I’m not sure why you would assume I’m American. I mean, you happen to be right in this case, but I’m still not sure why you’d assume that.
Anyhow, there’s an irony in your assertion that disagreeing with the position of one’s government is “brainwashed.”
Americans are very ease to distinguish based both on their political stances (which tend to be rather unique) and how they express them (which IS unique).
Y’all are like those pickup trucks with LED lights. Once you realize they exist, you can’t miss them.
Anti-China/pro-Taiwan sentiment isn’t exactly unique to the US. I think you’re alluding to an incendiary tone with respect to how you say Americans express their views, but that doesn’t seem to quite fit so I’m a little lost there.
I mean, clearly people can tell that you’re American, so maybe it’s time for some introspection?
You don’t disagree with your government; you didn’t know what your government’s position was until right now.
You still don’t really know what your government’s position is, otherwise you’d understand that here, as in many cases, there’s an official stance for diplomatic relations and then a bunch of propaganda (for both domestic and foreign consumption) that undermines that official stance.
Bold of you to assume what I do and don’t know about geopolitics. I’m well aware of the fine line that the US government walks, but I don’t speak for the US government and my views aren’t informed by “propaganda” but by the simple observations that 1) the PRC is a totalitarian regime, and 2) that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state which broadly speaking doesn’t particularly want to be assimilated into the PRC. Where is the propagandistic angle here?
my views aren’t informed by “propaganda” but by the simple observations that 1) the PRC is a totalitarian regime,
lol
Just because you agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda
You aren’t brainwashed, you are just enculturated to a very reactionary ideology. I actually agree that it’s better to analyze them as separate countries for the purpose of something like this graph, but this thinktank (which, to be clear, is very Atlanticist, i.e. aligned with your geopolitical views) is almost surely gunning for having their little infographics be diplomatically palettable in hopes that they get used by important bodies.
I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that that’s what’s going here, but making something “diplomatically palatable” is for all intents and purposes equivalent to appeasement and (in my view) automatically makes any other claims made subject to suspicion.
I mean, Atlanticists are imperialists and should be condemned, but your view is rather unhelpful since it means the vast majority of statements connected to the UN since ~1980 fall under the same view. It’s not like the PRC denies that the RoC government exists and effectively controls the island of Formosa, in our context it is just a rhetorical affectation to the effect of the RoC government not being legitimate, which is a pretty fair stance to take given the RoC’s own positively absurd territorial claims.
