World News

2692 readers

70 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml

sovietsnake@lemmygrad.ml

ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml

Washington Post losing its mind over the fact that Singapore is not as rabidly anti-China as the US wishes (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] ElSteve0Grande@lemm.ee -34 points 2 years ago (46 children)

I wouldn’t say losing its mind. Definitely some click bait title there on your end. It just goes into how the Chinese ethnic population in Singapore, which is a city state in Malaysia, are aligning more with the Chinese Communist party. An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China. This divergence will lead to unrest ultimately, and will impact the successes of the city state. I debated even posting but most people won’t read the article and just go based on your title, which is inflammatory.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China.

How would you characterize the Iraq War, which the U.S. started on a totally fabricated premise, and during which the U.S. indiscriminately killed (by low estimates) hundreds of thousands of civilians? If you don't think that's at least as bad as whatever you believe is happening in Xinjiang, you're working from a heavy bias.
Why would I trust a country that's just spent the last few decades killing Muslims all over the globe to suddenly give a shit about Muslims in China? Why would I trust them over all the Muslim-majority countries who are fine with (or even support) China's policies in Xinjiang?

[–] ElSteve0Grande@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah you’re totally right. However, it is definitely off topic. I know I’m being down voted to oblivion. I did make the correlation of human rights violations to the Uyghurs, whom were not specifically listed. The article left it at just violations. Either way, it’s a very semantic argument. I was just pointing out that a large news publisher wasn’t “freaking out” and rather just reporting some drama happening on the other side of the globe. I did get lots of replies on an otherwise empty comment section, so at least there’s engagement. Which is why I’m here.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 years ago

How is pointing out bias and the absurdity of trusting the U.S. over Muslim-majority countries off topic in a thread about anti-China dogma in the U.S.?

load more comments (43 replies)