On the one hand, Wikipedia, a crappy libertarian encyclopedia created by a literal Ayn Rand fanboy and openly known to be monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1...

On the other,

>Fidel Castro argued that “China has objectively become the most promising hope and the best example for all Third World countries,” and in August 2014, he reaffirmed this sanguine outlook: “Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.”

>In May 2018, Professor Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek Minister of Finance, assuaged an anxious member of the audience at a Cambridge Forum: “I have to tell you that, from my understanding of China, it’s a very interesting social experiment, in the sense that at the local level or the regional level you now have a boisterous democracy, with popular success stories in overthrowing local authorities, local bureaucrats who have been corrupt.”

>Later that same year, before his 2019 ouster in a US-backed coup, Evo Morales said “I trust China very much. China has always accompanied us in many of our aspirations in the social, cultural, political and economic spheres” and that “China’s support and aid to Bolivia’s economic and social development never attaches any political conditions.”

>In 2020 the former Liberian Minister for Public Works W. Gyude Moore bluntly wrote “China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries, China is also our friend.”

>In 2021 Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with China. Despite the vehement insistence of Western punditry, world consensus against China’s “tyranny” fails to materialize.

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

It's a hard choice for completely politically illiterate people, I suppose!

"Your sources are compromised, here's a quote from Fidel Castro and a random blog titled "China Has Billionaires" that doesn't actually talk about China at all, just "US is bad China opposes US therefore..."

Self-awareness is not your strong point. And your mix of conspiracy and partisan bile being challenged here is evidence this is a healthy online community, not the opposite. Perhaps you would feel better somewhere that confirms your beliefs instead of (rightly) mocks them.

I'm having a lot of fun, actually. But you can keep pretending you know what you're talking about, citing Wikipedia. I guess from your perspective that's fun too.

> I'm having a lot of fun, actually.

I don't doubt that. Trolling is fun for lots of people.

Hegelians don't "troll."

> I didn't ask who you claim to be, i'm pointing out what you are.

>Since the man of common sense makes his appeal to feeling, to an oracle within his breast, he is finished and done with anyone who does not agree; he only has to explain that he has nothing more to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same in himself. In other words, he tramples underfoot the roots of humanity. For it is in the nature of humanity to press onward to agreement with others; human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds.

Phenomenology of Spirit (Oxford, 1979), p. 43.

> Self-awareness is not your strong point

It's funny how i've said everything I need to say already. You aren't as complicated as you think you are.

I've presented heavy evidence in favour of my position, you've presented Wikipedia. I agree that it's not complicated.

You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously in this thread. We've had to warn you about this before, and if you keep it up we're going to have to ban you.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Edit: it also looks like your account is on the verge of using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're for or against, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do that. More explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

With all due respect, i'm calmly pointing out another users' inflammatory comments and clear trolling. I wasn't overly polite to him, is the rule literally to take abuse and remain robotic in response? Not being cheeky, genuinely curious.

"Self-awareness is not your strong point" is an egregious personal attack. You can't do that here.

Fair points, sorry for creating more work for you.

Appreciated!

You've been badly stoking this thread with political and ideological flamewar. We ban accounts that do that. I actually just banned you but decided to change my mind (see below).

Lest anyone think I'm scolding you out of some ideological bias: I've personally spent countless hours defending users who have advocated minority perspectives (including on China), even when they've sometimes broken the site guidelines. That's not because I agree or disagree but because I understand how difficult it is to advocate for a minority view on the internet. If you or anyone wants examples of how this has played out on China-related topics, I put some examples together for a user about a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/chinamod.

So the problem isn't that you're arguing for a minority view. The problem is that you're doing it with snark and flamewar tropes and ideological talking points. From that point of view your comments in this thread have been abusive.

[editing... one minute...]