For years, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has pushed ethnic minority groups like Tibetans and Uyghurs to adopt an identity rooted in Chinese nationality and allegiance to the ruling Communist Party.
It is a valid comparison. Both have a dogmatic view of what an national identity is so they start make laws to false problems resulting real problem of unfairness and restricting freedom leading to less unity and more hate.
Bill 96 also restrict anglophone rights and ignore first nstions languages.
The leader of PQ literally admit to believe in the great replacement
You’re starting to cross the line from being ignorant to being disingenuous. I don’t care about other laws or about individual politicians, that’s not what the topic is about. The only reason you’re even bringing them up is to distract from the actual points I’m making because you know I’m right.
You made the explicit claim that the Chinese law is the same as the law in Quebec, when they are completely different in content, scope, philosophy, intent, implementation, and enforcement. These two laws have nothing in common with each other outside of them both being laws. This is an inherently invalid comparison. You can double down as many times as you want, the reality is not going to change.
If you want to make a point about the Chinese law, then just outright do it. If you still refuse to be direct with it then at least use another example that’s more comparable to the Chinese law.
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?
It is a valid comparison. Both have a dogmatic view of what an national identity is so they start make laws to false problems resulting real problem of unfairness and restricting freedom leading to less unity and more hate.
Bill 96 also restrict anglophone rights and ignore first nstions languages.
The leader of PQ literally admit to believe in the great replacement
You’re starting to cross the line from being ignorant to being disingenuous. I don’t care about other laws or about individual politicians, that’s not what the topic is about. The only reason you’re even bringing them up is to distract from the actual points I’m making because you know I’m right.
You made the explicit claim that the Chinese law is the same as the law in Quebec, when they are completely different in content, scope, philosophy, intent, implementation, and enforcement. These two laws have nothing in common with each other outside of them both being laws. This is an inherently invalid comparison. You can double down as many times as you want, the reality is not going to change.
If you want to make a point about the Chinese law, then just outright do it. If you still refuse to be direct with it then at least use another example that’s more comparable to the Chinese law.
You just an hypocrite and a west boot licker
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Not having a double standard like you do not make me a CCP bootlicker. You defending restricting liberties when the west does it make you one
I am a chinese bootlicker right?
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?