What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic.
And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example?
What’s important is the framing, and what is left in vs what is left out. Those that were harmed by the government popping the real estate bubble were those who had the extra money to invest in real estate, which is the primary vehicle for balooning your wealth in China. The user I replied to specifically stated working class, which in reality should be more like the petty bourgeois.
Secondly, the scale of violence inplied by the user is the idea that the state sent in jackbooted thugs to crush the protest, but reading the article it seems as though it was only a handful of people that got into a skirmish with plainclothes police officers. That doesn’t excuse anything, of course, but now we know “CPC crushes working class protestors with police” is at best an exaggeration of “crushes” and the “working class” part is an embellishment.
Finally, the article says the government worked to address the complaints! This wasn’t a protest against the government, but a protest for government intervention. This wasn’t because the CPC did something bad, but was a request for the CPC to step into the banking system failing and help people harmed by that.
So, again, we have what appears to be light police skirmishes with upper-middle class people harmed by a banking failure that requested CPC intervention, which they did. What they framed it as was poor, working class protestors harmed by CPC action being met by overwhelming jackbooted thugs in order to squash dissent against the CPC. See how that’s dishonest? And that’s taking the Guardian at face value, just reading between the lines.
Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks.
If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable.
Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine?
I don’t personally know more about this single event, but the broader housing bubble has been widely reported on. If you want a Chinese perspective, I recommend searching CGTN.
As for the CPC, it is by no means perfect. As a socialist country, the PRC does a much better job of meeting the needs of the people. Even the linked article was a protest for government action, not against it. The CPC makes mistakes, but the system itself is better, so it’s likely shortcomings are resolved over time.
As for “tofu-dregs,” they aren’t all that common. It has happened, it was a term coined by Zhu Rongji, premier of the CPC at the time. Using insufficient rebar, poor quality concrete, etc has happened because of rapid development and the ability for individuals to cut corners for higher profits or to meet deadlines. However, this is more of a problem of the past, and not a widescale problem, despite how western countries would report on it.
Really, identifying bias within an article and engaging with it critically is good practice in general.
Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now
That’s closer to the truth. China builds more than anyone, so by sheer numbers there were going to be some people skirting their responsibilities. State intervention and oversight has largely rectified the problem, which was more prevalent in the 90s/2000s.
What would be a source you deem valid in this case. The only thing I can say is that multiple news sources published about this topic.
And what do you have to say about the problem of half-assed building projects that keep killing people in china because they used the wrong type of sand for concrete for example?
What’s important is the framing, and what is left in vs what is left out. Those that were harmed by the government popping the real estate bubble were those who had the extra money to invest in real estate, which is the primary vehicle for balooning your wealth in China. The user I replied to specifically stated working class, which in reality should be more like the petty bourgeois.
Secondly, the scale of violence inplied by the user is the idea that the state sent in jackbooted thugs to crush the protest, but reading the article it seems as though it was only a handful of people that got into a skirmish with plainclothes police officers. That doesn’t excuse anything, of course, but now we know “CPC crushes working class protestors with police” is at best an exaggeration of “crushes” and the “working class” part is an embellishment.
Finally, the article says the government worked to address the complaints! This wasn’t a protest against the government, but a protest for government intervention. This wasn’t because the CPC did something bad, but was a request for the CPC to step into the banking system failing and help people harmed by that.
So, again, we have what appears to be light police skirmishes with upper-middle class people harmed by a banking failure that requested CPC intervention, which they did. What they framed it as was poor, working class protestors harmed by CPC action being met by overwhelming jackbooted thugs in order to squash dissent against the CPC. See how that’s dishonest? And that’s taking the Guardian at face value, just reading between the lines.
Do you have more information on what the specific banking error was, because most sources I was able to find are focused on the violent intervention and less about what exactly happened in the banks.
If not, the incident doesn’t make china as bad or worse than the us but it does make the perfect image of the chinese government seem a bit more questionable.
Also, what do you think about the issue of things like tofu dreg construction? Why do you think that happens or did it even happen as shown on multiple videos from chine?
I don’t personally know more about this single event, but the broader housing bubble has been widely reported on. If you want a Chinese perspective, I recommend searching CGTN.
As for the CPC, it is by no means perfect. As a socialist country, the PRC does a much better job of meeting the needs of the people. Even the linked article was a protest for government action, not against it. The CPC makes mistakes, but the system itself is better, so it’s likely shortcomings are resolved over time.
As for “tofu-dregs,” they aren’t all that common. It has happened, it was a term coined by Zhu Rongji, premier of the CPC at the time. Using insufficient rebar, poor quality concrete, etc has happened because of rapid development and the ability for individuals to cut corners for higher profits or to meet deadlines. However, this is more of a problem of the past, and not a widescale problem, despite how western countries would report on it.
Really, identifying bias within an article and engaging with it critically is good practice in general.
Alright, I think tofu-dregs are mostly an issue that happened at a scale once and the reporting is mostly happening as the broken buildings are showing up. I could imagine the issue that caused this has been worked on by now
That’s closer to the truth. China builds more than anyone, so by sheer numbers there were going to be some people skirting their responsibilities. State intervention and oversight has largely rectified the problem, which was more prevalent in the 90s/2000s.