If I were to take that on as some sort of debate challenge, I'd point out the mass incarceration and the fact that we still have a bigger chunk of people in jail despite being so much freer. Of course, that's a bit of a rhetorical gambit.
As far as the characterization of china, it depends. Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government, they just lose opportunities. Party membership is a big part of getting ahead there. They go to prison if they start getting organized, holding meetings, being an alternative political party.
Xinjiang is a whole other can of worms.
> that we still have a bigger chunk of people in jail
Provide a citation. I believe this figure is true for the US (you are saying you are in the US I take it?), so cite it. It's a strong and damning figure so bring it to the front.
> Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government
Do other ethnicities? Why does ethnicity matter here? Does ethnicity make a difference in chinese law?
> They go to prison if they start getting organized, holding meetings, being an alternative political party
In this respect the US and the UK are better because you don't. Mind, I've no great trust in the government not to 'keep an eye on troublemakers' as they'd put it, in fact there's a long history of infiltrating groups in an immoral and downright illegal way sometimes, but they strongly tend not to end up in prison.
> Xinjiang...
I've not heard of this. Could you provide some pointers please? (genuinely curious)
Go do some reading, consider relaxing your opinions while you do it.
1. I encouraged you to provide a citation to support your own point which I AGREED WITH. You have not.
2. I asked a question about whether different ethnicities are treated differently in chinese law. You avoided answering.
3. I gave an example of greater freedom under UK & US law. You have not acknowledged this presumably because it is inconveniently true.
4. I asked in good faith for some reading material on whatever was about Xinjiang. You have not provided this.
If I am "completely invested in strong opinions" then change my mind with facts. It was a worthless and pretty patronising reply. Provide relevant facts.
I presume the Xinjiang thing was this mass imprisonment thingy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
This is verifiably false. Han vine Chinese book store owners in Hong Kong were kidnapped to mainland China, incarcerated and forced to sign confessions. Their ‘crime’ was selling books critical of the CCP.
HK was more of a hot situation, you had protestors waving UK flags and talking about independence. I'm not justifying anything, but that's exactly the 'credible threat' vs 'talking shit' distinction I was talking anout.
In the cases you're referencing, are they still locked up? I'll check out a link if you've got one.
>> This is verifiably false.
> I was speaking more generally
That response is meaningless (the classic 'nebulous response' to an inconvenient question) and thus sidesteps addressing his point. Also please elaborate on what 'losing opportunities' means - I hope it doesn't extend to eg. the right to eat food does it?
> In the cases you're referencing, are they still locked up?
It's irrelevant if they are still locked up or released, they got locked up for political reasons. Right?
What about this bit he said "If the US were to spy on a citizen, they wouldn't end up in a concentration camp". Seems a valid point in general.