this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
55 points (96.6% liked)
Slop.
356 readers
763 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well I don't have the article, so I can't read it. But from just that title it more sounds like they're saying that China isn't actually collapsing, something is just changing.
They infer a decline is happening by mentioning it. It plants the idea that China is declining when it isn't at all.
If the article is about a structural shift, why mention decline in the headline at all?
Because it's a widely accepted idea? They might be trying to challenge that idea. But again, I could be wrong, since I haven't read the article.
And why do you think it's a widely accepted idea despite China not being in decline?
Because many people are invested or hoping for such a thing. There is some evidence for it. And those people who are invested in that idea, use that evidence constantly. By ignoring it you let it grow, once an idea has grown so large you need to instead challenge it.
Or maybe they just want people to see the headline, the words "China" and "decline" and move on. I highly doubt the Australian Financial Review is seriously wanting to challenge the idea of Chinese decline.