
I won't support limiting freedom of information, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, or freedom of protest even if the government is made of people who have been subjected to objectively terrible treatment. Being the victim doesn't give you the right to victimize your citizens.
You don't have to respond, no one is making you, but I keep trying to get you to back up your original claim and you just can't seem to do it.
That's fair enough. The reason why I didn't include that is that most people I know include modern day Japan in "the west" since that's where they have the closest ties and it was more modern than I thought you were talking about given the talk of the long history of the region vs Israel.
That's fine. The history of that area of the world more than most others is a complicated mess. It's reasonably neutral language and I agree with the accuracy of history being referenced.
So here is part of where you are losing me.
First, how exactly does this connect to the previous statements about their histories? What about their histories being different precludes us from comparing and contrasting them. Is it only in the context of historical racism that we can't compare them? Could I compare their GDPs? Can I compare their government structures? I am not seeing the connection you are trying to draw between the differences in their history and our inability to compare the racism their peoples have / are facing.
As stated before, I also don't see the connection you are trying to to draw between the people who make up the majority of a particular institution and the institution itself. I have no reason to think institutions have feelings or personhood. I don't care about the instructions themselves other than the good they do for their people and the people around them. Other than making up some or most of the workers in that institution, what is the connection between the instruction itself and the people?
Second, why is it absurd to compare two similar things? We can easily compare the racism faced by Chinese people with racism faced by Jewish people with racism faced by black people. And how does this tie into the correlation I believe you are drawing between the people and the government? Is it that you believe one group is overall on the receiving end of the mistreatment and the other is overall on the giving side of mistreatment?
I don't agree that anyone or even most people would find it absurd to compare two things with so much overlap. Both China and Israel are countries. Both have predominate people groups that have faced historical racism and mistreatment. Sinophobia and antisemitism are both objectively bad things that cause harm based on inherited characteristics. I don't see why this is so preposterous to you. And I don't see how the history of their mistreatment changes anything?
If I can ask directly, does being the victim of racism or any other mistreatment give you any more leeway in causing harm to others? If not then I don't understand why bringing up their history matters. And if so, why should I let people who have been victims victimize others? Again, isn't this just bigotry of low expectations?
The reason I said hand waving is because you have answered very few questions directly. To your credit, you have done so in this reply.
What it sounds like you are saying (you can correct me if you'd like) is that it's unfair to compare the actions of these two governments because their histories are so different. That it's fair to criticize Israel and doing so isn't antisemitic, but not fair to criticize China and doing so is sinophobic. And the reason for that (again as far as I can tell) is their different histories of oppression. My problem here is I don't agree that criticism of a government = criticism of a people group and I don't agree that people groups who have historically faced oppression should be less open to being criticized for bad actions.
That's a great analogy and it certainly helps clear up your view!
By "underpinnings", are you saying racism is the underlying cause for the criticism / the public statement of that criticism or just one of the underlying causes. Is it a "but-for" in that a person wouldn't make those criticisms but-for their underlying racism? Would it be possible for a person without those underlying racist attitudes or feelings to have the same criticisms of the actions of that government?
So, here is what I believe you are saying: People have underlying racism towards Chinese people that motivates them to make criticisms of the Chinese government (that they couldn't or wouldn't make but-for that underlying racism?).
Depending on a lot of specifics I could agree. If a but-for is what you are arguing, I don't think I could agree with that, at least in the specific context of the original claim regarding TS. You have pointed to some racist attitudes towards Chinese people that correlate or overlap with the TS claim (not knowing their history, not standing up against an unfair government, etc) but, in my opinion, those are tangentially related. The lack of historical knowledge would be a direct result of the actions of the government in repressing that knowledge. The claim is not that the information is freely available without consequences or attempts to hide / manipulate it and the people are putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la". Not standing up to an unjust government could be argued from the perspective of today but was exactly what the people in TS were trying to do. It wouldn't make sense for someone who really believed Chinese people were too docile to stand up to a government to claim they stood up to the government and now the government is hiding the information about it. The expected outcome from that belief doesn't match the nature of this claim.
If it's not a but-for, then it could just as easily be valid criticism of the Chinese government that, by happenstance alone, overlaps with racist claims. You may find this unlikely, but if it's possible for a person without that animus to have the same criticisms then you would need to believe you understand that specific person's motivates to make the claim. It would no longer be a blanket-true statement that these claims are coming from racist attitudes.
