126
Americans’ views of China more positive again in 2026
(www.pewresearch.org)
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 17 Apr 2026
126 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2047 readers
977 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The point of their deamonization of china is to make them less bad in comparaison. But guess who isn't led by a notorious pedophile? China. Guess who didn't kidnap a head of state? China. Guess who doesn't bomb countries for breakfast? China
let me preface this by saying I hate the direction the U.S. government has taken (both in general and more as of late), but
> "Guess who doesn’t bomb countries for breakfast? China"
[squints]
[looks over at China]
Well, not yet they don't, I guess. But hey, 2026 isn't even half over yet, we still got time to get this world war started proper.
This keeps coming up. Go Google search the last time China used military force to get something done.
Eventually you have to realize the only people who see potential war everywhere are Americans.
China is the fourth largest producer of arms now and sells weapons to war torn regions. Giving China the benefit of the doubt when they are now cranking out more billionaires than the US is a ship that sailed a long time ago.
Trumplethinskin, just like Pooh bear, has designs on neighboring countries. Mr. Pooh himself, "Taiwan independence is the chief culprit in undermining peace in the Taiwan Strait - we will absolutely not tolerate or condone it." Yeah, something an imperialist would say, reminiscemt of Russia and Ukraine.
Refusal to recognize Taiwan's unique culture and self-determination is just another nail in a very large coffin of Chinese Imperialism. While I do applaud them for not directly engaging in military conflict there is little reason to when they can control them politically much in the same way the US controls Mexico or Canada.
Sorry, I think they meant they don't bomb countries in the material world that actually exists. In the speculative fantasy world that exists in your head, I'm sure they do all kinds of absolutely horrible things.
In fact, I think it's high time that the imaginary world places imaginary sanctions on imaginary China.
Oh, you'd like to talk about horrible things that China is already doing now, not just making preparations to do? Sure thing, friend. Where would you like to start?
Oh wow, you're all the way into the organ harvesting stuff, that's deep in the propaganda lore.
You know Falun Gong claims that the reason China is supposedly harvesting their organs is because they claim their organs have mystical powers? Do you believe that too, or is China just doing it because of some generic comic book supervillain motivations?
riiiight, Wikipedia, which lists multiple different sources you're free to follow, is "propaganda" now. 🤡
Though, now I'm confused. If Wikipedia is "propaganda", now, why do you link to it in posts as a credible source?
Lmao. Did you actually read beyond the title of anything you linked?
Oh cool, now we both agree Wikipedia isn't propaganda again? Super, I'm glad we've established that. :D
I did in fact read it first. There are a total of four, count 'em, four paragraphs under the "Counterarguments" section (one of which isn't actually a counterargument but we'll get to that). That's almost the length of an acceptable fourth grade book report. I'm very proud, as well as at your restraint at only directly copy and pasting one of them (and the other from the article lead -- now I know the only two sections you actually bothered to read). Most of that entire section cites that same source, the Washington Post article.
I wonder how many subsections there are under the "Evidence" section?
... Hmmmm. Well, okay, okay, maybe they're all really really short and poorly sourced! How do they stack up against the refutations?
Ahhhh. Golly, dozens of sources, lots to read -- they've even got helpful diagrams for the slow tankies. Well, since you clearly went and picked out the quotes you liked best, now's my turn. :3
Emphasis mine.
And oh, hey, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted about that Washington Post article, that's a good one too.
"If you don’t believe that, there’s multiple different sources for you to follow."
No, actually, I never said that. You seem to be very confused about how sources work on a fundamental level.
If a king commissions a history book that heaps praise on himself, but that book also talks about the king's ugly, crooked nose, then even if everything else in the book is unreliable propaganda, we can reasonably treat the part about the nose as credible, because it goes against the work's overall bias, meaning that the only reason for its inclusion would be if it were true. It would be the same way if a source biased towards China admitted to things that reflect negatively on China. That is why I can cite Wikipedia or other Western sources while still considering it biased. Another reason is that you presented as a source which means you accept it as a source. I don't have to accept it as a source in order to point out that it contradicts your position. If you cited Infowars and that source contradicted the claims you were making, I would be well within my rights to point out the contradictions, regardless of the fact that I obviously don't consider it a reliable source.
So much of your comment is just talking about length as if that had any relevance whatsoever. I assure you that I can find extremely long sources peddling all sorts of nonsense conspiracy theories. You don't seem to understand how to evaluate sources at all.
