Skip Navigation
Political Memes @lemmy.world mecfs @lemmy.world

There are too many of these people on lemmy

566

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
566 comments

  • hang on, why did you feel the need to change my language around israeli and chinese history?

    I didn't say china was a victim of the imperial west. I didn't say israel was an extension of the same.

    that's what i mean when i keep asking you to stop putting words in my mouth. i type some stuff up in a post in reply to you and you change a few words around to change my meanings and start attacking what you changed around.

    i'm not going to respond in detail to your post because it's just more of what i described. it really seems like youre trying to get me to fight you on ground you define but you do so in response to things i wrote.

    if you want to have a fight with someone about the stuff you wrote, make a post about it and see if anyone takes you up on it instead of mangling my words to suit your desires.

    • You said:

      China was an imperial holding of several different states, had its people taken in chattel slavery and gained independence and prosperity during the 20th century. Israel is a European settler state.

      And my shortening was:

      You see China as the victim of the imperial West and Israel as an extension of that imperial West into the Middle East. Got it.

      How are those meaningfully different? Were Chinese people not victims of those imperial holders when they were subjected to chattle slavery? Those holders were in the west right? Therefore they were the victims of imperialism from the west. Israel as a settler state is also the act of an imperial West right? Europe (in the west) used imperialism to settle in the middle east. Those aren't new words with new ideas in your mouth, it was a restatement of what you said in fewer words. What specifically do you disagree with? You didn't use the word victim or West, but those are both true logical extensions of what you said, right?

      I wanted you to defend your claims the same way I would anyone else. Just because you've been unwilling to provide any evidence at all doesn't make it my fault. I provided you evidence yesterday you never even mentioned or responded to. I steel-manned your argument into a syllogism for you just to help you understand the argument you were making, the flaws with it, and how it is being inconsistently applied. I didn't have to do any of that, I could have just called you a "dumb tankie" and walked away if my goal was to dunk on you or shadow box.

      As I said before, the reason I chose to do all that is because claims like you expressed are detrimental to the cause I believe you and I share. Maybe you don't, I don't know you, but I certainly get the impression that you and I share similar sentiments towards capitalism, imperialism, and the end goals of improving the lives of everyone on earth through fundamentally different and better institutions than we have today. Claims like the one you made chain us to the worst attempts at making a better world. Defending the authoritarian governments that spawned from them shows an (in my opinion unacceptable) defeatism towards fundamental human rights and freedoms. When claims like yours speak the loudest, we risk being forever bound to those mistakes of the past and being forced to bend over backwards to find reasons to excuse unacceptable behavior.

      I won't support limiting freedom of information, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, or freedom of protest even if the government is made of people who have been subjected to objectively terrible treatment. Being the victim doesn't give you the right to victimize your citizens.

      You don't have to respond, no one is making you, but I keep trying to get you to back up your original claim and you just can't seem to do it.

      • I didn’t say China was a victim of the imperial west because a person would at the very least have to include Japan in the west for that to make any sense. A person could make that statement but I didn’t.

        I didn’t say that Israel was an extension of the imperial west because that would condense the interactions between Zionist formations before its creation and Israel as a state afterwards and the Anglosphere and Europe into an unhelpful mess.

        I didn’t use language like “I see” because opinion or perspective don’t enter into the conversation. Anyone can look at those statements and recognize that they’re true and relatively uncolored by “political” thought. That Israel is a settler state might bug some liberals, but I was careful to try and use neutral language.

        I did that because I think it should be clear to anyone that a comparison between Sinophobia and antisemitism is absurd. A person doesn’t need to be a Marxist to recognize that. A doctrinaire liberal would recognize it. Nazis literally made whole branches of race science to accommodate the fact that they recognized it.

        The nations and people are wildly different and responding to someone pointing that out when you try to draw parallels between discrimination and hate leveled at them by saying that person is handwaving is deeply unserious.

        • I didn’t say China was a victim of the imperial west because a person would at the very least have to include Japan in the west for that to make any sense. A person could make that statement but I didn’t.

          That's fair enough. The reason why I didn't include that is that most people I know include modern day Japan in "the west" since that's where they have the closest ties and it was more modern than I thought you were talking about given the talk of the long history of the region vs Israel.

          I didn’t say that Israel was an extension of the imperial west because that would condense the interactions between Zionist formations before its creation and Israel as a state afterwards and the Anglosphere and Europe into an unhelpful mess.