That said, it's theoretically possible for there to be a claim that is but-for the underlying racism. I would have to give an analogy that might muddy the waters again, but I'm sure you could imagine one given any people group and racist claims. The issue here is that I don't believe you have sufficiently shown that it would not be possible for a person absent racist animus to claim that the Chinese government attempts to hide and discourage open and free discussions, information, and memorials surrounding the events of TS. Their mere proximity to those racist attitudes isn't sufficient.
This was your original comment (parts that are struck-out are not relevant):
Your argument was that the statement, "you couldn’t even talk about tiannamen square" was sinophobic. And the reason provided was that it's:
patently untrue
basically an anti-china buzzword now.
Saying 'that statement isn't one that has zero sinophobic underpinnings' is quite a bit different. I am not arguing that there are 0 racist "underpinnings". But, if the standard for racism is "has at least one racist underpinnings" then I think you may have an easier time writing the list of statements that are not racist. If that is the standard, then saying something is racist risks losing all meaning since almost everything would be.
I have been saying that it is not sinophobic because it is:
not demonstrated to be untrue, much less patently. You haven't provided any evidence for it being untrue and it's certainly not clearly, or without a doubt, untrue.
at best anti-ccp not anti-chinese. It is a popular criticism of China pointed to by both those who have clearly racist motivations and intents and those who do not.
a bad framework to determine if something is sinophobic/racist or not. The truthfulness of a statement doesn't impact its racism. There are true things that have racist underpinnings and false things that do not. Even if something is a popular buzzword used predominantly by people who have the worst motives, it would not be inherently racist.
You're correct that animus is not required for something to be racist. However, it's hard to imagine that you intended to mean "the claim is sinophobic because it's patently untrue and has a non-zero number of racist underpinnings but without animus."
I want to believe things that are true and have good reasoning and evidence to support them. Ideally, I'd like others to do the same. If what you are saying is true and there's good reasoning and evidence for it, I'd like to believe it too. If not, ideally, I'd like to see you not believe it. Additionally, I want to say things that help what I fight for, a better world for all, and avoid those that don't.
I can't make you do anything. You don't have to respond, convince me, or change your mind. You've never had to. Why do you keep responding (not flippant, a genuine question)?
As I said previously, I believe statements like yours harm the cause I believe we share. If there's a way to get you to see that and stop doing that then, I believe, the world would be the tiniest bit better in that there's a better chance to get the improved world I, and I believe you, fight for. If it could be shown to me that statements like yours are true (by evidence and gold reasoning) and beneficial to the cause then I'd start saying them.
I don't believe it's either true or helpful to the cause to provide cover for authoritarian governments by pointing to valid criticism and declaring it racist, regardless of the mere presence of racist underpinnings. I would find it untrue and unhelpful in all cases, but especially those where the government wears the name tag commonly associated with the better world I want. Doing so ties that dream of a better world to the failures of the past that, although were likely well-intentioned, didn't result in that better world and in some cases made the lives of their citizens worse. My economic stances come downstream of my desire to see human rights respected by all and human flourishing to expand.
That's going to depend on a lot of specifics, but if it could be sufficiently demonstrated, yes.
Are they going to be able to speak reliably about government policy? Are they going to show evidence of actual memorial services? What level of knowledge of the events could they demonstrate? Are they going to be able to show that the government is not attempting to censor information or discourage open discussions or memorial events? A handful of anecdotes that people have vague notions of something big happening at that place and time would be anything but remarkable.
Are they going to disprove the reports of arrests for "seditious social media posts about an upcoming sensitive date?" Or that they removed books about TS from libraries in HK in 2023 after they reasserted control over HK? Is it going to link to government data about those who were killed, injured, forcibly disappeared, or imprisoned? Is it going to show that police haven't been stationed outside the homes of or disappeared people who were connected with the events of TS or its memorial services? Is it going to show that the government is not blocking search terms or Wikipedia pages about the events?
If all it will be is statements from the general Chinese public that they "know about what happened at TS" that would be unremarkable. I have no doubt that the government's attempt to hide information hasn't been fully successful and that people believe they know all that happened. That would not show that they do or that the information is freely available, or that the government is not doing the things outlined in the evidence I've provided so far.
You could have just provided sufficient evidence or provided what you have and see what my response would have been. Attempting to paint me into a corner by agreeing to accept evidence I haven't seen yet and don't know the nature of, other than you saying it's the words of Chinese people, is ridiculous. Would you agree to accept my evidence before seeing it only knowing it's coming from an international nonprofit?
Is that all it took to convince you? Would that kind of evidence be sufficient for any of related claims for other countries? I highly doubt you'd accept it if the tables were turned.
You understand that I don't have to think someone is lying to be wrong about something, right? How is your evidence going to show that these people aren't simply mistaken or misinformed?
