“Progressive” doesn’t really mean anything beyond “left of establishment democrats.” They range from liberal to socialist. Fascists are a twin of liberalism, worse but fundamentally connected.

The popular conception of China’s system doesn’t actually exist, though.

I don’t think any hard stats have been gathered, but in Hexbear, Lemmygrad, and Lemmy.ml getting organized is one of the top recommendations.

The used car market is volitile, regional, and often close to new in price. Stop blaming systemic issues on actions of individuals. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for one to make poor financial decisions, but instead that the very system is designed around maximizing profits squeezed from the working classes.

Existing within capitalism does not mean you cannot work to overthrow it and must ideologically support it by espousing liberal talking points.

The US is reliant on cars, but many people cannot afford buying them outright or low-interest loans. This is by design, not choice.

China isn’t a utopia, and does have problems. China’s problems are real, though, not invented, so discussion of China’s issues requires drawing a line between fact and fiction.

China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.

This is nonsense. Communism has not been achieved, but socialism absolutely has. Communism has not been achieved not for lack of trying, but because it is a post-socialist system. There’s no psyop.

No? I’m an ML and I live in a capitalist country. Further, liberals are absolutely worse than anarchists.

The US is fascist because it’s in crisis. Imperialism is decaying and austerity is being brought inward.

Yes, people advocate for getting organized all the time.

Maybe someday you will be, but it isn’t today.

No, they don’t go against that. Trying to focus on a present snapshot rather than contextualize a process that exists as something constantly changing is metaphysics. Tomorrow, China’s queer rights will be a bit better than today, if we have the same conversation tomorrow but only view it as another snapshot then we will reach a point where you say “China good” and this will all have been forseeable had we analyzed it as something in motion, rather than static.

People on Lemmy do discuss action.

Because it’s the reason censorship is used. People don’t censor for fun, but to protect the system. China is socialist and run by the working classes, it would not have the support it does if it was brutally oppressing them.

Give me one example of a “metaphysical analysis” I made. One.

Your insistence on ignoring China’s historical progression in queer rights and instead focusing only on the present. You don’t view progress as a process, but instead as a snapshot. It’s like looking exclusively at one point on a graph instead of at the trend line.

One point I will respond to is: again, I didn’t say they should be judged by future standards. There are places that are much better for queer people today compared to china. Today, not future.

And these places will all be seen as horribly reactionary in the future, socially. That’s why you need to look at progress as a process and not a snapshot.

“My insistence on never believing a word a Chinese person says”.

You mean that literal ONE guy on this thread? Yes, he didn’t have any compelling points. Next.

No, I mean the mountains of sources I gave you from Chinese citizens explaining their system and why they support it. You deflected to Russia.

Oh you are definitely being hypocritical, having an issue with “phrasemongering” and then proceeding to do it yourself.

No, I am not. Please explain.

China does not violently oppress minorities, and wielding state authority, censorship, and surveilance against capitalists and fascists is necessary for a socialist state, and doesn’t make it fascist. Fascism is capitalism violently defending itself from decay and solidifying bourgeois control, not proletarian.

It’s not a direct statement you’ve made, just your insistence on looking at snapshots in time instead of graphs and trajectories. When I suggested you look at what came before, you rejected it, saying you only care about the here and now. This is metaphysics, erasing history from analysis.

Censorship is not a blanket thing, it’s specifically targetting misinformation, pro-capitalist speech, and that which undermines socialism. The working classes use it to silence capitalists.