That sounds like a reliable, unbiased source.
This is no different than when US conservatives go into like a Planned Parenthood with a secret camera and cut the footage up and take things out of context to make it look bad.
This is your smoking gun? Lmao.
There are legal avenues for organ donation in every (afaik) country in the world. They called up two people who are not involved in that field and don't know all the details and they were tricked into directing them to other officials who would know more. Wow, amazing.
Sorry, let me clarify something. Are you trying to argue that it's theoretically possible that China could be engaged in organ harvesting, or are you claiming that there's actual evidence of it, that it's a proven thing? Because this is arguing that it may be theoretically possible, despite evidence pointing in the direction of it being impossible.
If you want to say that it's theoretically possible China may be involved in organ harvesting, then I will return to what I said originally, that I'm sure the China in your head is doing all sorts of horrible nasty stuff, and I fully condemn imaginary China, which has nothing to do with the China that actually exists.
actually you did, where I posted a link to a wikipedia article (several actually but who's counting, this is the one you wanted to bitch about) and you responded by dismissing it altogether as "deep propaganda lore". Was all of fourteen hours ago.
Since you're clearly having trouble keeping up -- or, let's be honest, willingly choose not to -- I'm gonna stop reading right there at your "helpful explanation" about how sources work. I got better shit to do than listen to tankies trying (and failing, badly) at condescending to me; and it's been funny watching you flail, but I'm bored now. You're boring me now. Better luck next time!
I really hope you're young.
actually I just like jabbing tankies who post shitty bait with a stick and then giving them the argument equivalent of a ruined orgasm. It's nice to know they're tilted over it enough to ask you to come give moral support after getting blocked lmao
Are you here to get tilted too?
You're honestly based for this, keep it up. They get very mad and then get angrier when you call out how mad they get.
well, if you never push back on these morons, they'll just continue shitting up the place with their imperialist propaganda, and I'm about as keen to hear how great China is as I am to hear about how great the US or Israel is. Keep Lemmy a nice place by keeping blindly obedient imperialists from getting too comfortable.
Yep, I agree. They say China is a saint because of what America does, and then say if you think two things can be bad, you're brainwashed. While they say wikipedia is filled with lies and had to make their own with sources they approve of. Like Grokpedia and conservapedia.
Yeah everything is a conspiracy and we're all coordinating with each other on secret chatrooms, I didn't just happen to see your argument in All and get mad that you're acting like a child.
You know, good point, I'm sure none of you ever talk to each other or have friends, as you all seem to vastly prefer infecting other communities and instances to spread Chinese propaganda far and wide. It's a shame I can't block every one of your comments all at once, just the posts with the instance block; but I'll get there one tankie at a time if I have to. You make #2 for the day!
Heaven forbid you ever interact with anyone you disagree with.
Again, really hoping you're young.
I can assure you that running off with your tail between your legs while trying to act smug does not ruin anything for me lol.
I'm well aware. What I never said was the part where you claimed "we both agree Wikipedia isn’t propaganda again?"
You either should have, or should listen to your teachers in high school. Do they let you cite Wikipedia as a source? Maybe they're "tankies" too!
Convenient that you suddenly "got bored" right as your claims fell apart.
Okay, but I'm told that's Whataboutism and all Americans are immune to it
I'm more than confident that you can find allegations of child sexual assault, kidnapping of rival leaders, and military campaigns against neighbors aimed at China.
yes, keyword being "allegations". Regarding america, we've been past that for a decade
So, the abduction of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is more than a mere allegation. Of course, the entire selection process for the Panchen and Dalai Lamas is itself rife with controversy, as it functionally involves randomly selecting some local child and whisking them away from their parents to be indoctrinated by Tibetian monks.
Similarly, there's the open question of Taiwan's sovereignty, as well as a history of Chinese intervention in neighboring territories. Nothing compared to the US decapitation and conquest of Iraq or Afghanistan, of course. But China was absolutely involved in armed conflict with the Vietnamese back in the 1960s/70s.
You can eek out parallels and hand wave comparisons if you know the history well enough and where to look. Chinese private security firms are all over Africa, for instance. Plenty of comparisons you can make between that and the old US/Europe model of filibustering, if you squint and don't think too hard.
TL;DR; its far more than just allegations. The real difference is in scope. US interventions are orders of magnitude larger.
We've been beyond that since founding fathers.