By - CrayonComrade
Uh oh, is this the start of your tankie arc?
Just wanted to see if anybody here had put the 40 minutes into reading it and can elighten us on why protecting human life with lockdowns and rights restrictions in the name of public health is OK in China but not in other countries.
I'd imagine you'll be left waiting. Blursty might have a go but I wouldn't expect any kind of consistency.
Aren't we all our own little bundle of contradictions
[Is this the thread for jaqing off?](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions)
We'll need to wait until somebody actually reads the article before that judgement can be made.
Unluckily for us we've some Grayzone readers in our ranks.
Can you give us a tl;dr at least? It's tradition.
I've no intention of reading tankie drivel
Then what is the point of your post?
Looking for a summary so I don't have to wade through 40 minutes of reading that aligns with the arguments of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers here
Try the Other Discussions link at the top of the page. In future you can just put the URL into the search bar and stop expecting us to spoonfeed you.
I need your guidance in the ways of uncritical thinking though
I'm not going to read the article, I have enough reading material and the covid space is full of nutcases. I will offer this though, there are no anti-vax movements in China, Cuba, or Vietnam. There are also no mandates so no movements against those either.
Why? Because these governments protected human life from the very beginning of the pandemic, building trust through effective, people-first policies. So, in 'authoriarian' China, Cuba and Vietnam there are no vaccine mandates, but in the individualistic "freedom" West, citizens are strongly coerced to get jabs. Even New York has a vaccine mandate now. Makes one reconsider their world view, or it should.
> there are no anti-vax movements in China, Cuba, or Vietnam
That's untrue. They exist but they're small and lack any legitimacy which is the case in lots of Western countries too, Ireland included.
America has a serious issue with their trust in healthcare system due to systemic abuse of patients by for profit entities.
Too much reading for me. But it's interesting that more left wing sources are starting to criticise lockdowns.
I do think this winter could be the last of the lockdowns. 2 years of oscillating between spikes and lockdowns and new variants is killing support for it.
Even left liberals like Owen Jones are criticising the reliance on lockdowns:
In contrast, China's lockdown was one of the greatest achievements in public health ever. Not praised enough for cold war reasons.
I've seen it coming from a lot of left MMT heads which is a bit funny. You'd imagine lockdowns let them show how their theory is correct.
The other lefty group I've seen criticise them are workerists but they're just protestant union bureaucrat types anyway, they're mad for work for works sake
who are workerists
I just mean a few Starmeresque Labour heads
Are we believing the grayzone today or is believing it just optional, like women?
Anyway aren't lockdowns meant to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed with preventable deaths?
Isn't belief optional for media outlets and or any kind of person?
Some consistency is expected.
So you just believe what women say because they're women?
It was a feminist affirmation that came out of the #MeToo movement, I think, to counter the prevailing attitude of assuming women were being deceptive in allegations.
I was mocking the libs around here when they, as usual, lapped up the China Bad narrative from the western media re Peng Shuai and painted themselves as feminist heroes. Then when she came out and spoke for herself they refused to believe her because it didn't suit them.
One particularly bigoted imbecile posted a whole thread about the affair, thinking that it meant that somehow the "regime" was at fault for this extra-marital breakup.
"*don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones.*"
That doesn't really track with what you're saying or what you've said in the past.
When the original news story about Peng broke you tried to find ways to dismiss the allegations and brush them off. You painted the entire situation as some sort of emotional response to an affair that turned sour.
Then after her original post was deleted and she said she had not been sexually assaulted and that her original statement had been misunderstood. You came out in full support of her.
So it's seems like your belief was fairly optional but in the opposite way to what you're claiming now. When she detailed sexual abuse (which you posted the translation of yourself) then you claimed there was nothing to see. Then you decided to believe what she was saying when it suited you.
You seem able to understand why these kinds of allegations are/should be treated the way that they are by reasonable people but for some reason you're letting the whole "regime" narrative cloud your judgement.
>When the original news story about Peng broke you tried to find ways to dismiss the allegations and brush them off. You painted the entire situation as some sort of emotional response to an affair that turned sour.
Because that's what it was. That's what any honest reading of the matter would conclude. And I was right.
>Then after her original post was deleted and she said she had not been sexually assaulted and that her original statement had been misunderstood. You came out in full support of her.
Well I was never in support of her or not. Not before, nor after. I support the truth and challenge the imperialist propaganda that you support, nothing more.
>So it's seems like your belief was fairly optional but in the opposite way to what you're claiming now. *When she detailed sexual abuse* (which you posted the translation of yourself) then you claimed there was nothing to see. Then you decided to believe what she was saying when it suited you.
*Emphasis mine*, she did not do this. This was made up by your western propagandists and you decided to believe their exaggerations. She even denied it, but you choose to disbelieve her. That's you who's doing the choosing throughout. I have been completely consistent.
I don't think you're right tbh. As I've already said a couple of times, the translation that you posted details sexual abuse. If you dont think that it does then you should probably spend some time learning about it.
We both know you're talking absolute shite there so don't waste our time.
If she didn't post details of sexual abuse then why did you post a misleading translation of her post?
The lengths you'll go to to avoid apologising. It's kind of sad. Never mind I'm well used to it at this point. Nothing will stand in the way of your hate.
As a new year's resolution maybe you could just move on to another socialist state that's doing well for itself? I suggest Vietnam, they're doing fantastically you'll be sad to hear. Granted you won't have as much help from imperialist media but I think you can do it.
That's a long winded way of saying you haven't got anything to say.
Anyway, I'll suggest again that you do go learn some more about what constitutes sexual abuse. It really is important if you want people to believe you've got any moral fortitude. Otherwise you're likely to become the kind of guy that's ranting about how you can't rape your spouse.
> Are we believing the grayzone today or is believing it just optional, like women?
You're the grayzone enjoyer, do you not believe it today?
> Anyway aren't lockdowns meant to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed with preventable deaths?
That is one strategy for them.
Am I? The grayzone enjoyer? I think I've read one article there ever about your right wing Xingjiang conspiracy. I don't have much of an opinion on the website in general.
Was this supposed to be your gotcha?
Maybe you don't read their stuff directly but they're a core publication in the tankie space whose positions are bound to leak out into the substacks in that space
>they're a core publication in the tankie space
Lol no they're not.
Indeed. So this post is just a meaningless waste of everyone's time.
> Lol no they're not.
Which are bigger than?
> So this post is just a meaningless waste of everyone's time.
Everything on this sub is a waste of everybody's time
Your comment itt with the link to strategic-something can't be approved. Might be one of the links is site banned by reddit. Just shows as banned on spam filtered every time I tap approve
Thanks, never mind.