Well in the comment I said that you didn't explain why I was wrong and simply resorted to making a string of ad hominems.

So I'll reiterate: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

How much Chinese media do you watch? How much time have you spent on Chinese social media? How fluent are you in Chinese? Or did you just get told this by other white people and decided to just go along with it because it confirms your biases.

Saying you should shut up if you haven't researched a topic isn't an adhominem.

Ah yes because government-manufactured numbers hold value— you must think Russia is a democracy too, no?

Oh, and now I'm racist. Great. Critiquing a state means I'm racist. Logical.

I have nothing against Chinese people. If you're defending things like suppression, I don't care what colour you are, I don't like that.

Ah yes because government-manufactured numbers hold value— you must think Russia is a democracy too, no?

Strawman. Also more racism.

You are a racist.

https://www.equaldex.com/region/china

Please take a look through this page that elaborates on the oppression of queer people under the Chinese regime before you make any more personal attacks or assumptions about me. Just as an example.

Alright, you should shut up if you can't respond to my answers.

Surveillance and political suppression for one. Media, journalism, etc.

Nothing I said was racist lol.

Repeating it won't make it true.

You got caught with a good analogy and you're defaulting to claiming I'm a racist randomly to hide behind.

I'm using the term to refer to suppression of people (which isn't restricted to workers) in politics, media, etc.

Dictatorships that operate regardless of the will of the people such as Russia also "report high rates of approval".

I'm not trying to fuss over what to call something. My intended point stands.

And I have, and my responses were given little in return from them.

Still better then the baby eating pedo elite

They're still banning TV shows/clips that feature queer stories or characters, there's been literal police raids where people have been asked to remove rainbow articles of clothing, rainbows are censored on TV. This is all very recent stuff within the past five years.

Idk man, seems like they're desperate to erase our existence if you ask me.

Even if it's not "as bad" as it once was, and if it "has potential", that's not where it is right now. Which is that it's an oppressive place for queer people right now, factually. Stop defending that.

China isn't the perfect haven free from all criticism that some people make it out to be.

You didn't engage with my argument, so I won't with yours either.

Let's call it phrasemongering.

I am done arguing across the thread so I am just going to deal with all your bullshit in one go here.

You keep repeating the word “authoritarian” as if it is a self-evident argument, but it is not. It is a vague political insult that Western political discourse applies to states it dislikes and almost never applies to itself. Every state exercises authority: it enforces laws, maintains internal security, regulates media to some extent, surveils threats, and suppresses movements it considers destabilizing. The United States conducts mass digital surveillance, criminalizes whistleblowers, historically infiltrated and destroyed political movements through programs like COINTELPRO, and imprisons more people than any country in the world. Yet it is rarely labeled “authoritarian” by the same commentators who apply the term to China reflexively. That should already tell you the term is being used ideologically rather than analytically. If every state exercises authority, then calling one “authoritarian” without specifying material structures of power, governance mechanisms, or outcomes is just moralizing rhetoric.

The same applies to your claim that China is “fascist,” which is not merely wrong but demonstrates that you do not understand what fascism actually is. Fascism historically emerges in advanced capitalist societies during severe economic crisis when sections of the ruling class mobilize a violent ultra-nationalist movement to crush organized labor and socialist movements in order to preserve capitalist property relations. It is defined by the fusion of corporate and state power, preservation of monopoly capital, destruction of socialist parties and unions, and expansionist militarism. China does not fit this model in any meaningful way. Its political system is led by a communist party whose legitimacy rests on long-term development planning, massive poverty reduction, public infrastructure investment, and a large state-owned economic sector. Private capital exists, but it does not politically dominate the state the way corporate capital dominates Western liberal democracies. You may dislike that system, but lazily labeling it “fascist” simply shows that you are throwing around historical terminology you clearly have not studied.

Your argument about Xinjiang relies on the same pattern: confident assertions built almost entirely on a narrow ecosystem of ideological sources. The modern “Uyghur genocide” narrative traces heavily back to Adrian Zenz, a far-right evangelical researcher who openly states his religious mission is to destroy communism. His methodology (guesswork extrapolated from administrative statistics and speculation about buildings seen in satellite images) has been widely criticized by scholars across multiple fields. Meanwhile, international delegations, journalists, and diplomats have visited Xinjiang repeatedly over the past several years. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation publicly acknowledged China’s efforts in addressing extremism and safeguarding Muslim citizens rather than declaring a genocide. Dozens of Muslim-majority governments have taken similar positions. If a genocide were genuinely occurring, it would be extraordinary for the major international organization representing Muslim states to refuse to recognize it.

Satellite imagery itself proves almost nothing. Images of buildings do not magically become “concentration camps” simply because a Western think tank says so. Every country has prisons, schools, training centers, and administrative facilities. Converting “there are buildings” into “therefore genocide” requires layers of speculation that are rarely demonstrated. The testimonies most widely promoted in Western media frequently come from individuals affiliated with political organizations advocating regime change, such as the World Uyghur Congress. Some prominent figures cited as witnesses have direct institutional connections to U.S. security agencies. That does not automatically invalidate testimony, but it absolutely means the claims require scrutiny rather than blind acceptance because they align with Western geopolitical narratives.

