People on twitter are saying he's actually a far-right nationalist hypocrite who owns properties in the US. Makes sense to ban him then ig; just one of those fake internet celebrities that they occasionally ban probably.
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
34 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32327 readers
901 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Known for espousing antisemitic tropes, Sima's Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.
Thoughts? Sounds like a lame thing to do
I imagine China cares a lot more about his criticism of China than they do about his criticism of the US. Makes for a more clickable headline though, I guess
The govt will ban voices that are pro-china as well as anti. The marker tends to be those who people will form behind and have the ability to create movements. It's about keeping people atomised.
No it's about not allowing traitors to the Chinese people to gain power. You can have and express nearly any opinion in China, as long as you agree it should exist and it's people should flourish. If you post dissent that would harm the people or the state they control, you're penalized.
They solved the paradox of tolerance by enforcing a base level of morality, fall behind it and you're not really worth tolerating.
How do you define what "will harm the people?"
Deregulation, unscientific claims, advocating for negative public health decisions, advocating for war, advocating for other countries propaganda. It's genuinely an easy thing to do.
If you advocate for, say, allowing private companies to operate essential services like medical care or water purification, you're arguing to harm the people. We know both of those are terrible things to have privatized, we have the US as an example.
Because the state determines anything that potentially threatens the state as a "threat to the people" while not allowing the people to organise, especially with anything that may threaten the state.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees
The people are the state, the people organized once upon a time, you might have heard of it.
And yeah rebellion isn't allowed. That's a given, no idea why you think that's a bad thing.
The descendents of the grand historian still making themselves as popular with authority as always
The interests of international capital are the interests of any particular state.