          I didn’t use language like “I see” because opinion or perspective don’t enter into the conversation. Anyone can look at those statements and recognize that they’re true and relatively uncolored by “political” thought. That Israel is a settler state might bug some liberals, but I was careful to try and use neutral language.

          That's fine. The history of that area of the world more than most others is a complicated mess. It's reasonably neutral language and I agree with the accuracy of history being referenced.

          I did that because I think it should be clear to anyone that a comparison between Sinophobia and antisemitism is absurd. A person doesn’t need to be a Marxist to recognize that. A doctrinaire liberal would recognize it. Nazis literally made whole branches of race science to accommodate the fact that they recognized it.

          So here is part of where you are losing me.

          First, how exactly does this connect to the previous statements about their histories? What about their histories being different precludes us from comparing and contrasting them. Is it only in the context of historical racism that we can't compare them? Could I compare their GDPs? Can I compare their government structures? I am not seeing the connection you are trying to draw between the differences in their history and our inability to compare the racism their peoples have / are facing.

          As stated before, I also don't see the connection you are trying to to draw between the people who make up the majority of a particular institution and the institution itself. I have no reason to think institutions have feelings or personhood. I don't care about the instructions themselves other than the good they do for their people and the people around them. Other than making up some or most of the workers in that institution, what is the connection between the instruction itself and the people?

          Second, why is it absurd to compare two similar things? We can easily compare the racism faced by Chinese people with racism faced by Jewish people with racism faced by black people. And how does this tie into the correlation I believe you are drawing between the people and the government? Is it that you believe one group is overall on the receiving end of the mistreatment and the other is overall on the giving side of mistreatment?

          I don't agree that anyone or even most people would find it absurd to compare two things with so much overlap. Both China and Israel are countries. Both have predominate people groups that have faced historical racism and mistreatment. Sinophobia and antisemitism are both objectively bad things that cause harm based on inherited characteristics. I don't see why this is so preposterous to you. And I don't see how the history of their mistreatment changes anything?

          If I can ask directly, does being the victim of racism or any other mistreatment give you any more leeway in causing harm to others? If not then I don't understand why bringing up their history matters. And if so, why should I let people who have been victims victimize others? Again, isn't this just bigotry of low expectations?

          The nations and people are wildly different and responding to someone pointing that out when you try to draw parallels between discrimination and hate leveled at them by saying that person is handwaving is deeply unserious.

          The reason I said hand waving is because you have answered very few questions directly. To your credit, you have done so in this reply.

          What it sounds like you are saying (you can correct me if you'd like) is that it's unfair to compare the actions of these two governments because their histories are so different. That it's fair to criticize Israel and doing so isn't antisemitic, but not fair to criticize China and doing so is sinophobic. And the reason for that (again as far as I can tell) is their different histories of oppression. My problem here is I don't agree that criticism of a government = criticism of a people group and I don't agree that people groups who have historically faced oppression should be less open to being criticized for bad actions.

          • When people say “apples and oranges” it’s not because two things are irreconcilably different, it’s because accepting and recognizing their differences and describing them on their own terms is much more important than using one to talk about the other.

            Both apples and oranges are round, both grow on trees, both are fruits. I could probably think for a while and list off a bunch of similarities. They’re also fundamentally different to the point that a person can’t effectively use an understanding on one to transmit an understanding of the other.

            I can’t tell you about the flavor, texture or smell of an orange using your understanding of the flavor, texture or smell of an apple as a baseline. I could try but ultimately the better way would be for you to bite into an orange. My comparison wouldn’t be useful.

            You can and did compare antisemitism and Sinophobia. I responded that the comparison isn’t useful because of the vast differences. We went back and forth about this and here we are.

            I said that it wouldn’t be useful to compare the two because it wouldn’t transmit understanding. With each parallel a person tries to draw, myriad differences and fractal relationships arise and must be dealt with.

            We send a simple particle into the cloud chamber and an array of arcs, lines and spirals must now be accounted for.

            I do not think it’s unfair to compare the two, I think it’s not useful. The context of that usefulness is our discussion and the measure of that usefulness is the comparisons ability to transmit understanding. As evidence I’d present our discussion in which it does not transmit understanding.

            I chose not to just say the same thing someone else said but: there are plenty of criticisms of the Israeli and Chinese governments with varying degrees of antisemitism and Sinophobia as their underpinnings.

            “Chinese people can’t talk about tiannamen” isn’t one whose underpinnings have zero degrees of Sinophobia. I explained how a while back.