Why don't you just provide what you have and see what objections come up?
I never said they'd have to line up with ideas I already have. The evidence you provide would need to adequately demonstrate what you are trying to prove and address the points brought up in the evidence I've already provided. I don't care about "the western narrative", I care about you proving what you claimed was obvious.
I haven't rejected anything yet because you haven't provided anything yet. You want me to agree to accept evidence I haven't seen and that doesn't address the actual claim made. My claim wasn't that "all Chinese people believe the government is trying to hide information about TS" or "all Chinese people have 0 knowledge about TS" , it was "the government is trying to hide information about TS." Showing me what a handful of Chinese people think is not going to address the claim at all. Do you have government documents that show something different? Do you have a reliable way to show that the claims in the evidence I provided are false?
If not, we are left with you choosing to accept the testimony of a few over the documented actions of a government.
I doubt you really want to have a conversation about our inherent biases given the stances you've taken in this conversation and the disparity between the evidence provided by the two of us. Which one of us has expressed a willingness to change their mind if presented sufficient evidence? Which one has backed up even a single claim made?
I have no doubt that chauvinism is an underpinning for some of my beliefs, in the same way that I doubt you would claim to have 0 racist, sexist, or chauvinistic underpinnings yourself. We are products of the cultures that surround us, especially during our formative years. True impartiality is impossible.
Once again though, you'd need to demonstrate that the belief is wrong not just that it has a non-zero number of racist influences.
My dude, it's been the same conversation this whole time. "People can't talk about TS" because the government hides information about it and bans memorial services. You've been pedantic about this for a while now but this is another level.
I like that the end of this road is just an attempt to shuffle me off to someone else who you hope could defend your position since you apparently can't. You can stop responding if you like, I have no idea why you keep responding but not providing any evidence for your claims. I'll keep asking you for evidence as long as it takes for you to either provide it, admit that you don't have a good reason to believe it, or walk away as you've always been free to do.
I know you don't care, that's been obvious this whole time even though you keep responding, but I don't for a moment believe you're too dumb to understand the connection or relevance. You've only been answering the questions you want to answer because that's easy but have pretty much always refused to answer the hard questions. You've been avoiding the questions that would highlight exactly how preposterous your claim was using identical logic to talk about other countries. You've refused to supply evidence unless I agree to accept it first. You've shifted the goalposts from is sinophobic and an anti China buzzword to has more than 0 racist underpinnings, a standard you know damn well you don't apply to other countries.
I just don't understand why you have such a strong need to protect an authoritarian government from criticism. China isn't smol bean and they don't need you to white-knight for them. They are a big-boy country who can handle criticisms of their actions. I don't care if their people faced oppression, the government doesn't get a pass for oppressing their citizens. Even if you think the criticism isn't true, I hope you can see how wrong and determental it is to call it sinophobic. It's a transparent attempt to co-opt liberal idpol to cover for the actions of a government you've decided you like. And you'll have to forgive me for not believing your "trust me bro someone else can totally prove this to you."
How could I accept something I haven't seen? Why would I accept something unrelated to the claim at hand?
We already covered this multiple times. The claim is they can't because of government actions that you refuse to prove don't happen. Are you now backing off the other part altogether and saying the only thing you'll defend is that some Chinese people have said things about TS?
So then, no evidence that they don't attempt to hide the information or ban people from holding memorial services? You could provide evidence that the government allows memorial services, or you could prove that the specific claims made in the evidence I gave you are incorrect. For example, you could show that access to the relevant wiki pages and Google searches are not blocked in China. None of this is proving a negative or an impossibly high bar to meet.
So, no evidence then?
"I don't understand your questions and don't care to respond to them."
I think you should talk to my friend, maybe he could explain my position to you since I can't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't really understand your questions and am going to pretend they aren't relevant so...
No, you hang up first. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
No, it's cuter if you hang up first babe.
Trying to act like you're suddenly good faith when you've been acting the way you have is probably not the flex you think it is either.
Why would I bother answering any of your questions after you spent days ignoring mine? Why should I bother building an argument when you never presented a coherent one yourself?
You made a claim you refused to support and ignored analogies for, you shifted the goalpost to something entirely different, and now you claim to want a good faith discussion. You never did. You wanted to make your ridiculous claim about government criticism being somehow racist because you have to find some way to support an authoritarian government you like because the sole party with power is using communist in their name. You don't have a consistent world view and just want to find a way to excuse the unexcusable actions of a tyrannical government you wouldn't hesitate to call out of the were in the west.
You don't have any high grounds in this conversation.