I am right next to Hind Khoudary, pretending to be in Gaza.
Gaza
Joined July 2021
- Tweets15.8K
- Following22
- Followers79
- Likes272
When a Muslim is faced with a direct question, they explode and start name-calling.
If you repeat the request to answer a direct question. They block you.
@jhaeharmony
We should emulate Michelle but in reverse.
Move to China, adopt a Chinese name, dress in tradition Chinese dress. Adopt their language, customs, traditions and mannerisms.
Then dedicate your time, energy and hatred for that system by repeatedly criticising it, but never leaving it for the thing you claim is better.
Then talking about how shitty the country is, its politicians, government, people and customs.
Or..
We could just not be racist, privileged and bigoted.
Trifles 🐀 retweeted
The IRGC-backed terrorist organization Hamas released a video showing CHILDREN participating in terrorist activities. Recruiting or using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities is a war crime and a blatant violation of international law.
Trifles 🐀 retweeted
In terms of food, Gazan kids are fine.
Syrian kids are still facing real shortages and malnutrition but the global activist community has long since stopped caring about them
“Facts matter.” Absolutely.
So let's include the other relevant facts.
China accounted for 95% of global new coal-power construction in 2023 and 93% of construction starts in 2024. In 2025, China alone brought roughly 78 GW of new coal capacity online.
Yes, Western countries have higher per-capita CO₂ emissions.
But if we're going to talk about climate responsibility, perhaps don't pretend per-capita emissions are the only relevant metric.
China is simultaneously the world's largest emitter, the largest coal consumer, and by far the world's biggest builder of new coal power.
Facts matter. All of them.
Red Flag 🇨🇳 : Compare the laws on paper, ignore who is actually covered.
This is a classic selective comparison: list China's statutory protections, list the US federal minimum protections, and then present the result as “China has workers' rights, America doesn't.”
But that's not a meaningful comparison.
China really does have statutory annual leave, social insurance, written-contract requirements and termination protections.
Thry also have free speech, Freedom of the press and Right to criticise the government (Article 41)
The problem is that having a law on the books isn't the same as everyone actually receiving those protections.
China's enormous flexible workforce is a perfect example: Reuters estimates about 320 million people are now in flexible employment, and reports that few gig workers contribute to social insurance. (70m)
And the claim that America has “no compulsory social benefits” is simply misleading. US employees generally pay mandatory Social Security and Medicare taxes, with employers paying matching amounts, 7.65% each in 2026.
The trick here is comparing China's national labour-law framework against America's federal floor, while ignoring state protections, actual coverage, enforcement and the huge population of workers outside China's formal employment system.
China vs US labour laws...
I knew the US didn't have many employee rights, but fucking hell 🤦♂️👇
🏖️ No legal paid leave
China has mandatory paid annual leave, paid public holidays and legally mandated 98 days of maternity leave, with many regions providing additional leave.
The US has no federally mandated paid vacation, paid public holidays or paid maternity leave.
✊ No compulsory social benefits
Chinese employers are legally required to contribute to pension, medical, unemployment, work injury and maternity insurance.
There's no equivalent federal mandate requiring US employers to provide retirement or health benefits.
🚪 Fired at any time with no payout
Chinese law requires employers to have a legally recognised basis for termination in many circumstances, with statutory severance applying in specified cases.
Unlawful termination can result in 2× the statutory severance.
In the US, federal law generally doesn't require employers to provide severance, advance notice or even a reason for termination..
📝 No written contract requirement
China requires a written labour contract, normally within one month of employment.
Failing to do so can trigger double wages for the effected period.
There is no general federal requirement for a written employment contract in the US.
--
Employee rights can and should be improved everywhere.
So when people say China is a labour rights train wreck, well take a look at the above for a reality check.
And I didn't even include minimum wage...
Red Flag 🇨🇳;“The other side is propaganda, therefore my side is right.”
Notice what happens here. A disagreement over a factual claim becomes:
“They’re biased → they support the US → US propaganda is the most lethal → therefore the Chinese position must be correct.”
But none of that actually establishes whether the original claim is true.
And saying “They got factually corrected” isn't evidence that they were factually corrected. Show the evidence, show the methodology, and address the actual claim.
Then comes the classic whataboutism: instead of demonstrating that the Chinese claim is correct, the discussion is redirected to alleged US propaganda. What the US does, or doesn't do, doesn't magically make a Chinese claim true.
This is exactly the kind of rhetorical pattern worth recognising:
Declare your side “factually correct”
Label disagreement as bias
Attack the credibility of the opposing side
Change the subject to Western wrongdoing
Treat that as a defence of the original claim
Propaganda doesn't require every statement to be false. It can use real facts, selective evidence and genuine achievements while steering the audience toward a predetermined political conclusion.
