I dunno, the basic argument that "the meme can't be racist because Chinese people can't be racist" is genuinely super weak. And gradizen is right that in-group Racism is more accepted than out-group racism (e.g. white folks and the n-word). Racism is everywhere and anyone can get infected by it. That said,

1. xi absolutely resembles pooh
2. it's funny how mad it makes him and his supporters because authoritarians are fragile and can't tolerate mocking
3. the meme isn't racist, and you can tell because it's only targeting one dude. Who maybe loves hunny

It becomes racist if you claim that all Chinese people are Winnie the Pooh. Xi isn't depicted as Winnie the Pooh because of his ethnicity (that makes no sense, given that Chinese people created the meme); he's depicted as Winnie the Pooh to satirise his public image as a serious figure.

The censorship just proves the meme is correct, hence its usage, that a serious figure is so fragile he can't stand being portrayed as a lovable cartoon bear.

This reminds me a bit of Louis XIV's attributed quote, "the State, it is me".

Is it racist to compare obama to a picture of Tigger from WtP?

Well it is FunkyStuff though. FunkyStuff likes to say the most ridiculous BS.

Okay, can I just derail this slightly to have a genuine conversation about what "racism" is here, for a second?

Racism is by and large when prejudice has become widespread enough that it disadvantages a group. Academically, when people research racism, they're not worried about individual prejudices, they're worried about collective prejudices that create additional challenges in people reaching prosperity. This is where admittedly misguided statements like "you can't be racist against white people" come from, as you may dislike white people all you'd like, but globally and within any country in the Western sphere, they're the ones in power.

So, that in mind, what are people trying to argue when they call it "racist" to associate Xi with Winnie the Pooh? There's the obvious intended issue in that Pooh is yellow, and throughout history racist epithets around the colour yellow have been used to describe Chinese people. And absolutely, in those cases where they were a minority, ie a Chinese immigrant coming to North America, such language is unapologetically racist. They're a disadvantaged "out" group, and this language is used to further other them and create a negative public perception. It's not hard to see how that's racist.

But we're not talking about Chinese people as minorities in other countries. In fact, we're not talking about Chinese people at all. We're talking very specifically about the president-for-life of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Nothing anyone we're speaking to can say or do anything to disadvantage him. Even if you want to argue that a given person dislikes him due to racial prejudice and nothing more (which is absolutely a shitty thing to do) there's nothing "racist" about that prejudice, persay.

Now, I'm not so delusional as to think that the academic understanding of racism and the colloquial concept of racism are one in the same. Obviously, drawing a divide between academic racism and racial prejudices is splitting hairs outside of, well, academic study. But my concern becomes this: aren't we diminishing the problems with genuine racism when we engage with asinine ideas like "portraying Xi as Winnie the Pooh is racist"? Large scale systematic oppression is a real widespread issue that has disadvantaged, and in some cases all but erased, many cultures all over the world. Native populations of Canada and the US, African populations abused by the colonial powers, the Ugyhurs in concentration camps in China... Those are good examples of racism. People who engage with language and attitudes that continues to perpetuate those crimes are racist.

To this day, the economic power and social mobility of these social groups are severely disadvantaged from a history of racism, and we're going to conflate that with pictures of Winnie the Pooh because it offends one of the most powerful people in the world? I don't buy it. This whole take is purely brain dead tankie bullshit from people who are attempting to construct a moral highground. If they were genuinely concerned with the problem of racism, it is not the hill they'd die on, and they'd at least recognize the difference in harm. But they don't, because it's not an honest argument to begin with; it's just more tankie propaganda.

And a quick shout out to anyone who stuck with me long enough to read this. It's been jostling around in my brain for a while, and I'm glad to try to finally put the scattered thoughts into words.