This sounds very much like the popular rhetorical technique of demanding your opponent do impossible things in order to prove you wrong.
The only way this person’s argument can be disproven is if their opponent were to move to another fucking country.
This person is saying that China is really bad, but only mentions major events that occurred more than 40 years ago. If someone were to move to China, how would the cultural revolution happening be at all relevant to their life there? It wouldn’t.
The CR and GLP are just empty excuses anti-China people use to dismiss anything positive about China.
“Oh, China alleviated extreme poverty? Well, the cultural revolution killed people!”
“China is investing more in green energy than any other nation? But what about the Great Leap Forward? That was really bad!”
“China cancelled billions of dollars of debt to other nations? Tinyman square!”
It’s a non-sequitur argument. It wouldn’t matter if Mao or Deng killed a million billion people each, neither of them are in power now, we look at China as it is, not based on some of the worst events in its modern history that occurred half a lifetime ago.
Also, the Great Leap Forward wasn’t perfect, but it overwhelmingly succeeded, though the famine was terrible. Even during the Cultural Revolution – which I see as backwards and utopian in many respects – the trend in life expectancy rapidly increasing maintained.
Something a lot of anti-China people don’t want to understand about it. It had a lot of failures, sure, but China actively learned from them and became a stronger nation as a result. I think it is telling that the big part of the GLF that the west talks about is the famine, the natural disaster, the one part China couldn’t learn from their mistake because it was caused by climate conditions, not by direct action. They talk about it almost like China was “smited by god” for daring to be socialist. Like they deviated from the One True Correct Path of Capitalism and faced divine punishment in the form of natural disasters and “authoritarian dictators.”
This sounds very much like the popular rhetorical technique of demanding your opponent do impossible things in order to prove you wrong.
The only way this person’s argument can be disproven is if their opponent were to move to another fucking country.
This person is saying that China is really bad, but only mentions major events that occurred more than 40 years ago. If someone were to move to China, how would the cultural revolution happening be at all relevant to their life there? It wouldn’t.
The CR and GLP are just empty excuses anti-China people use to dismiss anything positive about China.
“Oh, China alleviated extreme poverty? Well, the cultural revolution killed people!”
“China is investing more in green energy than any other nation? But what about the Great Leap Forward? That was really bad!”
“China cancelled billions of dollars of debt to other nations? Tinyman square!”
It’s a non-sequitur argument. It wouldn’t matter if Mao or Deng killed a million billion people each, neither of them are in power now, we look at China as it is, not based on some of the worst events in its modern history that occurred half a lifetime ago.
Also, the Great Leap Forward wasn’t perfect, but it overwhelmingly succeeded, though the famine was terrible. Even during the Cultural Revolution – which I see as backwards and utopian in many respects – the trend in life expectancy rapidly increasing maintained.
Something a lot of anti-China people don’t want to understand about it. It had a lot of failures, sure, but China actively learned from them and became a stronger nation as a result. I think it is telling that the big part of the GLF that the west talks about is the famine, the natural disaster, the one part China couldn’t learn from their mistake because it was caused by climate conditions, not by direct action. They talk about it almost like China was “smited by god” for daring to be socialist. Like they deviated from the One True Correct Path of Capitalism and faced divine punishment in the form of natural disasters and “authoritarian dictators.”