Well I suggest people don't bring up their religion in this forum. Bringing up God is an excuse for people not to answer questions. China has been around longer than the bible says there was an Earth and we're suppose to not question it? The Chinese have to rewrite their own history to accomodate a historical oppressor of China that denied rights left and right while thinking they're the greater victim? If you don't want to hear your religion being questioned, don't bring it up in the first place. Every time someone brings up God in here, it has no context in any discussion. The people complaining about the rules being broken have no problem bringing up God which happens to also be against the rules in here. God doesn't have to follow rules hence why they get to skip that one. Just because you can't win a discussion, it doesn't mean it's unprovoked Western bashing. You're suppose to get your way then you believe there's no Western bashing in here, right? Again like I've noted before, some people think that free speech is they can say anything they want but if any one questions or challenges it, their free speech is being denied. In here it's called Western bashing. China is being attacked by the US and as usual the Chinese are suppose to take it and not counter... I don't care whatever subject people bring up in here just as long as someone like me can respond in kind. But if that's not okay with people who can't defend their arguments, then you snowflakes shouldn't be given a pass and be protected either. It doesn't need to be a person either. Plenty of articles from the West are filled with sloppy anti-China journalism. I'm not in the F-35 thread much but one time I posted a negative article from an American journalist and I was instantly accused of America bashing. Well I can see some in here complaining about the conduct of members where that's all they do in here is post negative news on China. So what are you complaining about?
If you're accusing me, then you misunderstand the point of my posts (which are hardly all negative on China, by the way). For example, I post a Bloomberg article and people kneejerk Supermicro, as if there has never been any genuine reporting or statistics from Bloomberg. They don't want to use their critical thinking as soon as news sounds remotely negative about China. Yes there is a lot of bad journalism and Western disinformation, but reacting by shutting your eyes to Western reporting just blinds you to potential deficiencies.
I prefer posting about Chinese deficiencies because they tend to be overlooked by users here, but I have also rebutted inaccurate claims of Western economic or technological superiority where applicable. You think this is about me being opposed to Western criticism, but this is not true. So this is hardly about differences between notions of what free speech entails. If you think this is being a "snowflake," it's not the case that I am against people questioning my claims either. I am annoyed by the general tendency of people to make low-effort dismissals and use ad hominem attacks, but not opposed to criticism itself.
I do, however, disdain empty political grandstanding from any nationalistic perspective, US or Chinese. Key word is
empty. It's the difference between a politician's speech and a think tank's position paper. One articulates specific evidence to back a particular view, while the other just makes shallow claims. It's harder to write one than the other, but then there would be less clutter and repetitive posts, as well as minimal heated rhetoric. If
you want to defend China and criticize the West, that's fine - but do it in a way that would mean most of your words actually have weight and substance. This would also mean fewer pointless rallying speeches - you are not a CCTV anchor, and honestly you're mostly preaching to the choir anyway. Otherwise don't be surprised by complaints about the quality of discussion.
A side note about Bloomberg: one of my posts that quoted a section from Bloomberg
that I explicitly stated I believed was inaccurate was in turn quoted by another user who did nothing but delete my commentary and repeat my skepticism (without adding anything substantive). I don't see the point of this unless they were deliberately trying to frame me as lacking the ability to discern bad journalism, or they simply thought misleadingly quoting parts of my post was an easy way to earn (worthless) validation for themselves. For reference, the claim in question was about Huawei's supposed reliance on Qualcomm for smartphones (blatantly false) and whether this extended to other divisions (e.g. base stations, which is less clear).