What you should get out of it is that Chinese companies are effectively a proxy for the government.

And the Chinese government operates the largest and most effective censorship program in the history of humanity.

So maybe we don't want to sell them a stake in media and entertainment companies.

>As far as Hong Kong.. they've got a pretty fair reason to be oversensitive about westerners implying it's not part of China.

Maybe we should have let the people of Hong Kong vote on the issue.

Regardless, they did the exact same thing with Taiwan.

So you can't think of any reason that the Chinese would be upset about specifically English speaking people implying Hong Kong isn't part of China?

I mean, I get that you don't like them, but at a certain point it becomes willful ignorance.

I know why China is upset about it. They know that a large percentage of the population of Hong Kong doesn't want to be part of China.

And they have done everything in their power to make sure that the Hong Kong independence movement doesn't gain a foothold. From punishing protestors to eroding local autonomy, to encouraging mainland immigration, to manipulating global speech.

This isn't about some disadvantaged country being sensitive because they were taking advantage of by colonial powers a century ago.

This is about a modern colonial power asserting dominance over an oppressed people.

>I mean, I get that you don't like them

Yeah I don't "like" a government that puts millions of people in reeducation camps because of their religion. A government who most likely executes political prisoners to harvest their organs.

I don't like a government that insists that the populations of Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong have no right to self-determination.

If you don't dislike such a government, I'd suggest that you are the one being willfully ignorant.

1997 was not a century ago.

Bias buster for you: what if you applied the same level of hostile rhetoric and numerical exaggeration to the deeds of the other 4 UNSC members over a given timeframe? Or, God forbid, applied dispassionate analysis to all 5?

Let me guess, that's whataboutism?

>1997 was not a century ago.

What was done to China in 1997? I'd say the people of Hong Kong have legitimate grievances against The British government from that year. Not offering them full citizenship for instance. They also have legitimate Grievances against China for not taking their opinions into account

>deeds of the other 4 UNSC members over a given timeframe?

So what? The US government has done bad things, and continues to do bad things. I'm not going to try to defend those actions. "Oh well we imprison too many black people, but China's bad too, so I guess that makes it OK." That's the equivalent argument.

At the same time it doesn't stop the Chinese government from being objectively horrible, (and objectively worse on most fronts), and it doesn't stop me from wanting to limit their influence over my country.

>Let me guess, that's whataboutism?

Yes, that's the definition of whataboutism. Hanging a lantern on it doesn't mean it's not true.

You'll note that I haven't defended anything except sovereignty over HK.

If you only apply extreme rhetoric and exaggeration towards one country, that's bias. At a certain point, all you're saying is that you really really don't like China. Whatever. They'll continue as they are and we'll continue being a house divided against itself that doesn't build anything.

Hopefully we don't start any "just" wars over it. America has a bad habit of doing that.

>You'll note that I haven't defended anything except sovereignty over HK.

You did. I pointed out examples of bad things China is doing to explain why I don't want Chinese companies to partially own American media companies. You countered with: whatabout the bad stuff other countries have done.

If that wasn't a defense, then it was an irrelevant tangent that you had no reason to bring up. I don't go around to threads about the problems with US criminal justice system and start talking about Chinese organ harvesting.

Clearly you aren't here to argue in good faith.

You made a conspiracy-theory-esque suggestion that any given commercial action by any given Chinese company is some sort of commie plot.

It's a tautology. Anything Chinese companies/people do is evil, because China is evil, because everything they do is evil...

I was just trying to expand your mind a little bit with my suggestion of consistent standards. I guess you're happy where you are. Cheers.

You were defending a tyrannical government through text book whataboutism. It doesn't matter that you were doing it to "expand my mind"--you could say that about literally any argument you make, no matter how morally repugnant.

>It's a tautology. Anything Chinese companies/people do is evil, because China is evil, because everything they do is evil...

I listed very specific, "evil" things that the Chinese government is doing. Yet you've decided to avoid those and instead address an imaginary argument that you invented out of whole cloth because it's easier for you to argue against. That's called a straw man.

Once again you managed to invent an imaginary position to argue against. If you aren't able to have an adult conversation, you shouldn't post here. This isn't the place for trolling.

It's just us bro, thread is long dead otherwise.

... Consider those hundreds of millions (!!) who have joined the middle class. Are they your enemy? Should we start another cold war?

What if you tried to think from their point of view?

(And who is downvoting this deep into a dead thread? Some humanitarian?)

>It's just us bro, thread is long dead otherwise.

Which is what makes it weird that you bother to build straw men to argue against in the first place. It's almost like you're deliberately trying to bait me into wasting more time.

>(And who is downvoting this deep into a dead thread? Some humanitarian?)

Your previous response was likely flag killed because it doesn't meet content standards, not downvoted because people don't like your view point.

Maybe I could work on defensive writing a little bit, but then maybe I shouldn't have to.

Want to set me straight on the straw man? Any closing thoughts about the welfare of hundreds of millions of Chinese? After all, that was the thrust of my last two comments, and you've studiously ignored it.

(I didn't notice the flag. Hi dang!)

Sorry, I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining the concept of a straw man.

That's three times you've declined to say how you really feel about them.

I'm starting to think my 'straw man' was pretty accurate :). Cheers.

Sorry you're apparently not capable of having a discussion in good faith. Since it's just you here, there's no point.