[Daishiman]

Nah I prefer to discuss with people who have some basic literacy or googling skills because if you search for "economist predicting the fall of china" you'll find both their articles and the commentary surrounding it.

It ain't that hard!

[Saline9515]

I'm asking because I read regularly the Economist and don't feel that it's a true statement. For instance, the latest Chaguan column is quite balanced: https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...

So yeah, if you have wold claims, you better back them with sources.

[culi]

I also regularly keep up with The Economist and other western news outlets and I completely agree with GP's impression that we see a "China is doomed" opinion piece every other month. Same with geopolitical youtubers.

Obviously none of us are committed enough to this internet discussion to do a formal study to prove our impressions but I think the majority of regular readers would also agree. Asking for sources for what is common knowledge is just a silly way to shut down discussion instead of engaging with it

[Saline9515]

I asked for a single article representing this point of view. If it is so common, it should be easy to find? No?

[culi]

Yes, you would have a very easy time finding one.

[Saline9515]

If you can't show any proof or even circumstantial evidence of your theory, it's worthless and the Economist is not a China-doomer paper.

The reality is that it's a lie and the Economist is quite balanced about China (even while they are banned from publishing there!). For instance, their latest cover was quite positive about the country: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/04/01/how-china-hopes...

[culi]

Here bud

https://old.reddit.com/r/China/comments/yzol6h/

[bit-anarchist]

The burden of proof is on the claimaint, you. Don't push your due dilligence onto others.

[Daishiman]

If I were discussing a formal argument in debate club sure. I don't do googling for others when the first 10 results in google for this is either source articles from The Economist of a half dozen forum threads commenting the same thing for the past 5 years.

[Saline9515]

I asked you for a single article representing your claim, since it is so common it should be easy to find? It's as ridiculous as if I declare that the earth is flat, but provide no explanation since "you can google".

[culi]

Imagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.

[ch4s3]

What a weird argument to make.

[culi]

Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence

[bit-anarchist]

If by "common knowledge" you mean "previously agreed between the sides", sure. But that is not the case, evident by the reply thread.

If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...

Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.

[culi]

Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading.

Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.

If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.

(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)

[ch4s3]

You're arguing that you shouldn't need a source to say that the Economist has an anti-China bias. But that's not common knowledge, and the link you provided elsewhere didn't point to an Economist article demonstrating that you either didn't read it or are acting in bad faith.

Also bringing up the Holocaust in this context is just fucking weird.

[Saline9515]

Yes, of course, the perceived editorial line of the Economist is similar to the Holocaust. Also, it is quite easy to do in the later case, you can link the relevant wikipedia article.

[bit-anarchist]

Depends if we are in agreement. If we are, no. If we aren't and we want to have a sincere discussion, yes.

If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.

Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.

The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).