Fun talk:Tankie argument bingo: China edition
Um... what are dengists? — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I might be wrong, but in the way I usually see the term used (and the way it seems to be used here), it refers primarily to authoritarian communists/socialists who specifically defend the modern, less Maoist China. The term comes from Deng Xiaoping, who introduced a bunch of economic reforms to make China more capitalist but maintained or even expanded a lot of the socially authoritarian policies. Dengists (and other pro-Modern China individuals) either deny these policies exist, or they claim that they are necessary, or not as bad as suggested, or some combination thereof. Hope that helps. ❣️ ASELAនិយាយ ❣️ 06:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much, but I've seen MLs and MLMs defend China at some point too.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Strangely the only instances of the term "Dengist" I've seen being used are certain Western Maoists who believe that Deng betrayed Mao. Most left critics of the PRC just call them tankies.--LucasGeorge (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much, but I've seen MLs and MLMs defend China at some point too.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Could some1 pls tell/explain me what the “productive forces” dengist argument is? 115.64.87.72 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Basically, they think that China's transition to a freer market (it's not that capitalist btw) is somehow part of DOTP? I'm not sure, since I don't know much about leftist theory (especially weird ones like Dengism). Here's a wikipedia article: Productive forces
--Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- A country with big ass megacorps and billionaires is definitely capitalist. It's state capitalist, to be specific. — Oxyaena Harass 13:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- ngl, it takes a LOT of mental gymnastics to claim it's socialist.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thankfully Dengists excel at mental gymnastics. — Oxyaena Harass 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- TBH the "productive forces" card sticks out like a sore thumb. If you aren't sure about leftist theory lingo it's best to replace it with something you do understand. Also I think this bingo should be renamed "Tankie argument bingo: China edition".--LucasGeorge (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thankfully Dengists excel at mental gymnastics. — Oxyaena Harass 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- ngl, it takes a LOT of mental gymnastics to claim it's socialist.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- A country with big ass megacorps and billionaires is definitely capitalist. It's state capitalist, to be specific. — Oxyaena Harass 13:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
On the recent edit war of the bottom left square[edit]
You have repeatedly removed the text of the bottom left square quite a few times even after another staff member & I have reinstated it quite a few times. You say in your reasoning that the accusations of Taiwan as a US puppet state and the legal dispute of the territory are two separate matters, Dengists think otherwise. If Taiwan is a part of the PRC that's also a US puppet state, would that make the entirety of China a US puppet state regardless of their governments? This is absurd logic that those Dengists have and therefore some of us feel that it should remain on the board. You seem to want to correct an error that block might have, but I have not seen it filled by you or someone else on the wiki with the suggested changes you'd like to make. If there's a change you'd like to make, please post it here because there can't be just a blank space.
Rockford the Roe boop my snoot 22:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be an instance of equivocation. It seems apparent, at least to me, that anyone who says "Taiwan is part of China" is referring to the island of Taiwan, while "Taiwan is a US puppet" is referring to the ROC government, colloquially called "Taiwan". If that's not clear enough, try replacing "Taiwan", "China", and "US" in that sentence with "Donetsk/Luhansk", "Ukraine", and "Russian", respectively. Would that still be contradictory? (Also note that whether these statements contradict is independent of whether one believes either statement is true.)
- As for why I haven't replaced it with anything, I'm only removing part of the page that I believe to be incorrect. There's more arguments under #Bonus Arguments that anyone can add. (Personally I have no suggestions for which one, as they seem to be overly simplistic caricatures or bad faith strawmen.)
- Regarding edit warring: from what I understand from reading the policy here, it refers to reverting edits without explanation or more than twice. I don't believe I've done that. I always provide rationale in edit summaries, whereas my edits have been repeatedly reverted, with little or no explanation. However I'm not too active here, so please correct me if I have been violating some other standard I'm not aware of, and apologies for any trouble. YXTQWFclimbTheStairs 18:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)