[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)

[bit-anarchist]

I have tackled the cover in another comment, so I'll skip it here.

You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.

This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.

Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.

If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).

I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.

[ch4s3]

This person you're responding to is tedious and dishonest, it kills me.

[ch4s3]

That was a cover article with the sub heading "Fear about China’s economy can be overdone. But investors are right to be nervous" and it was about China's biggest one-day stockmarket fall since 2007 that caused broader market contagion in SE Asia. You're being disingenuous or not reading the things you're posting.

>If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck.

If you cared you'd read the article you're mentioning, but you didn't. You're a time suck.

> you give anarchism a bad name.

No, shilling for the CCP does that.