You can absolutely be pro-public transit without also endorsing or excusing all the other shit one particular country does, just because you happen to agree on one point. China is more than its railway.
Also, I’m pretty sure “normie” is just as much of a derogatory epithet as “tankie”, and neither is particularly bad. Certainly not bad enough to rise to the level of a slur.
(Whether she actually is a tankie isn’t mine to judge. Endorsing their politics is an indicator, but I don’t know enough about this specific case.)
I could make up a slur to refer to liberals such as “dronies” referring to drone strikes by the Obama administration they support, or “bombies” for supporting Europe when it bombed Iraq and Libya and Yugoslavia.
Actually, I think that’s a good idea. Call out people that blindly endorse violence or support a given government uncritically. I’d still rather have a bombie government that bombs the middle east than a nazi one that does so too, but worse, and also actively tries to remove any potential for resistance from their own people, but saying “A bombie isn’t as bad as a nazi” at least carries the subtext “(but still bad)”.
(Obviously, not bombing would be best. Imperialism is a despicable policy.)
It also kinda sidesteps the ambiguous definitions and interpretations of liberal philosophy. For instance, I’d consider imperialism to be decidedly illiberal, given its disregard for the consent of the governed, but that obviously isn’t a universal understanding. I’d rather not get into that here, so let’s just agree to call bombing-apologists bombies.
Bringing up China in the context of public transit should be regarded well.
The post brings it up in the context of a particular candidate’s opinions on China’s mode of government and civil liberties. If it specifically pointed out “China’s public transport is…”, I’d agree with you. But just because this aspect is nice, that doesn’t mean China as a whole should necessarily be regarded well.
(Again, I just want to point out the logic arising from the premise that the candidate does defend China; whether that premise is true is beyond me, and whether the claim is true is not something I’ll argue about here. Trying to have a chill, civil Sunday and all.)
You can absolutely be pro-public transit without also endorsing or excusing all the other shit one particular country does, just because you happen to agree on one point. China is more than its railway.
Also, I’m pretty sure “normie” is just as much of a derogatory epithet as “tankie”, and neither is particularly bad. Certainly not bad enough to rise to the level of a slur.
(Whether she actually is a tankie isn’t mine to judge. Endorsing their politics is an indicator, but I don’t know enough about this specific case.)
deleted by creator
The N-word is related to colour, I dont get it why that matters whether something is a slur or not.
deleted by creator
Are you sure this was meant to be a reply to me?
deleted by creator
I said slurs can be based on colour and you’re saying that I pretend that communist were not persecuted, do you see why I’m confused?
deleted by creator
Because I think you were wrong? In fact I find your original argument kind of ridiculous.
Actually, I think that’s a good idea. Call out people that blindly endorse violence or support a given government uncritically. I’d still rather have a bombie government that bombs the middle east than a nazi one that does so too, but worse, and also actively tries to remove any potential for resistance from their own people, but saying “A bombie isn’t as bad as a nazi” at least carries the subtext “(but still bad)”.
(Obviously, not bombing would be best. Imperialism is a despicable policy.)
It also kinda sidesteps the ambiguous definitions and interpretations of liberal philosophy. For instance, I’d consider imperialism to be decidedly illiberal, given its disregard for the consent of the governed, but that obviously isn’t a universal understanding. I’d rather not get into that here, so let’s just agree to call bombing-apologists bombies.
The post brings it up in the context of a particular candidate’s opinions on China’s mode of government and civil liberties. If it specifically pointed out “China’s public transport is…”, I’d agree with you. But just because this aspect is nice, that doesn’t mean China as a whole should necessarily be regarded well.
(Again, I just want to point out the logic arising from the premise that the candidate does defend China; whether that premise is true is beyond me, and whether the claim is true is not something I’ll argue about here. Trying to have a chill, civil Sunday and all.)
deleted by creator
Pretty sure I explicitly said I don’t, but thank you for offering your argument anyway. Have a nice evening.