You also dismiss Chinese public opinion entirely because it comes from Chinese institutions. That is not analysis; it is simply prejudice dressed up as skepticism. Multiple long-term studies, including research conducted by Harvard’s Ash Center, have consistently found extremely high satisfaction with the Chinese central government across decades of rapid development. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced massive improvements in living standards, infrastructure, healthcare access, and poverty reduction. China eliminated extreme poverty on a scale unprecedented in human history. These material outcomes are a major reason the government maintains broad legitimacy domestically. Pretending that 1.4 billion people must all be brainwashed or terrified because their views contradict Western narratives says more about your worldview than about China.

Your claims about censorship suffer from the same lack of nuance. China regulates its information space, particularly around political organization and extremist ideology. That is true. But the idea that Chinese society exists in total informational darkness is nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people use Chinese social media platforms every day where public debates, criticism of local officials, policy complaints, and social controversies are common. Domestic media frequently exposes corruption and administrative failures. The system is designed to prevent destabilizing political mobilization and separatist extremism while still allowing broad social discussion. Again, you can disagree with that model, but describing it as total censorship shows you are repeating talking points rather than observing how the system actually operates.

Your repeated insistence that your position cannot possibly contain racist assumptions also misses the point. Criticism of any state is legitimate. What becomes chauvinistic is the underlying assumption that Chinese people are incapable of forming genuine political opinions and must therefore be either brainwashed or coerced if they express support for their own government. That assumption appears constantly in Western commentary about China. When someone dismisses the perspectives of an entire population while elevating a handful of exile activists as the only “real voices,” it reflects a colonial pattern of thinking whether you want to admit it or not.

More broadly, your arguments show a familiar pattern: start with a predetermined conclusion that China must be oppressive, then accept any claim that supports that belief while dismissing contradictory evidence as propaganda. That is not critical thinking; it is ideological confirmation bias. Real analysis requires examining sources, incentives, and historical context rather than repeating whatever narrative is most popular in Western media cycles.

So the issue here is not that criticism of China is forbidden. The issue is that the criticisms you are presenting rely on vague labels, historically illiterate misuse of terms like “fascism,” contested evidence promoted by politically motivated actors, and a reflexive dismissal of the perspectives of the Chinese population itself. That is not a serious argument. It is a collection of slogans and assumptions repeated with confidence but very little understanding.

Dogmatism? And what about you?

My point is that the forms of oppression that occur in China aren't exclusive to the capitalist class, and remain something I oppose.

Which stands.

Self-evident? No, I gave reasons.

I have elaborated and expanded upon my reasoning for the things I said and could continue doing so against what you said, but something tells me you'd respond the same way with some wild reframing of what I say that's misrepresentive and it's not really something I'm interested in.

If you're not defending repression, then please call it what it is: repression.

Whether or not the country calls itself democratic isnt relevant.

Engage with this: why does Russia have high approval rates?

The only muslim people they suddenly "pretend" to care about because their media hides the fact that they are muslim.

Muslims everywhere else are fair game.

If my criticisms of your reasoning/the facts you provided appears as dogmatism to you, that is not my concern.

What are you even saying? Preventing independent journalism is oppressive towards the working class now? Censoring the media is oppressive towards the working class?

That’s a convenient way to exit the discussion after repeatedly asserting things you never actually substantiated. You say you “gave reasons,” but what you mostly did was repeat a set of political labels (“authoritarian,” “fascist,” “genocide”) and then treat those labels as if they were arguments. When those terms were challenged, instead of defining them or engaging with the structural points being raised, you simply repeated them and shifted to saying you could elaborate “if you wanted to.” That isn’t an explanation; it’s a rhetorical placeholder.

For example, you called China fascist but never addressed what fascism historically refers to: a specific political formation that emerged in capitalist societies to protect monopoly capital by destroying socialist movements and organized labor. If you think that definition applies to China, then you should be able to explain how a state led by a communist party, with a large state-owned sector and long-term developmental planning, fits that model. Simply asserting the label without engaging with what the term actually means is not an argument.

The same pattern appeared with Xinjiang. When the sources behind the genocide narrative were questioned, including the methodological problems with the research that popularized those claims and the fact that organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have not endorsed the genocide accusation, you didn’t actually address those points. Instead you returned to repeating that there is “geographic evidence” and “testimonies,” without explaining how satellite images of buildings or politically connected exile testimonies demonstrate genocide as defined under international law.

You also avoided the broader point about how the term “authoritarian” is used. Every state exercises authority through law enforcement, surveillance, media regulation, and political constraints. The meaningful question is how those powers are structured, what social outcomes they produce, and who ultimately holds political influence. Simply calling one country “authoritarian” while treating others with similar mechanisms as “free” is not analysis unless you actually define the criteria being used and apply them consistently.

Now you’re suggesting the discussion is pointless because you assume your arguments will be “reframed.” But nothing that was addressed required reframing, only clarification. If someone challenges the meaning of the terms you’re using and asks you to substantiate your claims with consistent definitions and evidence, that is what debate actually is. Declaring in advance that engagement would be misrepresentation is just another way of avoiding the substance of the discussion.

If you genuinely believe your claims are well-supported, the solution is simple: define the terms you are using, explain the evidence that supports them, and address the counterpoints directly. Saying you could do that but would rather not does not strengthen your position; it just makes it clear that repeating accusations was easier than defending them.

I haven't much evidence for the claim: "In China, the working classses control the state"

sure you will say that is my western bias from living with china bad propaganda, but you could actually provide something to me read on topic if possible

It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

It passes in terms of what democracies are in practice but the political suppression, surveillance, and censorship that China is known for its anything but democratic.