OBJECTION!

That doesn’t seem to describe me very well. Seems like a strange take. I would think that studying history and basing beliefs on evidence would lead one to arrive at a more nuanced understanding than going, “idk seems bad.”

I said that to make the point that what they said was irrelevant to what I said, unless this thread was full of Chinese people.

I guess I don’t really operate on vibes too much when looking at geopolitics.

Because I’m trying to understand their perspective. I consider China to be communist in the sense that the people in charge are communists, the same sense that it was communist under Mao. They call themselves communists, they explain their reasons for doing things from the perspective of communist ideology, they teach Marxism in schools, etc.

To say that they are specifically no longer communist, when they claim to be, seems to be weighing in on what communism is and isn’t. Specifically, it seems to be taking the perspective that Mao’s leadership constituted “real” communism while Deng’s leadership constituted “fake” communism. As I am not a Maoist, I disagree with that perspective.

It’s strange to me that you think understanding someone’s stance on China’s economic reforms, the point in history where they allegedly abandoned communism, would be irrelevant to understanding the standard by which they consider China to have abandoned communism. What could be more relevant?

I never said that he did.

I don’t see how this point matters. Yes, Chinese people shared the story, because they cared about it. I still think it’s a non-issue personally, but people care about all sorts of things, and I’m sure I could find some celebrity gossip with a wider spread. Perfectly fine with all of that.

Then the BBC reports on it internationally, and people on here use it to spread a narrative that China is a nation full of liars. Am I repeating myself? I think I said that part already. That’s the only thing I’ve taken issue with. I fail to see how what you’re saying, that Chinese people originally shared the story, has anything to do with that.

Contrary to popular belief, there’s actually nothing wrong with calling out bad arguments and illegitimate or irrelevant criticism of anything or anyone, regardless of what you think about the thing or person. I’ll apologize for whoever I please, in other words.

I guess I’m just confused then. When China enacted economic reforms in the 80’s, there were people who opposed them and felt that these reforms entailed a right-wing deviation from communism. Those people were/are known as Maoist hardliners. You can see where I thought you might be one.

If you’re not that, then does that mean you do approve of those economic reforms? Perhaps I misunderstood, when you said China abandoned communism, did you mean it as a good thing, and you support China’s direction from a pro-capitalist standpoint?

If that’s not it, I give up. I’m afraid I’m at a loss what your ideology is or what you think about Chinese history or the country’s economic reforms. If you could explain it to me, I’d be quite grateful, I see a lot of people around here who appear to me to be Maoists, but when I ask if they are, they don’t answer or elaborate. It’s very confusing to me.

And I’m fine with that. What I’m less fine with are people in this thread, about a BBC article, exploiting a local issue about water management to paint an entire country as being full of liars. If Chinese people want to make a big deal out of it, that’s their business.

Nobody in this thread cares about it for the story itself. They care about it because it gives them an excuse to push their agenda.

Right here?

And it’s still the Chinese people making a big deal about this.

I’m talking about what people in this thread are saying, and in response they said it’s Chinese people making a big deal about it, so naturally that would imply that this thread is full of primarily Chinese people.

Really? Because what I’m seeing is an article from the British Broadcasting Channel and a thread full of people using this story to make sweeping generalizations about China, in English. I suppose it’s possible, but I gotta say I find it a little hard to believe that this thread is full of Chinese nationals, as you’re claiming.

Are you a Maoist, then?

You say “thousands” as if that’s a lot. If some Chinese people want to talk about a park’s water management, I don’t mind. But when Westerners take some random trivial thing like this and use it to fuel a narrative that “China is a country full of lies,” or whatever, that’s an entirely different animal. This is a local issue, not an excuse for chauvanists to be chauvanist.

Xi Jinping reading about this story like

Where did I claim they were? I believe what I said is “Parks do water management.” And beauty and tourism are concerns that they take into account. This is a non-story.

Being a tankie is when you don’t care about water management at a park on the opposite side of the world, even though your state hates their state.

Yes I include China

Are you a Maoist, then?

People will really jump on any random thing to bash China. I’ll give kudos to British state media that this constant deluge of insignificant nonsense makes it really hard to have any discussion about China that’s based on like, broad trends in history or economics.

Parks do water management. At Niagra Falls, for example, much of the water is used for power generation at night, but during the day more of it goes over the falls for the benefit of tourists. You’ve probably never heard about it, because it doesn’t matter. At all.

But make it about another tribe, about the outgroup, and suddenly it’s the most important thing in the world and proves everything we always suspected and blah blah blah. Go volunteer at your local park.

That’s a common tool of propaganda. If you lie outright, you can get caught, and the audience may not believe you in the first place. The real trick is to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination, and if you’re doing it skillfully, they’ll end up not only believing what you want them to, but also thinking it was their idea all along. I’ve even seen the video cut to show the tank moving in the man’s direction, and then cut away before it stops, creating the impression that the full video would show him getting run over and is not included because it would be too graphic - for example, 3:14 in this bizarre psyop recruitment ad.

Dessalines himself posted this video

You seem to have gotten lost, this is a top level comment.