You're viewing part of a thread.
I said
"Living in the US is sufficient cause to distrust its government."
You replied:
"I can say the same for China"
I replied:
"Except you literally can’t." Meaning you don't live in China so you can't make the claim with similar level of authority
And then you made the comment I replied to, and I don't see at all how it is connected to the line of conversation.
I guess I can't because i don't live in China, but you understand the point of my argument yet choose to play semantics. It's fine
No, you said something that didn't make sense.
Saying that the Chinese government censors news from their citizens and attempts to spread propaganda about themselves to the outside world doesn't make sense to you?
The point is you're making an unsourced claim which doesn't align with the topic of conversation.
Sucking up to the Chinese like a true tankie. Intellectualism is being able to admit that both the Chinese and US governments are bad actors
True intellectualism is doing proper investigation before speaking. How many ordinary Chinese people have you talked to? Have you visited China?
I don't think i need to have done any of those things to make assertions about China. Saying that China doesn't engage in propaganda spreading and censorship is peak naivety. You know you can be a communist while also criticizing its model example right?
Hell, I've conversed with some of the most ardent communists on here, and even they concede China engages in censorship and propaganda spreading
Saying that they do propaganda and censorship as like a "you can't trust them" justification is ridiculous though. Literally all states do those things, and non-state solutions don't work, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
If that's your stance, then i can also say the same thing about the US:
"Saying the US does propaganda and censorship as like a 'you can't trust them' justification is ridiculous though".
That's your argument now used to support my stance.