Anyone else banned from world news for criticizing China?locked

ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 368 points –

So I made a comment on worldnews criticizing Chinese activity in the south china sea and apparently got banned for it by the automod. This happen to anyone else? Is this Lemmy's version of the need help post and the shape of things to come?

The instance I posted in was Lemmy.ml

261

You are viewing a single comment

I thought it was a nice summary showing that the US is involved in building more military bases in the area. China appears worried about the US grabbing more hegemony and military strength along that important trade route.

Viewed through that lens it seems somewhat similar to the Cuban missile crisis, but i don't want to get into a subjective battle comparing apples to oranges.

China is a rising political and economic force worldwide and the US has a vested interest in stopping them. I see no distinction between what they and we are doing.

Takes pressupposing US benevolence and Chinese imperialism kinda get me back up, and I've seen alot of editorialized and biased headlines from supposed unbiased sources that could be the source of these.

Generally i am gonna disagree with a blanket statement like OPs deleted one when i see so much shit like this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/scarborough-shoal-chinese-fishing-vessels-pumping-cyanide-contested-waters-philippines-2024-2?op=1

Within that article lies this statement,7 paragraphs down:

"We don't have any scientific study or any evidence that would suggest that cyanide fishing in Bajo de Masinloc can be attributed to the Chinese or the Vietnamese fishermen," GMA News quoted a coast-guard spokesperson, Commodore Jay Tarriela, as saying.

But the title states it as fact.

Yeah I mean there is certainly a case to be made that US actions are threatening to China, and it’s also true that pro-US propaganda exists. These are good things to be aware of.

But I also think that this conversation about US vs Chinese interests does not adequately elevate the experiences of smaller countries in the region. Most of whom have voluntarily cooperated with the US to counter Chinese aggression.

Of course, it’s largely true that the US is pursuing their own interests in the region. But that fact does not mean we need to defend Chinese aggression. We should be looking at which actions are beneficial and liberatory to the people who live there, and which are harmful. In my view, Chinese activity is more harmful and imperialistic in the current context. But I am open to learning about and acknowledging the harms that the US is doing as well.

My issue with the Lemmy.ml perspective is that they view US actions in the most unfavorable light possible while viewing Chinese actions in the most positive light possible (usually in direct contradiction to the known facts). When this asymmetry in interpretation is pointed out, their community reacts with hostility or bans. Usually using some nebulous idea of racial prejudice as a justification.

It’s ironic because these are the exact same tactics used by apologists for Israel, which they absolutely hate over there. Authoritarians always use the same tactics it seems.

But I also think that this conversation about US vs Chinese interests does not adequately elevate the experiences of smaller countries in the region.

I am interested in this too, no sarcasm. Id like to read the perspective of the small countries caught up in this. Ill are if i can find anything interestinng.

We should be looking at which actions are beneficial and liberatory to the people who live there, and which are harmful

Neither actions of either country attempting to control trade and resources in the South China Sea will be liberatory, and i am cynical of a major material benefit for the people of the region.

In my view, Chinese activity is more harmful and imperialistic in the current context

I would like to hear more about that context. The context of the harm to the small countries? How are Chinese actions more imperialistic than the US actions there?

I think we could talk more probably! Ill see what i can find

3 more...
3 more...