this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1231 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8779 readers
3139 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
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.