China institutionalized what USA prefers to make private.
China doesn’t have the type of social credit system the west has, and the meme idea of a social credit score reported by western media doesn’t exist.
But China is authoritarian.
I want you to really try to make a singular definition of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that applies to all examples you would classify as authoritarian or libertarian. Is it theoretically possible for them to exist at the same time in the same place? Would that be a common definition? If not, why is your definition different and more importantly do you have enough evidence to justify having a different definition from the majority of people who use those terms?
I want you to really try to make a singular definition of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that applies to all examples you would classify as authoritarian or libertarian.
No.
Removed by mod
Yes like every state. Capitalism is entirely based on the violent control of people and things.
China is capitalist in all ways that matter.
Have you considered doing research and applying analysis before just saying things?
Where do they make Iphones again?
That’s a cute opinion. Did Epstein give it to you?
China is a country where they have to put nets on the roofs of factories to prevent people from throwing themselves over the side because they work 14 hours a day for a slave wage. Factories that make our cheap electronic goods.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
It’s good for the working classes to wield state authority against capitalists and fascists. To not do so would be to allow capitalism to reform, and the alternative is capitalist authority used against the working classes.
But China is capitalist.
Wrong.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
No, it isn’t. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, it’s socialist. What do you think socialism and capitalism are? Vibes?
I’m convinced (based off interactions I’ve had on NextDoor) a lot of people think capitalism=uses money. But also that socialism/communism=failed/corrupted capitalism. China looking better than the USA nowadays means they have to be capitalist since they obviously aren’t failing.
That’s certainly how some people see it! Liberals look at China’s success and some try to twist that into a victory for capitalism, even if that doesn’t actually describe China’s success accurately.
In a world where credit is allocated on the basis of trust, all credit is social credit
In a world where credit is allocated on the basis of trust,
lol jfc. What world are you talking about?
Credit is allocated based on people printing money, starting wars, murdering people, etc.
You’re not wrong, but they generally don’t issue loans to people who aren’t expected to keep up with payments.
TBF, credit can’t exist in any world without trust.
Fake. The face is visible.
Shit. I thought that was Dennis Reynolds for a second.
I don’t care what other countries do to a degree where we need to intervene their governance with military or covert actions, I don’t understand their culture, their history, their people, their way of thinking to force democracy across the world. I only care about protecting our country, our people and leaving the world the fuck alone. I feel like that’s how most of the world works.
Not to mention that western countries are the ones going towards 1984 with thier fucking age verification
Lmao Chinese can’t even move to the other cities of their own country.
“A central rationale of such policies, particularly in first tier-cities, has been to prevent severe overcrowding, infrastructure overload, and the emergence of large-scale slums during China’s rapid industrialization and urbanization phases. Shahid Yusuf, a Senior Adviser in the World Bank’s Development Research Group noted that the hukou system served as a “cornerstone of China’s urbanization strategy” by controlling migration and channeling migrants toward small or medium-sized cities rather than allowing unchecked inflows to the largest urban areas.”
this sounds…good?
how come other countries don’t need this insane oppression? Also did you finish the actual wiki page?
During the Great Chinese Famine from 1958 to 1962, having an urban versus a rural hukou could mean the difference between life and death.[33] During this period, nearly all of the approximately 600 million rural hukou residents were collectivized into village communal farms, where their agricultural output—after state taxes—would be their only source of food. With institutionalized exaggeration of output figures by local Communist leaders and massive declines in production, state taxes during those years confiscated nearly all food in many rural communes, leading to mass starvation and the deaths of more than 65 million Chinese people.[34]
The 100 million urban hukou residents, however, were fed by fixed food rations established by the central government, which declined to an average of 1500 calories per day at times but still allowed survival for almost all during the famine. An estimated 95% or higher of all deaths occurred among rural hukou holders. With the suppression of news internally, many city residents were not aware that mass deaths were occurring in the countryside at all. This was essential to preventing organized opposition to Mao’s policies.[35]
The bootlicking is crazy here.
how come other countries don’t need this insane oppression?
They do. e.g Moving in the United States is quite expensive. While it’s not restricted by law, it’s restricted by class.
Home ownership in socialist States like in China is way higher than in the capitalist ones as well
Removed by mod
Not what a strawman is
A family register? Japan also does that.
it’s not just a register. As Chinese you literally need a permission to relocate otherwise you are essentially a 2nd class citizen and cannot use public services like hospitals or schools or as in the OP’s meme “buy a house”.
