For years, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has pushed ethnic minority groups like Tibetans and Uyghurs to adopt an identity rooted in Chinese nationality and allegiance to the ruling Communist Party.
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Not having a double standard like you do not make me a CCP bootlicker. You defending restricting liberties when the west does it make you one
I am a chinese bootlicker right?
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?