3 ms·
1984 was "billions of masses"? None of your examples show the majority will being crushed. Obviously a small movement on the scale of thousands cannot (and shou
by bllguo 5y ago
1984 was "billions of masses"? None of your examples show the majority will being crushed. Obviously a small movement on the scale of thousands cannot (and should not) overthrow a regime.
The point is there is no problem. You'll continue to be popular in your own circles assuming the Chinese people are victimized, but nobody actually from there will care a whit for your paternalism. Frankly if people are going to keep opining on China there is zero excuse to be unaware of the numerous polls and studies (from respected Western organizations) on Chinese approval of their government.
How do you reconcile "Ukraine deserves self-determinism" with "we must enforce Western ideals on the rest of the world"? Moreover, how can you speak so brazenly on the heels of the utter failure of doing exactly what you preach in Afghanistan?
- rhn_mk1 5y ago1984 could have turned into billions if allowed. A billion-strong movement does not appear fully formed out of the blue. Also, you ignored the Gwangju one which had an entire city of hundreds of thousands. Or should I mention Hong Kong? At least that failed more peacefully. I think you're not understanding what it means to live in a regime that tries to police your thoughts. Supporting it means nothing because it's the only way to survive. As for reconcillation, I say: give them a real voice without fear of prosecution. It's not the case in China today. The failure in Afghanistan is an example of jumping to conclusions and shortcuts in thinking, just like the grandparent did. I don't know how you managed to equate being thoughtful with invading though.