It’s almost impossible to get Hukou approved to economically rich zones like Shenzhen so basically it’s not even a unified country in that sense as if you’re born in a shit-middle-of-nowhere village you are literally stuck there as an economic slave unless you find a way to game Hukou or just ignore it and remain a 2nd tier citizen with significantly reduced rights.
I’m speaking from experience as there are legit top tier developers stuck in nowhere china because they just can’t move to Shenzhen unless they find an powerful employer to bribe the system and if you are neurotypical or disabled you are completely fucked. Guess what they do with all that talent and no legal means to capitalize on it?
Even European Union which is a collection of many completely different countries has more rights in citizen migration. isn’t that crazy?
Silly proletarian, that’s not even the credit score they use for home loans
Removed by mod
Just orientalist vibes, no sources in sight.
Why don’t you correct me instead of marking my comment as bigotry and removing it? I said that China’s social credit system is just an ordinary credit system much like ours, and that is bigotry how, exactly? Explain it to me.
It’s wild, you don’t even have to say anything bad about China to piss you off, you just have to talk about it neutrally without constantly praising it as a socialist utopia.
Here’s some sources, some even from far-right US journals that have looked into it. It has more to do with regulating businesses and execs found to be in violation anti-trust laws.
It’s really just standard anti-trust / financial legislation, IE things the US used to do before 1980s when they let finance capital take over.
- The US’s credit score system is vastly more influential and detrimental to a majority of its population than China’s social credit system, which largely doesn’t even exist, and where it does exist it is only used to target businesses.
- China’s Social Credit System is more about regulating businesses, and execs who are found to be in violation of anti-trust laws.
If you’re going to mischaracterize it in the future, at least post some sources.
I cannot emphasize enough how much air would be sucked out of our propaganda overnight if china just fucking uncensored the internet and truly protected freedom of speech and information.
The PRC would be incredibly naive to let US tech companies in, and take over and hoover up their social media landscape, like so many other countries have done. For example India’s most popular communications platform, is facebook. The US effectively controls the social media of a country many times larger than itself, and can influence it whatever way it wants, as well as spy on every person who uses it.
For those who want to view US-run tech sites in the PRC, they can of course via VPNs which are completely legal, but that friction is very worthwhile for encouraging home-run alternatives, and preventing mass surveillance by an evil empire.
I mean judging by how cooked the brains of so many western people are with internet conspiracies like qanon, I’m not sure that would be the result of deregulation
That is pretty wild. I didn’t know any of this … I just thought “communist dystopia is dystopian”. The fact that you can take a hit to the credit score for engaging in protests and demonstrations is still scary … no one show this to Republicans.
The fact that you can take a hit to the credit score for engaging in protests and demonstrations is still scary
I was saying that this sort of thing actually doesn’t really happen. The social credit score for the most part is just an ordinary credit score and is only meaningfully affected by finances. Some localities made an attempt at implementing the “social” aspects of the system and subtract small amounts for certain criminal offenses, but it barely makes a difference.
Engaging in protests and demonstrations gets you the same thing it gets you here; tear gas, pepper balls, beatings, and possibly prison time & a criminal record. The hysteria around the social credit system is very silly when the actual dystopian shit is so glaringly obvious, and occurs in both China and the US.
Engaging in protests and demonstrations gets you the same thing it gets you here; tear gas, pepper balls, beatings, and possibly prison time & a criminal record.
Not entirely false, but the scale & severity is much worse in the US, and they’re ramping up for more.
I donno anything about China, but whoever made this meme certainly doesn’t know anything about the USA. The idea that “liberals” or anyone else (??) are high-fiving themselves over a credit score. lol
WOOOSH!
They’re high-fiving themselves about being able to buy a house. DUR.
Under capitalism basic human needs are allocated only to the most privileged.
Many many libs celebrate their participation in this privilege, especially in terms of housing.
State-enforced privilege is basically the entire goal of liberalism.
The only ones celebrating credit scores as a concept are lenders, the true capitalists
People like thay exist. In the same way that 40 year olds high five themselves for still fitting into the pants they wore in hs.
OK but I would hi-five those people. It’s harder to fight capitalism if you’re also fighting health problems!
Removed by mod
Profoundly wrong statement.
First because that’s not how Marxist-Leninists use the word ‘liberal’, that’s a definition you just made up while ignoring decades of literature. Second, because it implies that is not what the word actually means to literally everyone, not just Leninists or even just socialists, everywhere on the planet with the exception of the US liberal duopoly.
