Liberation of British-colonized Tibet, run by a local theocrat that enslaved most of its people and by enslaved I mean they had officially been designated as serfs to the state, as human property of the clergy, by law.
You can’t annex your own country, but what you can do is support an expelled far-right party of a country that kills the indigenous people of an island and pretend that these murderers are somehow the victims.
The Tiananmen square insurgency was a CIA-backed coup attempt where the insurgents murdered 100+ Chinese army choir soldiers that were on their way to the square to sing out the protesters off the square.
The biggest media censorship machine on earth has failed to hide a genocide in Gaza (that you people screamed we had to vote for) and lied about it for years, but somehow that same Epstein media machine is totally telling the truth about an invisible bloodless genocide in China. Evidence means nothing to you white supremacists, only imperial loyalty.
By the way, do you deny the ethnic cleansing of eastern Ukraine by the nazi junta government?
I’m sure the people of Tibet would much rather have continued living as barefoot slaves under a medieval theocracy of pedophile priests who tortured them, sexually abused them and made arts and crafts out of their body parts.
I can always tell when someone doesn’t know shit about Tibet beyond what they absorbed from 90s pop culture when their reflexive, programmed hatred for China leads them to side with the absolute nightmare kingdom that the PLA liberated people from. If you would have a problem with Mormons taking over all of America and imposing brutal Deseret Law on millions of people, then boy do I have some fucking news for you about Old Tibet.
Their were excesses during the ETIM crackdown no doubt, however much of those have since been rectified and the crackdown was unfortunately necessary. The crackdown was also far more humane and reasonable in response to the terrorism in comparison to the western world that spent decades killing hundreds of thousands to over a million innocents in the middle east (not to mention Abu gharib, Guantanamo and the other black sites).
Tibetan serfs and slaves requested the PLA’s help in overthrowing their violent theocratic slave state.
Do you support the reunification of Ireland? Do you support the reunification of Korea (who reunified with who being irrelevant)? Are you a supporter of the American confederacy? Why should China not be allowed to finish it’s civil war? Also invasion is the last resort, peaceful reunification is the ideal.
A violent clash between police and protesters (who started the violence) over 35 years ago makes China awful? Certainly an interesting perspective.
My Chinese friends living in New Zealand as dual citizens are afraid to criticize the Chinese government even in private online conversations. That says a lot, I think.
It certainly does but mostly about them lmao. If you ever end up living in China you’ll come to realise criticizing and debating about the government is like the second most popular conversation topic. We love it, it’s almost a national pass time.
But do you do it in public, online or offline? What about protests? What about strikes?
Where are the independent news organizations and invitations to during media to prove to the world everything we think is wrong with the Converse government is a lie?
Yes, people discuss government policy in public and offline all the time. It’s a very normal topic of conversation. In practice, serious political discussion tends to happen face-to-face because that’s simply a better format for nuanced debate, but there is also plenty of discussion online. What generally gets censored online are calls for overthrowing the state, organizing mass unrest, or similar things. Many countries draw similar lines around incitement or destabilization.
Protests and strikes do occur, but they are usually local and issue-specific rather than ideological movements aimed at regime change. Labor disputes, land disputes, corruption complaints, etc. happen all the time and are often resolved through administrative or legal channels. The political culture tends to focus more on petitioning, negotiation, and internal pressure than on permanent protest movements.
On “independent” media: Independent from whom? In Western countries most major media outlets are owned by a very small number of large corporations or billionaires. Those owners influence what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives are marginalized. Calling that system “independent” while ignoring ownership power is a very selective definition of independence.
The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.
I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.
Why do you think China is awful?
While I don’t posit that China is uniquely awful here are some low lights:
Go on…
Oh wow more authoritarian genocide denialists. You’re either really scummy or really brainwashed.
Explain
The biggest media censorship machine on earth has failed to hide a genocide in Gaza (that you people screamed we had to vote for) and lied about it for years, but somehow that same Epstein media machine is totally telling the truth about an invisible bloodless genocide in China. Evidence means nothing to you white supremacists, only imperial loyalty.
By the way, do you deny the ethnic cleansing of eastern Ukraine by the nazi junta government?
I’m sure the people of Tibet would much rather have continued living as barefoot slaves under a medieval theocracy of pedophile priests who tortured them, sexually abused them and made arts and crafts out of their body parts.
CW Insane Leatherface-type Horror Shit, including a flayed toddler skin: https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/tvs5pj/remembering_tibet_here_and_there_warning_graphic/
I can always tell when someone doesn’t know shit about Tibet beyond what they absorbed from 90s pop culture when their reflexive, programmed hatred for China leads them to side with the absolute nightmare kingdom that the PLA liberated people from. If you would have a problem with Mormons taking over all of America and imposing brutal Deseret Law on millions of people, then boy do I have some fucking news for you about Old Tibet.
Fuck the overlords, fuck the llamas
Now look up “Taiwan White Terror”.
Their were excesses during the ETIM crackdown no doubt, however much of those have since been rectified and the crackdown was unfortunately necessary. The crackdown was also far more humane and reasonable in response to the terrorism in comparison to the western world that spent decades killing hundreds of thousands to over a million innocents in the middle east (not to mention Abu gharib, Guantanamo and the other black sites).
Tibetan serfs and slaves requested the PLA’s help in overthrowing their violent theocratic slave state.
Do you support the reunification of Ireland? Do you support the reunification of Korea (who reunified with who being irrelevant)? Are you a supporter of the American confederacy? Why should China not be allowed to finish it’s civil war? Also invasion is the last resort, peaceful reunification is the ideal.
A violent clash between police and protesters (who started the violence) over 35 years ago makes China awful? Certainly an interesting perspective.
My Chinese friends living in New Zealand as dual citizens are afraid to criticize the Chinese government even in private online conversations. That says a lot, I think.
It certainly does but mostly about them lmao. If you ever end up living in China you’ll come to realise criticizing and debating about the government is like the second most popular conversation topic. We love it, it’s almost a national pass time.
But do you do it in public, online or offline? What about protests? What about strikes?
Where are the independent news organizations and invitations to during media to prove to the world everything we think is wrong with the Converse government is a lie?
Why the great firewall of China?
Yes, people discuss government policy in public and offline all the time. It’s a very normal topic of conversation. In practice, serious political discussion tends to happen face-to-face because that’s simply a better format for nuanced debate, but there is also plenty of discussion online. What generally gets censored online are calls for overthrowing the state, organizing mass unrest, or similar things. Many countries draw similar lines around incitement or destabilization.
Protests and strikes do occur, but they are usually local and issue-specific rather than ideological movements aimed at regime change. Labor disputes, land disputes, corruption complaints, etc. happen all the time and are often resolved through administrative or legal channels. The political culture tends to focus more on petitioning, negotiation, and internal pressure than on permanent protest movements.
On “independent” media: Independent from whom? In Western countries most major media outlets are owned by a very small number of large corporations or billionaires. Those owners influence what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives are marginalized. Calling that system “independent” while ignoring ownership power is a very selective definition of independence.
The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.
I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.