661
"China is AuThORItAriAN!" - Liberals
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
661 points (85.4% liked)
Memes
55362 readers
1064 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you have sources for any of these claims?
I put some links in the comments below. But most of the 'information' I have is from news and documentaries about Xu Xiaodong. You can check the wikpeida article, but it's just wikpedia.
I also know of someone who went to tibet as a tourist through Nepal. Their phone had to be surrendered for thorough checking, they apparently painstakingly checked all images. I don't expect anybody to believe this as I can't provide proof that it did happen.
Your main source is ASPI, a far right war-hawk australian defense industry think tank.
And your source is mintpressnews.
Also it's not my main source. You just cherry picked one. Ok sure mybad on that, lets diregard that one. What about CIS, DHS, and NCSC?
Also BBC. Let's also add wikipedia [1] [2] because why not.
And do we want to talk about censorship? Sounds like something an authoritarian regime does.
You've got nothing and you know it
I concede. There is no social credit, people not being allowed to travel in trains, rent or buy property, get government appointment is a myth. The Chinese government cannot compel any company to handover data. There is no censorship on china, no websites are banned there. You can criticize the government as much as you want without repercussions. People from Tibet have equal rights and citizenship of China. Ughyurs are not being oppressed, neither are the fallongongs who are just a cult
If anybody believes otherwise, it's a hoax by the west.
Cheap sarcasm won’t bolster your case.
Interesting, you recognize it as sarcasm. Curious to why you think this is sarcasm, if none of it is true? Isn't that a conundrum?
You understand that assertions are neither arguments nor evidence, even when they’re delivered sarcastically, right?
I agree with that statement. So what would be evidence?
Here's my anecdote, which is not evidence by any means and you don't need to believe it. I practiced wushu when I was growing up and was always interested in different martial arts. I understand some are more practical than others but I have always been keen about how the top practitioners from each martial arts would perform against others. One of the examples was Xu Xiadong, who was a mid tier mixed martial artists went around beating masters of kungfu and even offered money if they could beat him. To which many accepted the challenge, of course he won all of them. So he was hit with defamation from what I understand for defaming the masters and showing the culture in wrong light. We can argue with the verdict. But either way he was to pay a fine and to apologize, which he did. He was also ordered to not demean chinese martial arts again, which he didn't comply, so he lost social credit for not complying with the court. He was still challenging masters but he was not allowed to compete with his name and had to put clown makeup to compete. And to get to his fights, he couldn't take fast trains or plane, he couldn't rent hotels, houses or buy property, because he lost social credit. Again this is not evidence, it's my anecdote, I could have pulled this out from my ass.
Now what is evidence? News? [1] [2]. Or his interviews e.g. [1]? But maybe he just an actor because there are no official chinese government news sources that have reported this? What about the articles about an app which would show if there are any people in debt around you? The app created by the government and tested in Heinan province [BBC], is that evidence or probably just propaganda or just assertions?
And about censorship in china, what is evidence?
I am not here to say american system is better. In fact it sucks. But this doesn't mean chinese system is better, I think it sucks too. I think it's an example of authoritarian regime who can dictate what is fake news and ban the said fake new, about the same Trump is trying to do now, what russians have been doing all long. I am not from USA and don't live there, I am from a social democratic country and we had the youngest PM (also SD). We also have one of the best press freedom in the world, not the best but top 5. China is one of the worst only better than North Korea and Eritrea. If there is no freedom of press, it's probably an authoritarian country. Again you could say the press freedom index is a propaganda against china, as no chinese state sanctioned media has reported that they are not free.
I would like to point out Jimmy Kimmel who made joke about charlie krik and got fired. Thankfully people from both left and right came together to make that unhappen, because that would be against press freedom. Now imagine what would happen if you did that in Russia, China, Eritrea or North Korea.
P.S. Marxist internet Archive is also one of the blocked websites in china. And I know I am not making a good case of 'not being banned in here, but whatever', at least I feel i have tried to have honest discussion.
This conversation is buried deep below the fold in a two day old post, so I’ll be brief. I don’t have the time or energy to look into this martial artist.
No one will deny that China has censorship. We do as well, but it’s more subtle, covert, informal, and sophisticated, which Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky have explained in great detail. China’s censorship is largely out in the open. It’s made clear where the lines are. The press freedom in bourgeois democracies, A.K.A. social democracies, is the freedom of the media owned by the capitalist class and by the government, a government which is run by the capitalist class.
What are we arguing about then? I thought the argument is about one being better than other to which I disagree. Just because the censorship is transparent (which is another point of contention) doesn't make the censorship ok and the censoring body "not authoritarian". Bias exists, everybody is biased, it is very hard to be unbiased unless one grows up in a vacuum, even then it's not a given. I think it's harmful if the bias is hidden or if certain biases are censored, that is a mark of authoritarian government. If a government can covertly, subtly, informally, and sophisticated-ly censor parts of the narrative, cherry pick theirs and declare what can or cannot be published, I see that as a clear authoritarian government. This can make it that one person can rule for ever and any body that even questions this, can be made illegal and censored in the name of peace and harmony. If that is not authoritarian/dictatorship, then I don't know what is. I am not claiming the freedom of media owned by government owned by capitalist class is press freedom. But you have to believe there are press media that is netural, and some countries that thrive to have a netural press which has transparent press donations and funding which is used to judge how neutral or bias is the press. One example being Reporters sans forntiers who carry out this investigation and rankings.
On the note about government run by a capitalist class, what would you estimate the premier of China (Xi Jinping's) monthly salary and net worth is? How much would that be compared to minimum wage. Is it transparent? Are there any country that you can just call somewhere (e.g. tax office) and ask a public figure's salary and net worth and they would tell you. I assume in an ideal system this would be possible and not censored, you'd be able to see which of the politicians profited from "playing the stock market"?
Yes, the compensation for civil servants is public information. Am I supposed to do your basic research for you?
President Xi's official monthly salary was approximated around ¥11,000–12,000 RMB (~$1,500 USD), based on extrapolation from China's civil service pay scale for national-level officials. "级差八九百，国家主席月薪大概1万多". This reporting however dates to 2014 and explicitly frames the figure as an estimate, not an official disclosure. China does not routinely publish itemized, real-time compensation statements for top leaders on public government portals.
As with other senior leaders, the role includes regulated, position-based benefits to support official duties: an official residence in Zhongnanhai, access to designated medical facilities for senior cadres, official vehicles and so on.
Yeah could you, since you have found it. I haven't, clearly my basic research ability is lacking. Can you point me where the salary of public servant is public including the premier's and validated by a neutral body?
I am once again begging liberals to learn how sources work