Third, because it mistakenly assumes people are calling you a liberal because of your instance, and not because of your shit takes.
The ML usage of the term liberal comes from Classical Liberalism, right? Please correct me.
Also I hate how y’all think I’m personally evil because I haven’t Read Theory. Y’all are my first exposure to MLs and I don’t have any control over what my society has taught me. (I’m not defending what my society has taught me, I’ve been deconstructing for a long time and not stopping.)
Is naivete a sin?
Is naivete a sin?
No investigation no right to speak is a core part of MarxistLeninist thought as it has evolved. Naivete is not “a sin” but if you haven’t researched a topic you shouldn’t speak on it.
As Chairman Mao put it:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
No? I’m an ML and I live in a capitalist country. Further, liberals are absolutely worse than anarchists.
Where are progressives on that scale? Oh, and do fascists, I definitely want to know how a fascist stacks up against a liberal!
“Progressive” doesn’t really mean anything beyond “left of establishment democrats.” They range from liberal to socialist. Fascists are a twin of liberalism, worse but fundamentally connected.
If you’re not anti capitalist and anti bourgeois democracy even if you’re “progressive” you’re just a flavour of liberal. Fascists are obviously worse than liberals although they tend to agree on a surprising amount of things when push comes to shove unfortunately. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds is a widespread phrase for a reason.
The formula for a fascist is liberal plus time, multiplied by war
I’ll stand corrected on the anarchist comment. But if one lives in a capitalist country, one inevitably supports capitalism, right? Even if it’s against their will.
This sounds more and more like Original Sin.
Existing within capitalism does not mean you cannot work to overthrow it and must ideologically support it by espousing liberal talking points.
“liberal” denotes adherence to bourgeois democracy and capitalist property relations, (pro bourgeois democracy and private property)
The critique of certain “anarchists” is that they guise reactionary politics in radical language, which aids capitalism.
Removed by mod
This is nonsense. Communism has not been achieved, but socialism absolutely has. Communism has not been achieved not for lack of trying, but because it is a post-socialist system. There’s no psyop.
First, let’s be precise about terms: capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, profit-driven accumulation, and wage labor; socialism is defined by social ownership (state, collective, or cooperative), planning mechanisms, and the subordination of remaining market forces to developmental and social goals. They are distinct modes of production, not a binary where anything short of stateless communism “counts” as capitalism.
Second, “Western capitalism” isn’t a universal default, it specifically describes the Euro-Amerikan core and its integrated vassals (NATO, Five Eyes, dependent economies). That system is hegemonic, but it is not total. Russia, for instance, operates a distinct sovereign-capitalist model: not socialist, but explicitly de-linked from Western financial architecture and actively contesting unipolar dominance.
Third, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are explicitly in the early stages of the socialist transitionary period. Their frameworks (especially China’s “primary stage of socialism”) theorize that underdeveloped socialist states must develop productive forces, utilize regulated markets, and engage globally while maintaining proletarian state power and public ownership of commanding heights. This isn’t “capitalism with red flags”; it’s a materialist strategy to build the basis for higher-stage socialism. Dismissing these distinctions because communism hasn’t been “achieved” yet misunderstands dialectics: transition is a process, not an event. You don’t call a bridge under construction meaningless because it has yet to reach the other side.
The Chinese credit system is western propaganda there is nothing like it as described in western media.
Removed by mod
False dichotomy. Both of these things suck.
Removed by mod
They seem incapable of realising that two things can both be bad.
Even three things can be bad at the same time, holy if we as species evolve we can even have four things!!!
But the problem is that one of those two things is not even true in the first place.
Just copy pasting the shit lib catch phrases word for word
Marxists understand nuance and that two things can be bad. The problem pointed out by this meme is that the “social credit score” system of China as you know it does not exist, while credit score in the west absolutely does and is far more wide-reaching.
The popular conception of China’s system doesn’t actually exist, though.
In your opinion, what is the worst of the allegations that is actually true?
Kinda hard to answer without clarity on what you mean by allegations. All allegations tend to work by exaggerating truth or distorting it, such as organ harvesting the Falun Gong coming from real state crackdowns on the Falun Gong as a far-right cult, but no actual organ harvesting.
If we just mean real missteps, I’m not a fan of how the PRC sided with Cambodia over Vietnam during the Sino-Soviet split. The cultural revolution also had excess that was avoidable, and the four pests campaign made legitimate famine worse.