That's why “the US does propaganda too” is not a rebuttal to Chinese propaganda. It is a distraction from the question: *is the claim you're making actually true?*
And notice the trick: China doesn't have to be demonstrated to be right. The argument is simply reframed as “China is right, therefore anyone disputing it is Western propaganda.”
That's exactly the kind of circular reasoning people should recognise as a red flag.
This is what supporting China has come to...
1. Person says something wrong
2. Gets factually corrected
3. "Your verified stats are wrong, I asked my neighbours"
4. Gets blocked
You really can't make this stuff up 😂
We live in a world where commonsense is replaced by stupidity....all because an incorrect bias.
Tell me the US propaganda machine isn't the best and most lethal in the world.
Red flag 🇨🇳 : treating criticism of Chinese propaganda as criticism of China itself.
Nobody is saying China's achievements are fake. China genuinely has impressive capabilities in robotics, EVs, high-speed rail, manufacturing and other fields.
The red flag is when a genuine achievement is presented as evidence for a much broader political narrative: China is uniquely successful, the West is declining, and therefore China's political system is superior.
Propaganda doesn't have to be false. A genuine achievement can still be propaganda when it is selectively presented and deliberately used to promote a political narrative.
So when someone responds to “this is propaganda” with “Why do you hate everything positive about China?”, they're changing the argument.
The question isn't whether China achieved something. It's what story they're trying to make you believe because of it.
How the China haters don't give a fuck about what they actually advocate for...
Here's their playbook;
💣 Phase 1: Hijack with moral superiority
Sees a post celebrating China's successes. Uses a topic that is morally righteous, and frames it as an antagonistic, but thinly veiled attack on China and Chinese people's values.
Goal: Assert moral authority, hijack the discussion, performative hashtag activism to create a pile on.
⚡ Phase 2: Reframed double standard
Instead of conceding a single point, they instantly shift the focus to a brand new grievance or completely reframe their point. You dismantle one claim, and they seamlessly demand you answer for another.
Goal: Keep the finish line perpetually out of reach, tries to tie you to a moral position that agrees with their stance, forces you to defend your character.
🎭 Phase 3: The Victim Card
Swaps the moral high ground for a martyr complex..labeling how "brainwashed," "defensive," or "incapable of civil dialogue" China supporters are.
Goal: Exit with moral superiority intact by framing their failure to manipulate you as a failure of your free will.
--
The underlying theme is to cherry pick a crime or issue that can happen in any country.
Make that issue a representation of China and its people.
Ignore what ordinary Chinese people actually believe.
They don't care about what they're advocating for.
They care about being disruptive, controlling the narrative and maintaining moral dominance.
Red Flag 🇨🇳: This is classic pro-China propaganda: take genuine Chinese achievements, cherry-pick them, put them beside carefully selected American failures, and present the resulting contrast as proof that the Chinese system is superior.
China's EV and battery dominance is real. The IEA says China produced nearly 75% of the world's electric cars in 2025 and over 80% of battery cells. China has also built an extraordinary high-speed rail network.
But acknowledging those achievements doesn't require swallowing the propaganda surrounding them.
Notice what he does? China's achievements are presented as evidence of competent government, while America's shortcomings are presented as evidence of systemic failure. China's problems simply disappear from the comparison.
That's not a comparison. It's advertising.
And the “China = development, America = decline” narrative is particularly dishonest. China is dealing with a property crisis, demographic decline, local-government debt, collapsing retail trade and serious economic imbalances. None of those inconvenient facts make it into the infographic.
Nor does the fact that China's rise has been deeply intertwined with the global economic system it supposedly defeated. China became extraordinarily successful at manufacturing for the world's markets. That is an enormous achievement, but it doesn't magically turn every policy of the CCP into evidence of its superiority.
You don't have to pretend America is perfect to recognise Chinese propaganda.
In fact, the easiest way to spot propaganda is exactly what you see here: **showcase one side's successes, showcase the other side's failures, and call the comparison “logic.”**
China's developing. The US is developed...
China doesn't want to be called developed. Once you're developed, you're declining 👇
🇨🇳 Makes 70%+ of the world's EV's
🇨🇳 Controls up to 90% of global clean energy supply chains
🇨🇳 45,000 KMs of high speed rail track - Larger than the rest of the world combined
🇺🇸 Spent 40+ billion on Iran war that no one wanted. China spent that 40B on smart water systems to reduce urban flooding and leaks by up to 20%
🇺🇸 Probability a child earns more than their parents dropped from 90% in the 40s to 50% for those born on the 90s
🇺🇸 Key projects like high speed rail fail to launch due to political and state-fed conflicts. The US has 0 high speed rail.
