6 ms·
> The media is almost daily full of China scares That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source? > there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an ca
by bit-anarchist 6mo ago
> The media is almost daily full of China scares
That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.
- Daishiman 6mo ago> That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source? Have you not been reading The Economist for the past 20 years of the WSJ since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch? They've been predicting the downlfall of China every other month.
- Saline9515 6mo agoCan you point to this month's article then so we have a sample?
- Daishiman 6mo agoNah I prefer to discuss with people who have some basic literacy or googling skills because if you search for "economist predicting the fall of china" you'll find both their articles and the commentary surrounding it. It ain't that hard!
- Saline9515 6mo agoI'm asking because I read regularly the Economist and don't feel that it's a true statement. For instance, the latest Chaguan column is quite balanced: https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-china-to-read-more-as-long-as-its-the-right-books https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-... So yeah, if you have wold claims, you better back them with sources.
- culi 6mo agoI also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers. Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for what is common knowledge is just a silly way to shut down discussion instead of engaging with it
- Saline9515 6mo agoI asked for a single article representing this point of view. If it is so common, it should be easy to find? No?
- culi 6mo agoYes, you would have a very easy time finding one.
- Saline9515 6mo agoIf you can't show any proof or even circumstantial evidence of your theory, it's worthless and the Economist is not a China-doomer paper. The reality is that it's a lie and the Economist is quite balanced about China (even while they are banned from publishing there!). For instance, their latest cover was quite positive about the country: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes-to-win-from-the-war https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes...
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- bit-anarchist 6mo agoThe burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.
- Daishiman 6mo agoIf I were discussing a formal argument in debate club sure. I don't do googling for others when the first 10 results in google for this is either source articles from The Economist of a half dozen forum threads commenting the same thing for the past 5 years.
- Saline9515 6mo agoI asked you for a single article representing your claim, since it is so common it should be easy to find? It's as ridiculous as if I declare that the earth is flat, but provide no explanation since "you can google".
- culi 6mo agoImagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.
- Saline9515 6mo agoYes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.
- bit-anarchist 6mo agoDepends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes. If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance. Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so. The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
- RobertoG 6mo agoThe Taiwanese? This is actually a perfect example of what I was saying. Talking about 'Taiwan' and 'border disputes with the PRC' meanwhile the USA is doing a maritime blockade of Cuba and Iran. And that it's without talking about bombing countries or military deployed thousand of miles away from their borders, of God forbid, unconditional support to Israel, who just displaced one and a half million people. But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Chinese are very bad?
- bit-anarchist 6mo agoWhataboutism. You said that only USA couldn't care for other countries' interests, so I showed China doing the same. To parody you: "But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Americans are very bad?"
- ch4s3 6mo agoI like you already.