For the modern day, LGBTQIA+ rights are lacking, but this varies heavily by region, and this has been getting better over time. There’s also rural/urban development gaps, though the CPC is trying to address this as well. Most real issues are being worked on and are iteratively improving.
False equivalency, one of these things is fictional
Americans:
“praise the supreme leader!” - wow, brainwashing much?
“I pledge allegiance to the flag…” - Yup, this is fine.
nowadays it’s more accurately the same statement for both
people are praising the supreme leader in america
Not an American or a liberal, and yes, china is authoritarian. Is america better? No. The credit score system in the US is also bad.
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative.
The social credit score isn’t real.
You ain’t wrong about the social credit thing! There was only one municipality that tried to implement it in any way that even vaguely resembles how mainstream media hysterics portray, and that city’s administration was punished for it on the national stage.
The only thing the “social credit” system was meant to do is make major public figures accountable for corruption. It was never aimed at REGULAR people!
But yeah nah fuck anyone and anything that opposed democracy especially the two faced single political party of the United States of America. If they actually gave a shit about democracy for real instead of just consuming lives to pay for their pedophilia addictions, we’d have ranked choice voting by now.
Unfortunately I don’t think ranked choice voting will save you. You need to clear the board so to speak and get some options that actually represent people over corporate interests.
You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes
Haha, you think the epstein class will allow you to vote away their fascism
That makes sense, and then you look at Europe and realise the issues at hand are systemic, caused by material conditions and bourgeois democratic electoralism is never going to fix those issues.
Much of Europe already uses ranked choice or proportional voting, yet remains austerity-ridden and sliding toward the far right because it is still under the dictatorship of capital. The voting mechanism is secondary to the concrete material conditions: capital’s imperative to accumulate, the commodification of labor, and the state’s role as an instrument of class rule. Until that dictatorship is overthrown, electoral reform is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The core contradictions at hand are:
Socialized production versus private appropriation:workers collectively create value, but capitalists expropriate the surplus
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall: as organic composition of capital rises, profitability declines, forcing capital to seek new fixes
Overaccumulation and underconsumption: capital produces more than can be profitably sold, leading to crisis, layoffs, and austerity
The contradiction between capital’s global mobility and labor’s relative immobility, which fuels a race to the bottom in wages and protections.
As imperialism declines (neocolonial extraction becomes costlier, interimperialist rivalry intensifies, and the Global South resists outright plunder) capital can no longer rely on external superprofits to offset domestic falling rates of profit. The response is internal repression: austerity to slash social wages, union-busting to weaken labor power, surveillance to preempt dissent, and the normalization of authoritarian governance. This is capital’s logical reaction to crisis.
This dynamic mirrors Weimar Germany: economic crisis, delegitimized liberal parties, and a bourgeoisie that ultimately backed fascism to crush the organized working class and restore “order” for capital. Today’s far-right surge is the same phenomenon: capital’s emergency management when consent can no longer be manufactured through bourgeois democracy alone.
Voting under these conditions is not a path to liberation; it is a ritual that legitimizes the managers of decline. For voting to matter, you must overthrow the dictatorship of capital and reach the synthesis of these contradictions: a revolutionary transformation that socializes production, abolishes exploitation, and builds a state that serves human need, not profit. Only then does political power and thereby voting become meaningful.
Alas, I fear the US might be too far gone for ranked choice to have an effect.
The problem is quality of candidates. Since Citizen’s United opened the door for unlimited corporate money in elections, literally 90% of candidates are on someone’s payroll. “Grassroots” is a thing of the past. Mass media and name recognition are everything.
As good as preferential/ranked voting is. Compulsory voting would have a much larger positive impact on US’ democracy
Ideally both
Many far right countries (australia, japan, south korea) use ranked choice voting… it doesn’t make a bit of difference. If capitalists control the political system, then they will stack candidates and fund the campaigns that support their interests, and the “democracy” there is nothing but political theatre.
Outside of Marxists, even the ancient greeks knew that representative government is just another name for plutocracy, because only wealthy / landed family have the money and prestige to fund campaigns to get themselves elected. Liberals still haven’t learned this simple lesson.
In what world is Australia far right? Center right/neoliberal today maybe. But not far fight, especially compared to other countries
Also I recommend compulsory voting.
In this world, the world where open support for genocide is bipartisan in Australian politics
I do not and will not dispute that either.
Neither can fix the systemic problems caused by capitalism though, democracy in capitalism is democracy for capitalists.
Well then use that amendment that children keep dying for or stop complaining. So pathetic
I already organize with a communist party, I have no intention of simply complaining alone.
