[flagged]
Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?
You should have just left it at that.
When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.
The media is almost daily full of China scares. Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.
Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?
> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.
Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.
Talking about 'Taiwan' and 'border disputes with the PRC' meanwhile the USA is doing a maritime blockade of Cuba and Iran. And that it's without talking about bombing countries or military deployed thousand of miles away from their borders, of God forbid, unconditional support to Israel, who just displaced one and a half million people.
But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Chinese are very bad?
"But, let's forget about all those small details, don't you see how the Americans are very bad?"
Have you not been reading The Economist for the past 20 years of the WSJ since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch? They've been predicting the downlfall of China every other month.
It ain't that hard!
So yeah, if you have wold claims, you better back them with sources.
Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for what is common knowledge is just a silly way to shut down discussion instead of engaging with it
The reality is that it's a lie and the Economist is quite balanced about China (even while they are banned from publishing there!). For instance, their latest cover was quite positive about the country: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-...
^ they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA"
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-chi...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/03/t...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/12/w...
FFS none of you actually read The Economist yet I'm the one who has to google for you.
The first, from 2015 (year of the 2015-2016 Chinese stock market turbulence), is an analysis of the response of the other countries to the aforementioned issue. With that context, its cover seems to be the usual attention grabbing shit other journals do, lest you want to conclude that the Economist also has a vendetta against USA for some of its covers.
The other articles simply show specific issues they noted: the second is about the effect of the trade war and how that will slow China but it'll be fine otherwise; the forth is repeating a concern of some authrorities, but it has no tone of "this will end China".
The third one is the closest, being about discrepanciea between the numbers reported by the top officials and the local governments. It mentions the possibility of being worse than it appears, but, at the end, it also posits whether it actually is given the lack of worry from party officials.
In all, doesn't seem that different from the average doomerism you see for other countries (including the US). They, to me, appear much more likely to be clickbaits than actual propaganda pieces.
Given the dates of these results, I suspect you specifically searched for the Economist saying anything negative about China's economy. If so, not exactly a good starting point for measuing bias. Now, to be fair, Google results can be different from user to user and you did at least post some actual the Economist links, in contrast to that bogus Reddit post you linked.
What's actually impressive is how you are baffled for doing the bare minimum. "That's common knowledge" is just a cheap excuse for ending discussions. But I'll elaborate on that on the other chain.
Now, for comparison, here are my 3 top results from searching "The Economist china" in Google:
1) https://www.economist.com/topics/china
2) https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...
3) https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/29/...
So far, it just looks like the usual news media shenanigans.
As bit-anarchist points out[1], you obviously did a simple google and you're bullshitting about articles you didn't read. This sort of bad faith argument doesn't belong on HN.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.
This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.
Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.
If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).
I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.
>If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck.
If you cared you'd read the article you're mentioning, but you didn't. You're a time suck.
> you give anarchism a bad name.
No, shilling for the CCP does that.
Also bringing up the Holocaust in this context is just fucking weird.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
It's not the Chinese? You sure? There's probably nobody more economically aggressive in the planet and they just threw a hissy fit at the EU the other day for doing something they've been doing since forever.
I care not for "the media", I care that I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people trying to justify this in this very comment section. I'm sure western media is not favorable to Chinese interests, I'd be utterly baffled if Chinese media was favorable to western interests. I do not expect public sentiment to follow a party line because we are better than that, but I do expect a certain reticence to go all out and justify opposition in intellectually rotten ways.
I wonder how that came about?
What’s that fence analogy called?
Chester-what?
Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.
There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.