--
Development is an upward trajectory.
Someone call the US and let them know.
Red Flag 🇨🇳 : Chris M
This post is a good example of why we need to distinguish pro-China sentiment from evidence-based analysis.
Notice what happens here.
Criticism of China isn't primarily answered on its merits. Instead, the critic's motivation is examined: insecurity, racism, hatred, propaganda, ideology.
Then genuine Chinese achievements are presented as evidence that the criticism itself is suspect.
That's motive substitution + selective framing + a false dichotomy.
And there's a particularly obvious double standard:
“You haven't lived in China, so you don't understand it” is repeatedly used to diminish criticism.
Yet his own experience living in China is treated as a legitimate basis for making broad positive claims about China.
Firsthand experience matters. It isn't a substitute for evidence, and it cuts both ways.
You can recognise China's extraordinary economic development, infrastructure and improvement in living standards while still examining CCP policy critically.
You can also acknowledge the horrors of Japanese occupation without pretending everything that happened to China after 1949 was irrelevant.
The biggest red flag isn't that he loves China.
It's that criticism of China increasingly needs to be explained psychologically, while praise for China is treated as rational observation.
That's not neutral analysis.
That's selective framing.
In English. We call this propaganda.
This is why the China haters do what they do...
People who actively seek out positive China content just to attack it aren't trying to help or be some sort of saviour to the Chinese people. Their reasons come from insecurity, anger, racism or hatred. Sometimes a mixture.
Let me explain.
I think three main drivers can be ruled out:
🇨🇳 No personal stake
We can all admit that no country is perfect. Western countries have their own share of problems ranging from homelessness, drug abuse, crime, gender inequality, culture wars and the list goes on.
If I'm someone that really wants to make an immediate difference, it's common sense that I'd want to do it for my family, friends and for myself. I'd advocate for change in my country. I wouldn't spend my time trying to "save" a country on the other side of the world that doesn't concern or affect me in any meaningful way, particularly one I've likely never even been to and therefore can't fully understand.
What would drive someone to be so passionate about a place they mostly likely have never been or know much about? I've been to countries I don't like and I don't seek them out on social media platforms being confrontational and rude.
🪖 The threat narrative
China hasn't launched a major war of invasion or territorial conquest in several decades. So treating China as an imminent military threat based primarily on what you think they "might" do in the future says nothing about what it does today.
Based off this fact, are you going in so hard against a country because of a preconception about what it might do, with no evidence in support of it?
☭ Political ideology
If socialism is supposedly such a disastrous system, why the obsession with explaining away every positive thing China achieves? If a political system produces no positive outcomes, it doesn't need hate. The system itself does the heavy lifting for you.
If you genuinely believe the system has and will ultimately fail, why does every Chinese success need to be reframed as something negative? Why does a socialist structure now have to be capitalistic for these achievements to parse as something successful?
--
I think we have dismissed the common drivers of why someone might feel a strong sense of negativity towards the country.
So what's left?
Propaganda. If you constantly tell people that a country is dangerous, oppressive and dishonest, eventually those ideas become the lens through which they interpret everything that country does.
Not even aggressive countries get this level of stalking and hate on social media.
Let that sink in.
Red flag 🇨🇳 : Turning a list of countries with very different histories, governments and relationships with the US into one neat “America fears countries with resources” narrative.
The giveaway is the conclusion: “Every country with resources is a threat.”
That isn't evidence. It's a conspiracy claim disguised as a pattern.
China's inclusion doesn't prove the pattern, it just gives the argument its punchline.
Cuba 🇨🇺 is a threat to the United States.
Iran 🇮🇷 is a threat to the United States.
China 🇨🇳 is a threat to the United States.
Lebanon 🇱🇧 is a threat to the United States.
Palestine 🇵🇸 is a threat to the United States.
Iraq 🇮🇶 is a threat to the United States.
Vietnam 🇻🇳 is a threat to the United States.
Russia 🇷🇺 is a threat to the United States.
North Korea 🇰🇵 is a threat to the United States.
Somalia 🇸🇴 is a threat to the United States.
Every country with resources is a threat to the United States but The one that’s actually a threat has been turned into America’s best ally.
Trifles 🐀 retweeted
You should stay humble.
China's GDP per capita is still below the world average.
Over 30 million peasants still live in huts, without electricity, running water, shower and indoor toilet.
500 million peasants still live in poverty, with a pension of only ＄30 per month.
Red flag 🇨🇳 : turning “major contributor” into “inventor”
South Korea launched commercial 5G before China.
