4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
Geopolitics : News and discussion
323 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
- Be polite and do not spam.
- Domestic news items without any geopolitics are spam.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
this study challenges the reality of the south china sea. also regional power projection?
anyways, it seems like the study is based on two newspapers and speeches. to be fair; I don't think that's enough. you've gotta see if the stated goals align with what is being done.
I'm sure with two newspapers and some speeches you could say the US never ever kills children.
Not only didn't you bother reading the study before commenting, you didn't even bother reading the summary I provided which clearly states that the study analyzed 12,000 Chinese speeches/articles.
what? I read it? that's why I'm talking about the 2 newspapers and speeches they used?
to quote "we examined three main sources: People's Daily, which represents not only the state but also the Central Committee of the CCP; Xi Jinping's and other senior officials' speeches; and Qiushi, a magazine publicizing the CCP's latest policy directions. We used computer-assisted text analysis to systematically assess China's stated goals over time"
literally the first paragraph 🤦
The conventional wisdom is that China is a rising hegemon eager to replace the United States, dominate international institutions, and re-create the liberal international order in its own image. Drawing on data from 12,000 articles and hundreds of speeches by Xi Jinping, to discern China's intentions we analyze three terms or phrases from Chinese rhetoric: “struggle” (斗争), “rise of the East, decline of the West” (东升西降), and “no intention to replace the United States” ((无意取代美国).
oh wow - so you didn't read it? impressive
see my quote is about their sources. amongst that is chairman Xi and other officials?
do at least try to read it first? 😅
I did read it. Where the articles are published isn't really all that relevant is it, especially given that we're talking about statements from state officials. We're literally talking about state policy here, and a huge volume of it was examined. I'm not even sure what argument you were attempting to make here, but I'm sure it sounded really intelligent in your head.
Allright, last attempt to make sense here:
My comment, which is about how I think the paper's sources aren't good enough for the statements made. It doesn't try to test the statements against what has been said. (I also didn't find any dates for when the articles and speeches are from?)
I also added that you could do x thing with the same amount of data if you pick sources carefully. Not saying it's what's been done; but that it's quite possible.
I will reiterate: my comment was about the sources and methods of the paper.
I then commented to talk to you about that, as I understood your comment to say that it didn't just use 3 places of sorces - which I assume is a miscommunication on the "12000" number.
With all that in mind. where the stuff is published is quite important. At least in my country almost all outlets carry some sorta bias. in US context, I think washington post is owned by amazon guy? Would that paper then publish articles that said negative stuff about him? State policy is like any other policy -- not reality, and often closer to politicians promises. Which is why I asked for a assesment towards what they do. Just look at the various things they promise in these places and check if they do. Go across a time-scale maybe 10 years back in time.
Hope that my argument became clear to you now, and even if you disagreee or whatever; that you'll still beilive that I read the thing.
Again, talking about biases in state media is nonsensical when we're discussing state policy based on the statements from people in the government. The biases they express are literally the point. The study is on what has CPC publicly said throughout the years. Meanwhile, what China has done over the years isn't exactly a secret either. They haven't been at war since the 70s, they have managed to establish mutually beneficial relationships with the majority of countries around the world, and they're developing in a peaceful fashion. This matches closely what the stated policy is. If you go back on a time scale of maybe 10 years back, you'll find that China has been fairly transparent regarding what their goals are and their actions match their words.