I've noticed you posting well-informed comments and I realize that it's annoying to be accused of bias for that, but I've also noticed you responding aggressively to ad hominem attacks and I think that's unnecessary. There are many more people reading comments than posting, and for them it would be better if you kept only the informative part and cut the confrontational rest out.
I would keep the following:
> If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data.
> I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation.
> E: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.
I would keep the following:
> If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data.
> I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation.
> E: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.