So if Huawei “wrote the rule book,” why was China behind South Korea in actually deploying 5G?
Contributing to 5G standards ≠ inventing 5G, and banning Huawei ≠ pretending 5G exists.
Red flag 🇨🇳: Anecdote → sweeping conclusion
Watch for when an isolated anecdote is used to establish a much broader claim. Two people saying they’ve noticed anti-China sentiment is evidence that they’ve noticed anti-China sentiment, not that “years of Western propaganda” caused it.
The observation may be genuine; the causal conclusion is the unsupported leap.
It didn't take long for this to be reinforced in the wild...
We were walking to go out for dinner and we heard two Chinese aunties talking;
Aunty 1: When we walked past we missed the first part of the conversation...we heard "It was very rude".
Aunty 2: "That's the way things are at the moment, a lot of people are very anti-China"
This is what years of ramped up hysteria and propaganda does.
A percentage of the population takes things way too far and people get hurt, emotionally or physically.
It has real life consequences for ordinary people.
Red Flag 🇨🇳 : “My colleague visited China, had a great time and is planning another trip, therefore the negative reporting must be propaganda.”
China being safe, modern and enjoyable to visit doesn't disprove concerns about censorship, surveillance, human rights or political repression.
A tourist having a good holiday is evidence of exactly one thing: they had a good holiday.
“Go to China and see for yourself” is reasonable advice.
“I went to China, therefore everything you heard was a lie” isn't.
This is how the anti-China propaganda machine works... and ultimately fails.
A colleague of mine recently booked a 2 week trip to China. We started chatting about my experiences there, apps to use and any questions he had.
The first question: "Is it safe?"
Heres why this was the first question and how the cycle of fear to reality works 👇
📢 Manufacturing fear
Negative stories about China are pushed to audiences through social media, legacy mainstream media, think tanks, NGOs, "expert" networks and government channels. Even documentaries and movies aren't spared.
Stories about Chinese "aggression", safety, human rights, Xinjiang, Taiwan or COVID generate high engagement, while positive stories about China's successes or the complexities behind these issues are rarely communicated, and never mass-propagated.
You'll see the same stories everywhere.
Repetition reinforces.
🚫 Skepticism and omission
Chinese sources or independent media that challenge the narrative are treated with far greater skepticism and are more likely to be attacked and invalidated.
Valid points or context that could change the tone of a piece will be omitted or buried at the bottom of an article with negative wording or presentation.
🤯 Ideological persuasion
An underlying worldview casts China as an authoritarian, communist threat.
This amplifies negative stories, downplays context or Western parallels, and treats Chinese motives as inherently expansionist while Western actions are framed as defensive or worthwhile.
There's always a greater good that explains away acts of aggression and its consequences.
You're being told how to think, not what to think of.
✅ The break out
Challenge everything you read, take it with a grain of salt, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. That works for both sides.
But the best thing you can do — Go to China. See it for yourself.
The lies and propaganda fall away very quickly.
--
Remember my colleague who asked "Is it safe?"
He came back a few weeks ago and is already planning his second trip.
Red Flag 🇨🇳 : “Their leader visits us, therefore we are the superpower.”
Trump visiting China twice doesn't demonstrate that America stopped being a superpower. Xi not yet visiting the U.S. doesn't demonstrate that China became one.
Diplomatic visits are by invitation.
China asked Trump to visit.
If your evidence for “the US is no longer a superpower” is who got on a plane, you don't have evidence. You have propaganda.
Imagine measuring geopolitical power by who invited whom to dinner.
Red flag 🇨🇳 : Treating the absence of total financial collapse as proof that the underlying lending model has no problems.
“Which country went bankrupt ‘over China?’” is a red herring. Debt distress doesn't require a country to go bankrupt solely because of one creditor. Zambia defaulted and required a major debt restructuring, with China playing a central role as a creditor.
And ‘China hasn't bankrupted anyone’ doesn't establish that Chinese lending has no debt risks. It just changes the question.
Red Flag 🇨🇳 : Non sequitur
“China has more high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined, therefore China’s economy is stellar.”
Infrastructure development doesn't establish that conclusion. A country can build impressive infrastructure while simultaneously having high debt, low wages, poverty and corruption.
By that logic:
“North Korea has more missiles than the USA, therefore North Korea is more successful.”
Having a lot of something demonstrates that you have invested heavily in that thing. It doesn't demonstrate that the entire economy is successful
Red Flag 🇨🇳: “China is successful, therefore its critics are propagandists.”
A country can be economically successful and authoritarian. Those aren't contradictory.
And “the US is a dictatorship” doesn't answer whether China is a police state.
If you disagree with the evidence, address the evidence. Don't just label it propaganda.
