[endisneigh]

Sure. Im saying they did a good thing, you’re saying they did bad. I think lifting a billion out of abject poverty is overall net positive against freedom of speech. There’s no objective way to say one way or another overall.

If you look at removal of poverty China is unquestionably better. There’s simply no unbiased way you could say China is better or worse overall. Any weights you apply to certain things are inherently biased.

[smsm42]

Yes, there is an objective way to say that you don't have to institute a fascist totalitarian regime to make people not starve. It is witnessed by the fact that many countries do not have a fascist totalitarian regime, and still do not starve. In fact, mountains of evidence - including in recent Chinese history - point to the fact that a fascist totalitarian government is more likely to cause a mass starvation than to prevent one. Yes, the current fascist dictatorship finally learned how not to make people starve. It doesn't prove it is the only solution to starvation, and the choice is either starvation or fascism - it only makes this particular totalitarian dictatorship a bit less horrible. But still plenty horrible.

[catiopatio]

I don’t believe you’re engaging in good faith; you are employing tactics meant to stifle discourse:

1. False Equivalence: Suggesting that economic progress and freedom of speech are interchangeable or mutually exclusive is intentionally misleading.

2. Relativism: By stating there's "no objective way" to compare, you are deflecting any form of critical evaluation.

3. Unfalsifiability: Your assertion that any evaluation is "inherently biased" is an unfalsifiable claim meant to immunize your argument from critique.