Essay talk:UK vs China in damage to hong kong

Coverage of the Hong Kong protests
This "essay"'s coverage of Hong Kong protesters is, near as I can tell, pretty much campist/tankie soundbytes. In other words, garbage. 18:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give me one example of one of these "soundbytes"? UKempireanalyser (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "A large amount of participants in the Hong Kong protesters support Capitalism despite the similar rhetoric to the regime changes in Latin America.[7] With some demonstrating cranky acts like pushing for Donald Trump to "liberate" Hong Kong for all the clout they want from western media." That's the most obvious example, though the demonization of the protesters, implicit accusations of conspiracy, and general uncritical pro-CCP coverage pretty much ticks all the boxes. 18:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats troll, you just got binned. 18:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the demonization of the protesters Alright let me fix the vagueness. One trade union opposed the protest since it doesn’t bother helping with poverty and supply insecurity for the working class. The funding from the U.S. State Department and the National Endowment of Democracy indicates a potential motive for U.S. interests in the anti-china astroturf. I’m trying to point how it is another case of rich people holding on to impossible goals. implicit accusations of conspiracy Yes, a conspiracy. Twitter had banned accounts that tried to give a different perspective. I’ll assume the polar end is meant to belong there. general uncritical pro-CCP coverage I wish I was but the sources I have provided in the essay are not just CCP shills sadly. UKempireanalyser (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Alright let me fix the vagueness. One trade union opposed the protest since it doesn’t bother helping with poverty and supply insecurity for the working class." This is still vague. And weak since the HKFTU is politically aligned with the CCP. Which kinda proves my point about a very slanted form of engagement on your part. "The funding from the U.S. State Department and the National Endowment of Democracy indicates a potential motive for U.S. interests in the anti-china astroturf." Lol, no it doesn't. Cute narrative though. "Yes, a conspiracy. Twitter had banned accounts that tried to give a different perspective. I’ll assume the polar end is meant to belong there." You do realize that doesn't prove conspiracy right? That proves Twitter banned a bunch of accounts it claimed were run by the CCP/PRC. I don't know if you've noticed but Twitter is not the US gov, nor does the US gov simply fund anti-socialist projects. It funds and backs various factions which strengthen its geopolitical dominance. Historically this has included everything from Castro to the Contras. "I wish I was but the sources I have provided in the essay are not just CCP shills sadly." I'm not sure if this is you trying to say you wish the sources you used were shills or not, but the fact of the matter is I never said they worked for the CCP directly, as you seem to be implying. I said that you uncritically promote a narrative wherein the CCP/PRC are heroes/protagonists, which is horseshit. They are a capitalist state, albeit one with different branding than its western counterparts. In conclusion, you have proven that you buy into a US bad PRC good narrative, which only helps to conceal class conflict in the PRC. 19:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore that page. I dedicated hard work so that someone else can aid my burden on a programming project. 18.133.78.250 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Git gud n00b. 20:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)