What good is complaining amongst a communist org, if your democracy and elections a rlcapitalist?
Please stop financing and enabling the USA, also, and stop using the US dollar for international trade. So lame that you haven’t done that
I actively steal from the USA
How will compulsive voting improve anything? Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite. Far more than you realize, I think
Trump was 100% the vote-for-spite-burn-it-down candidate. That’s how they get you, the old switcheroo
Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite.
uninformed defines almost all american voters and the last election showed that 30 million people who voted in 2020, chose not to vote in 2024 instead of spite voting.
That doesn’t happen in reality
deleted by creator
Re: authoritarianism— your opinion.
Some of us aren’t in favour of oppressive regimes that aren’t transparent, surveil, and censor.
“Authoritarianism” is meaningless because all it means is “uses state power.” It doesn’t acknowledge which class controls the state and who it uses state power against. In China, the working classes control the state, and use state power against bad actors and capitalists more than anything else. China is oppressive to capitalists and liberating to workers.
I haven’t much evidence for the claim: “In China, the working classses control the state”
sure you will say that is my western bias from living with china bad propaganda, but you could actually provide something to me read on topic if possible
You can debate whether the system works well, but it isn’t accurate to say there’s no evidence for the claim that the working classes play a central role in the Chinese state.
China’s constitution explicitly defines the PRC as a socialist state “led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants,” with state power exercised through the National People’s Congress (NPC) system. The NPC is the highest organ of state power, with nearly 3,000 deputies drawn from provinces, the PLA, and different social sectors.
The makeup of the NPC is not just party bureaucrats or business elites. In the 14th NPC there are hundreds of deputies from workers and farmers and large numbers of grassroots representatives, along with 442 ethnic minority deputies covering all 55 minority groups. Most deputies in China’s people’s congress system (about 95%) serve at the county and township level, which are directly elected and involve hundreds of millions of voters. Higher congresses are elected from these lower levels. This structure is what China calls “whole-process people’s democracy.” Sources explaining the system include CGTN’s Who runs the CPC and the State Council white paper China: Democracy That Works.
You can also look at how the state treats capital. China has private capital, but it is clearly subordinated to state goals. When Jack Ma tried to push an aggressive fintech model through Ant Group that would massively expand lightly regulated consumer credit, regulators halted the IPO and forced restructuring under stricter oversight. That is a case of disciplining capital when it conflicts with social stability and the broader economy.
Likewise, China has pursued policies like eliminating extreme poverty and building massive infrastructure networks (including projects that are not monetarily profitable) because they are treated as long-term public development goals. That kind of large-scale, socially oriented investment is difficult to sustain in systems where private capital dominates the state.
So you can disagree with the Chinese model, but there is actually a large amount of Chinese material explaining how their system is supposed to function and why they claim it represents working-class political power.
Sure!
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
The working classes in socialist countries are the ones dictating the state and its direction.
Removed by mod
There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Removed by mod
“the world”
Do you have any proof? The OISC disagree with you. And even the UN doesn’t call it a genocide because that’s not what happened.
Please explain how what I said is “bullshit,” I even included the UN report. Why do you like Adrian Zenz?
Removed by mod
China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.
I’m using the term to refer to suppression of people (which isn’t restricted to workers) in politics, media, etc.
Except by “the people” you seem to mean capitalists and fascists, not the broad majority of society that are uplifted and support the system.
I am a Chinese minority living in China. You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to China. You very clearly have done 0 research beyond maybe reading RFA. You should be quiet until you have done some proper research.
You can’t possibly be a minority in China, what with all those intact organs.
Ad hominem, ad hominem, and mmm, ad hominem. Yeah, nothing to see here.
Least insufferable redditer
It isn’t an ad hominem fallacy to point out that doing little research on a topic and repeating easily disproven talking points isn’t a sound basis of argument.
And I have, and my responses were given little in return from them.
You have not, considering everything you’ve said has been easily debunked, and when encountering hard numbers you reflect to dogmatism.
Not an adhominem. You’re not wrong because you’re stupid you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
Well in the comment I said that you didn’t explain why I was wrong and simply resorted to making a string of ad hominems.
So I’ll reiterate: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
Saying you should shut up if you haven’t researched a topic isn’t an adhominem.
Removed by mod
Go back to 4chan obergruppenfuhrer. Or provide some evidence/analysis but I doubt you have that capability.
Everybody disliked that
You can dislike it all you want doesn’t make it less true.
