1195
There are too many of these people on lemmy
(lemmy.world)
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 Jul 2024
1195 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5483 readers
2248 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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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."
What’s your endgame here?
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.
Would you believe that Chinese people can talk about tiannamen if you saw their words?
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 said no.
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?
So you’re unwilling to accept Chinese people talking about tiannamen unless they conform to the ideas you already have, which line up broadly with the western narrative.
Do you think a degree of chauvinism might be informing that?
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.
I made a post about whether Chinese people can talk about tiannamen. You said youre interested in whether the government hides information. We’re having two different conversations.
If you want to have that conversation my only recommendation is to make an ml alt and go ask on hexbear or grad. There’s a lot of well read and well traveled people who can better assist you.
Like I said in what might have been my first reply to you, I don’t care about the questions you’re asking or understand their connection or relevance.
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."
It’s not the end of this road, it’s the beginning too.
I began by saying that I don’t have any interest in engaging with your questions. If you want someone to talk with you about them then talk to someone else.
I am again going to ignore most of what you wrote and pick what I want to respond to:
Do you think your unwillingness to accept Chinese people talking in their own words about tiannamen and your denial that it’s sinophobic to say they can’t are related?
How could I accept something I haven't seen? Why would I accept something unrelated to the claim at hand?
Chinese people talking about tiannamen is literally a direct refutation of the claim that they can’t do so.
It is as related to that claim as any thing could possibly be.
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?
I never said that. You did. I don’t care about disproving the claims you make. I especially don’t care to attempt to disprove a negative statement since it’s pretty fraught.
That idea, that government action prevents Chinese people from speaking about tiannamen rests on Chinese people not speaking about tiannamen. That second part, the one your claim rests on, is what I dispute and what I made a post about before even your first reply.
I asked you if you’d accept Chinese people speaking about tiannamen as evidence of my claim and you said (and I’m paraphrasing here, because enumerating all the ways you said the Chinese people would have to be in line with the western story in order for you to accept that evidence amounts to the same outcome) no.
It seems like all you care about is government restriction of speech. When is it acceptable for a government to restrict speech?
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 I, as I said before multiple times, don’t care what you think or about the questions you’re asking.
You seem to care a lot though, so I’ll pose my last question again: when is it acceptable for a government to restrict speech?
So, no evidence then?
I guess here we are.
You want me to disprove something you said in response to something I said that you admitted you wouldn’t accept evidence of.
It seems like you really want to talk about government repression of speech though, so why not tell me when it’s acceptable for government to restrict speech?
"I don't understand your questions and don't care to respond to them."
Yeah, I don’t understand how all that stuff you brought up relates at all to the false claim that Chinese people can’t talk about tiannamen.
For it to be related a person would have to be some kind of freedom of speech absolutist, which is why I asked if you thought governments should ever limit speech.
Come on, I’m finally engaging with all the stuff you asked a million years ago, you should be happy!
I think you should talk to my friend, maybe he could explain my position to you since I can't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So are you a speech absolutist? You said authoritarian a bunch of times too, how are you defining that?
I don't really understand your questions and am going to pretend they aren't relevant so...
You don’t need to pretend.
Weather the Chinese government exerts any control over speech about tiannamen is immaterial to the false, sinophobic claim that Chinese people can’t talk about it.
No, you hang up first. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If you want to go, go.
No, it's cuter if you hang up first babe.
Responding to me like a significant other after a whole conversation filled with every kind of manipulation and misdirection imaginable probably isn’t the flex you think it is.
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.
You said you wouldn’t accept Chinese people speaking in their own words about tiannamen as proof that Chinese people can talk about tiannamen and subsequently claimed that you were no more (at the very least) chauvinist for this than anyone else.
I can think of no clearer example of bad faith action than your own behavior, especially weighed against my own feather of refusing to get bogged down in big walls of text which manipulate and change my own words to support yours.
If you want to talk about government repression of speech then do so. I asked some questions, you can respond to them.
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.
I never shifted the goalposts. They have always been “saying Chinese people can’t talk about tiannamen is sinophobic and false”. After I explained in detail how that claim is sinophobic you asked for proof that it’s false and I asked to confirm that Chinese people speaking in their own words about tiannamen would constitute proof in your eyes and you said not unless it also refutes your claim that the Chinese government is authoritarian and controls speech.
I never said government criticism was racist. I said claiming Chinese people can’t talk about tiannamen is sinophobic.
You introduced the requirement that we incorporate a stance on the Chinese governments authoritarian and/or tyrannical nature into this discussion and it was you who mischaracterized my position as saying that any criticism of government is racist, which I directly refuted earlier in our discussion.
Since you’re talking about it, how is the Chinese government authoritarian?