4 ms·
That’s not a nitpick. That’s redefining the way we talk about nations. It’s already clear from context he’s not talking about “all Chinese people.” “China to e
by cgriswald 5y ago
That’s not a nitpick. That’s redefining the way we talk about nations. It’s already clear from context he’s not talking about “all Chinese people.”
“China to enter talks with the United States about social media” would not mean all Chinese people will talk to all Americans. This is true whether the content is positive, negative, or neutral.
- consumer451 5y agoYeah, it is major. You are correct. I want us to be more specific in the way we talk about geopolitics because there is much room for improvement. My real point is that if you don't want to polarize an entire ethnic group against your position, then don't refer to the ethnic group when you mean to attack their economic or political ideology. It really depends on what one is optimizing for. If one is optimizing for ethnic division, or just not at all optimizing for change in the future led from within said country.. then sure "China" or "Muslims" not "CCP" or "Wahhabism." How would an American react to a foreigner saying "America is evil and not trustworthy" vs "American leadership has done X and therefore is not trustworthy?" I have been largely abroad for years and I would still process the information in the latter statement with much less emotion.