You're viewing part of a thread.
Underpinning is both a noun and a verb. When a structure is internally sound, but is in danger of falling over maybe because the ground underneath it is washed away or unstable, a person might install supports called underpinnings in a process called… underpinning.
I did not say that racism is the underlying cause of people making statements about China. In the sentence directly after the one you quoted I specified how what I said related explicitly to our topic of conversation.
I want to push back some on your language regarding racism. Racism exists in forms that do not show animosity and instead simply reify existing racist ideas, structures, history and values. A person doesn’t need animus to exhibit racism. A long time ago in this very thread I stated that fact.
This was your original comment (parts that are struck-out are not relevant):
I think there were
two links to the gore page people post anda couple of responses saying you couldn’t even talk about tiannamen square.The first is clear what it is,I’d callthe secondone sinophobic because it’s patently untrue and is basically an anti-china buzzword now.Idk why mods did what they did.Your argument was that the statement, "you couldn’t even talk about tiannamen square" was sinophobic. And the reason provided was that it's:
-
patently untrue
-
basically an anti-china buzzword now.
Saying 'that statement isn't one that has zero sinophobic underpinnings' is quite a bit different. I am not arguing that there are 0 racist "underpinnings". But, if the standard for racism is "has at least one racist underpinnings" then I think you may have an easier time writing the list of statements that are not racist. If that is the standard, then saying something is racist risks losing all meaning since almost everything would be.
I have been saying that it is not sinophobic because it is:
-
not demonstrated to be untrue, much less patently. You haven't provided any evidence for it being untrue and it's certainly not clearly, or without a doubt, untrue.
-
at best anti-ccp not anti-chinese. It is a popular criticism of China pointed to by both those who have clearly racist motivations and intents and those who do not.
-
a bad framework to determine if something is sinophobic/racist or not. The truthfulness of a statement doesn't impact its racism. There are true things that have racist underpinnings and false things that do not. Even if something is a popular buzzword used predominantly by people who have the worst motives, it would not be inherently racist.
You're correct that animus is not required for something to be racist. However, it's hard to imagine that you intended to mean "the claim is sinophobic because it's patently untrue and has a non-zero number of racist underpinnings but without animus."
What’s your endgame here?
I want to believe things that are true and have good reasoning and evidence to support them. Ideally, I'd like others to do the same. If what you are saying is true and there's good reasoning and evidence for it, I'd like to believe it too. If not, ideally, I'd like to see you not believe it. Additionally, I want to say things that help what I fight for, a better world for all, and avoid those that don't.
I can't make you do anything. You don't have to respond, convince me, or change your mind. You've never had to. Why do you keep responding (not flippant, a genuine question)?
As I said previously, I believe statements like yours harm the cause I believe we share. If there's a way to get you to see that and stop doing that then, I believe, the world would be the tiniest bit better in that there's a better chance to get the improved world I, and I believe you, fight for. If it could be shown to me that statements like yours are true (by evidence and gold reasoning) and beneficial to the cause then I'd start saying them.
I don't believe it's either true or helpful to the cause to provide cover for authoritarian governments by pointing to valid criticism and declaring it racist, regardless of the mere presence of racist underpinnings. I would find it untrue and unhelpful in all cases, but especially those where the government wears the name tag commonly associated with the better world I want. Doing so ties that dream of a better world to the failures of the past that, although were likely well-intentioned, didn't result in that better world and in some cases made the lives of their citizens worse. My economic stances come downstream of my desire to see human rights respected by all and human flourishing to expand.
Would you believe that Chinese people can talk about tiannamen if you saw their words?
That's going to depend on a lot of specifics, but if it could be sufficiently demonstrated, yes.
Are they going to be able to speak reliably about government policy? Are they going to show evidence of actual memorial services? What level of knowledge of the events could they demonstrate? Are they going to be able to show that the government is not attempting to censor information or discourage open discussions or memorial events? A handful of anecdotes that people have vague notions of something big happening at that place and time would be anything but remarkable.
Are they going to disprove the reports of arrests for "seditious social media posts about an upcoming sensitive date?" Or that they removed books about TS from libraries in HK in 2023 after they reasserted control over HK? Is it going to link to government data about those who were killed, injured, forcibly disappeared, or imprisoned? Is it going to show that police haven't been stationed outside the homes of or disappeared people who were connected with the events of TS or its memorial services? Is it going to show that the government is not blocking search terms or Wikipedia pages about the events?
If all it will be is statements from the general Chinese public that they "know about what happened at TS" that would be unremarkable. I have no doubt that the government's attempt to hide information hasn't been fully successful and that people believe they know all that happened. That would not show that they do or that the information is freely available, or that the government is not doing the things outlined in the evidence I've provided so far.
-