挂路灯人

I’m Chinese. I’m not American. Ally to who?

Yes I know Gao Zhen the weird evangelical. And again I wish Americans would do something about theirs instead of letting them run the country and back genocide to bring about the third temple or whatever nonsense they believe.

Please expand

Do you take Christian evangelical on a self proclaimed mission from god to destroy China who speaks neither Mandarin nor Uyghur Adrian Zenz at his word

Or do you take the OIC and UN at their word that their were abuses not dissimilar to the US treatment of poc during a crackdown on terrorism (racial profiling and dragnet policing).

And if 2 do you realise it was quite literally a saintly response compared to the “free world” who in response to terrorism funded alqaeda, Isis, boko haram and more and then used them as pretext to destroy Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan killing millions.

If only the US would arest their weird evangelicals instead of letting them run the country and back genocide in the hopes of fulfilling their religious nonsense.

Can you be the successor to a group who were themselves inspired by and self styled successors of you? If anything Nazi Germany was a failed attempt at succeeding the US.

Are you incapable of comprehending what I said?

Admissions against one’s interests hold more weight than claims in ones own interests.

This is a fact.

At no point did I make any claim about it being any media outlet telling the truth or any other such idiotic stawman you are attempting to build.

it is never to “keep the public informed”

When did I ever say it was? Infact my comments very clearly point to the reality of pushing narratives to forward the interests of those who own/control the media.

Just because you happen to agree with it doesn’t make it any more factual or less disinformation than the ones you don’t agree with.

Fucking obviously. Thank you for the truism. But again literally entirely irrelevant to what I said.

Taking bias and interests into account when evaluating how much stock to take in a piece of information and it’s source is a media literacy problem in your eyes?

Are you sure you’re not the one with the problem?

When media admits things that runs against their interests/narratives it is more believable than when it fits in with their narratives and interests generally yes. Is that really a controversial idea?

unbiased source

This isn’t something that exists. Anyone who tries to sell you a source as being unbiased is lying to you. If you believe any source is unbiased chances are it simply aligns with your biases best.

The quest to be one of the millions of tourists who visit Xinjiang every year.

Ah yes the soviet drone munitions. /s. You should probably read what is written before scolding others.

Taking a time-honored Soviet strategy and turning it against them.

Very explicitly referencing the Nazi mythology of the soviet human waves that allegedly won them the war (most likely unintentionally but still something to do some introspection on) and comparing them to the zerg(bugs).

Perhaps but in this specific case it was the Nazis message being pushed by the US about the USSR.

Having lots of casualties and human waves being employed are not the same thing you realise this right? When facing a more industrialised power hellbent on your extermination there are going to be heavy casualties.

It is bad, racialised and inaccurate I would highly recommend some introspection on likening certain groups to bugs.

The USSR was as prepared as it reasonably could have been given it’s material position and timeline (moving to a war economy, moving factories beyond the Urals, holding troops away from the border to avoid a blitz wiping out the army, the Molotov Ribbentrop buying time to recover from the civil war, etc.) while more time definitely could have had them more prepared that is a meaningless what if. It is however true the soviets were heroes who won a tremendous victory.

The idea of the human waves or “zerg rush” as you so eloquently put it is the invention of ideologically committed Nazis such as Goebbels popularised in the west when Franz Halder was employed by the US army as a historical consultant and put in charge of a team of Nazis to give their account of fighting the Red Army as the “official” account of events. To put it bluntly it’s Nazi cope about how they lost to a group they believed to be “untermench”. I also didn’t call you a Nazi simply that you like many in the west due to the US push to popularise it are a purveyor of this Nazi cope.

Edit: Also the zerg comparison is clearly racialised and even if unintentional should be something you should do some introspection on.

Always interesting seeing Nazi narrative enjoyers outing themselves. Franz Halder and Goebbels may have done irreparable damage to the US brainpan.

For the sake of your hypothetical if we say this article was instead about modern Russia leveraging ai for chemical research that had a clear through line to weaponization, I would call anyone who thought they weren’t exploring those avenues incredibly naive.

If I had said that about China, that would also be Chauvinist.

Would it not?

But these aren’t equivalent due to the vastly different histories of the 2 countries. Taking history into account isn’t chauvinism. Is it not perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the country that pardoned Unit731 and then used their knowledge to terrorise Vietnam and Korea with chemical and biological weapons (many that have lasting effects to this date), that employed biological terrorism on its own minority populations such as through the Tuskegee syphilis study or operation big buzz?

Not trusting a serial killer with a loaded shotgun isn’t chauvinism, it’s common sense.

Edit: Just to add that if America did not have the history it does it would be chauvinism however it does and as such it is only reasonable to be sceptical.

Is it chauvinism to judge a country on its long history of bio and chemical terrorism/warfare rather than taking them at their word that they’re not going to do it this time?