            • That's a great analogy and it certainly helps clear up your view!

              there are plenty of criticisms of the Israeli and Chinese governments with varying degrees of antisemitism and Sinophobia as their underpinnings.

              By "underpinnings", are you saying racism is the underlying cause for the criticism / the public statement of that criticism or just one of the underlying causes. Is it a "but-for" in that a person wouldn't make those criticisms but-for their underlying racism? Would it be possible for a person without those underlying racist attitudes or feelings to have the same criticisms of the actions of that government?

              So, here is what I believe you are saying: People have underlying racism towards Chinese people that motivates them to make criticisms of the Chinese government (that they couldn't or wouldn't make but-for that underlying racism?).

              Depending on a lot of specifics I could agree. If a but-for is what you are arguing, I don't think I could agree with that, at least in the specific context of the original claim regarding TS. You have pointed to some racist attitudes towards Chinese people that correlate or overlap with the TS claim (not knowing their history, not standing up against an unfair government, etc) but, in my opinion, those are tangentially related. The lack of historical knowledge would be a direct result of the actions of the government in repressing that knowledge. The claim is not that the information is freely available without consequences or attempts to hide / manipulate it and the people are putting their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la". Not standing up to an unjust government could be argued from the perspective of today but was exactly what the people in TS were trying to do. It wouldn't make sense for someone who really believed Chinese people were too docile to stand up to a government to claim they stood up to the government and now the government is hiding the information about it. The expected outcome from that belief doesn't match the nature of this claim.

              If it's not a but-for, then it could just as easily be valid criticism of the Chinese government that, by happenstance alone, overlaps with racist claims. You may find this unlikely, but if it's possible for a person without that animus to have the same criticisms then you would need to believe you understand that specific person's motivates to make the claim. It would no longer be a blanket-true statement that these claims are coming from racist attitudes.

              That said, it's theoretically possible for there to be a claim that is but-for the underlying racism. I would have to give an analogy that might muddy the waters again, but I'm sure you could imagine one given any people group and racist claims. The issue here is that I don't believe you have sufficiently shown that it would not be possible for a person absent racist animus to claim that the Chinese government attempts to hide and discourage open and free discussions, information, and memorials surrounding the events of TS. Their mere proximity to those racist attitudes isn't sufficient.

              • Underpinning is both a noun and a verb. When a structure is internally sound, but is in danger of falling over maybe because the ground underneath it is washed away or unstable, a person might install supports called underpinnings in a process called… underpinning.

                I did not say that racism is the underlying cause of people making statements about China. In the sentence directly after the one you quoted I specified how what I said related explicitly to our topic of conversation.

                I want to push back some on your language regarding racism. Racism exists in forms that do not show animosity and instead simply reify existing racist ideas, structures, history and values. A person doesn’t need animus to exhibit racism. A long time ago in this very thread I stated that fact.

                • This was your original comment (parts that are struck-out are not relevant):

                  I think there were two links to the gore page people post and a couple of responses saying you couldn’t even talk about tiannamen square.

                  The first is clear what it is, I’d call the second one sinophobic because it’s patently untrue and is basically an anti-china buzzword now. Idk why mods did what they did.

                  Your argument was that the statement, "you couldn’t even talk about tiannamen square" was sinophobic. And the reason provided was that it's:

                  1. patently untrue

                  2. basically an anti-china buzzword now.

                  Saying 'that statement isn't one that has zero sinophobic underpinnings' is quite a bit different. I am not arguing that there are 0 racist "underpinnings". But, if the standard for racism is "has at least one racist underpinnings" then I think you may have an easier time writing the list of statements that are not racist. If that is the standard, then saying something is racist risks losing all meaning since almost everything would be.

                  I have been saying that it is not sinophobic because it is:

                  1. not demonstrated to be untrue, much less patently. You haven't provided any evidence for it being untrue and it's certainly not clearly, or without a doubt, untrue.

                  2. at best anti-ccp not anti-chinese. It is a popular criticism of China pointed to by both those who have clearly racist motivations and intents and those who do not.

                  3. a bad framework to determine if something is sinophobic/racist or not. The truthfulness of a statement doesn't impact its racism. There are true things that have racist underpinnings and false things that do not. Even if something is a popular buzzword used predominantly by people who have the worst motives, it would not be inherently racist.

                  You're correct that animus is not required for something to be racist. However, it's hard to imagine that you intended to mean "the claim is sinophobic because it's patently untrue and has a non-zero number of racist underpinnings but without animus."

You've viewed 566 comments.