174
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
174 points (98.9% liked)
World News
40019 readers
682 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The "bad things" you pointed to were putting down violent protests from the Chinese equivalent of 4chan posters. The "freedoms" the CPC suppresses are not blanket but instead directed against capitalists, fascists, and those that undermine the socialist system and work against the majority of society. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the right-wing DNC and GOP and supporting socialism.
Violent protests according to whom btw?
Counter-protestors and the government. That's why it's important to recognize that the majority opposed independence.
Idk I mean obviously you gave me the NYT so it's probably pretty anti-China and depicts all this stuff as fighting back. But do you have evidence it's not?
Obviously the conflict was two-sided. The rioters called it "fighting back," while the counter-protestors supported the extradition law that would allow the government to arrest a convicted murderer that had fled to Hong Kong to avoid punishment. The correct course was to put down the riots, which happened with less than 5 deaths according to Wikipedia.
I don't think it's fair to classify the protests as riots when the violence seems to have mostly been escalated from the police side and the violence against counter protesters seems to be fairly isolated incidents taking place between small groups? Give some more insight, you might be turning me a little bit here
Why do you believe the riots started? Why were they put down, and how? Western reporting on counter-protests was limited because western media supported the anti-PRC protests, as they usually do, but that doesn't mean they did not exist.
Yeah, I think the protests are stupid now that I look at why it happened.
That being said, I still can't trust you, it's so hard to get around to the good info when I know you're actively attempting to use language to manipulate my thinking. Framing them as "riots" when they are acknowledged internationally as mostly peaceful protests.
The west calls them peaceful, but I gave several examples of how that wasn't the case. If you feel I am being too biased in my charactrtization to a manipulative degree, I ask that you apply the same scrutiny to, say, BBC's portrayal of events, including their intentional use of language.
Being 100% transparent, I am trying to get you to reconsider your position, and part of that is by deliberately using the word "rioter." This causes you to re-contextualize what you thought you knew more than if I had just said "protestor." We all have bias, and my bias is pro-communist, and pro-PRC. Just as you try to see how and why I use language, sources, and whatnot to portray how I see the events, I ask that you hold western media to the same degree of scrutiny.
Finally, bias does not mean the absence of fact. I did my best in recommending largely western sources, if I had just used CGTN it might have been easier but then I would have been taking the easy way out, and just as easily dismissed as only accepting official state media. Bias paints how we percieve the same events, how we speak about them, and connects it to a broader class character.