Kamala Harris can flank Xi by proving that she’s black AND the US has free speech by saying the N word while
only if you operate a small business in a majority-minority community for at least 3 years
Lathe time: the government starts selling N-word passes, and the funds go directly to weapons for Isr*el.
US ANPA Legislation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The 2025 American N-Word Pass Act compeled all state DMVs to begin issuing a new type driver's license endorsement similar to a CDL.[1] While proponents such as Elon Musk and JD Vance have lauded it as a critical and necessary aspect of First Amendment free speech protections, opponents of the bill have described it as a "Get out of jail free card for hate crimes"[2] citing its extensive use in the dismissal of thousands of racially motivated murder trials across the country. [3][4][5][7]
Prove that Amerika is a free country. Call the founding fathers slaveholders and r*pists on TV.
No no, that' different you see, you'll just be torn apart by an angry mob instead of being killed by the guvment. That's freedom baby!!!
Say anything mildly criticizing the military and people will start frothing at the mouth calling for your execution.
Being Asian and trying to incite racism against the Chinese to appease a bunch of anglos is...something? Definitely won't result in any blowback ever
Hang on they asked a person who supports China (or apologist in their garbage language) to say something against China and they didn't want to? Seems a pretty reasonable thing to refuse to do.
You claim to have free speech huh? The only way to prove that is to say exactly what I tell you!
Literal playground tactics
I mean, "I don't want to" is a valid response but it says something about the person and the culture they are raised in. Maybe they simply believe too strongly that it is unethical to say whatever they are asked to, or maybe... Either way, it's made clear that they can't or won't criticize the thing they are asked to. Some things are not worthy of criticism, but most things can be. Especially leaders.
Exactly; some people simply won't engage with juvenile behavior and their cultures stress respect of others; sadly this goes far beyond what the average journalist is capable of comprehending. You also have a country that's been harassed for decades by the other country, and are now being asked to degrade themselves just for the amusement of the subhuman audience of the show. The guy could've given the apropos response of just a middle finger and walking off, but his culture stresses the importance of respect not just to others but of one's self.
I'm either not interpreting your words well, or I don't think you agree with them.
Admittedly I'm trying to take what they said in good faith and to that effect filtered out whatever sounded like nonsense as perhaps them being unable to articulate themselves and found myself left with the words 'ethics' and 'culture' and went from there.
I mean, "I don't want to" is a valid response but it says something about the person and the culture they are raised in
Maybe they simply believe too strongly that it is unethical to say whatever they are asked to
Some things are not worthy of criticism, but most things can be. Especially leaders.
These things sound too silly to take at face value, so I'm assuming either English isn't their first language or they're having trouble expressing themselves.
(And because my humor seems to not register for most, I'm actually saying this person is very silly. My post was more to goad them into admitting they believe in racist and small-minded nonsense)
it's made clear that they can't or won't criticize the thing they are asked to
okay? But there's a big difference between being made clear either that they "can't" or "can't or won't". The latter is obviously the case, the 'journalist' is pretending it like the former is the truth. "They won't humour my stupid request" != "They can't say what they want".
i recall reading that the winnie the pooh thing started off because a bunch of hong kong liberals were paying notions to racism by saying "xi must be winnie the pooh, because obama is a tigger!(which i can only imagine they want to replace T with N being their butt of the joke)" which goddamn i can only imagine how feverishly fox like these people are with their nodding gestures laced in race hate
e do not trust the liberals, they will betray you
Show
I think in the beginning it was more innocuous than that. It was more like "haha look at this photo of these two walking next to each other it looks like this picture of Pooh and Tigger" (without any racist intent... I think) but the Pooh thing got picked up by Hong Kong liberals and sinophobes and they began running it into the ground.
Yeah this. It was originally innocent. But of course, libs ruin everything.
unless im missin something she is just
Glacier Chung Ching Kwong is a political activist from Hong Kong. She is a PhD candidate in law at the University of Hamburg. She is also currently the Hong Kong Campaigns Coordinator at Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. She was previously the Digital Rights Research Fellow at Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC), a leading organization for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and Hong Kongers overseas led by fellow activist Samuel Chu. Back in the days in Hong Kong, she was the spokesperson of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Keyboard Frontline, monitoring privacy abuses and censorship on the web.
Following the enactment of the Hong Kong national security law in 2020, Kwong is living in self-imposed exile in Germany. She is now located in London.
im activating democracy in hong kong buddy
I wish I could say I am surprised at the irony of spouting 'free speech' propaganda while living in a state where it is literally illegal to be anti-Zoonist or express anti-Zionist sentiment (as that is broadly defined under 'anti-semitism'), but then I would be lying.
is a political activist from Hong Kong.
Lower the curtains, cut, it's over...That's a god dang bobalib.
The question of “free press” and “free speech” is not separable from the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie versus the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of “political plurality” as such turns out to be the negation of the possibility of achieving any kind of truth in the realm of politics, it reduces all historical and value claims to the rank of mere opinion. And of course, so long as someone’s political convictions are mere opinion, they won’t rise to defend them. And so the liberal state remains the dictatorial organ of the bourgeoisie, with roads being built or legislation being passed only as commanded by the interests of capital, completely disregarding the interests of workers. Under regimes where political plurality is falsely upheld as a supreme virtue, the very notion of asserting oneself as possessing a truth appears aggressive and “authoritarian.”
from https://redsails.org/brainwashing/
Hey uh Josh Shapiro say something criticizing Joe Biden...
Wow I guess we live in 1984 animal farm
, I make no apologies
