莱克多巴猫

he/she/him/her/it/they/them/loll

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@feihuo17 操他妈我们的海警海军呢 干死贱蛙

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@chaoyinsukandao 棒，需要更多的基地

[Hanako @hanakoxbt]

https://t.co/5w8ILIIelz

[불온한 회색인 @MinsooYOU]

@Wjwkwkwkk 주일 우크라이나 대사가 야스쿠니 신사 참배를 했다는 걸 오늘에서야 알았음. 일본의 국립묘지인 치도리가후치 전몰자 묘원도 아니고 야스쿠니 신사를 참배했다니.. 직업 외교관이 아닌가? 아무튼 외교 감각은 꽝이네.

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@miren_41319 赫鲁晓夫

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@realsinya 倭王比较合适

[Kakajusaiyou @kakajusaiyou]

@tianzige4 下次只用中文就可以 听不懂是对方的问题

[Comunista Opressor 🇧🇷🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇻🇪🇵🇸🇻🇳 @ComunistaOpres4]

-Venceu o Japão
-Acabou com tráfico de drogas
-Libertou escravos do Tibet
-Venceu os EUA na Coreia
-Alfabetização, saúde pública, direitos das mulheres
-Revolução Cultural
-Armou guerrilhas anticoloniais
-China virou superpotência nuclear

Como NÃO ser fascinado com Mao Tsé Tung?

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@KELMAND1 笑死被电战干下来了吧🫡

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@Red_Blovk09 应该多用这些👍

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@uncleTomat0 Lol 笑死😆

[司马闲都 @yds2pl_jackey]

@ChnEmbassy_jp 如果开放外网，让中国的老百姓都来看看X里日本人在官方账号下的留言，那后果，想想都可怕😱😱😱

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

Lol 你试试？

[Kumashun🇯🇵🐻💎 @isfjcutebear]

Do you think Japan should reclaim it's original borders?

①Yes
②No

[Kuangyi (Guagua) Bo @BoKuangyi]

China was never truly communist. It has always been pragmatic.

Too many people in the West treat “communist” as a single portable idea. It isn’t. The word covers half a dozen colliding things in economics, politics, anthropology, and history, and often the ideas are mutually incompatible. It’s so complicated that in my undergrad, Marxism was known as the densest of all the PPE modules, drier than even Kant.

On China the label is lazier still. No serious person takes it as anything more than a nameplate, much like how Brits keep "Empire" in their honours. Though the exception seems to be on the Hill, where “communist China” is still a verbal tic.

When the doctrine first reached China, it looked like a marvel. For a warlord-ravaged post-imperial realm circled by foreign powers, it looked like a real solution for delivering a better life. The first communists were not pitchforked rubes but the patriotic, bright, and often foreign-educated intellectuals, who thought they had found a modern instrument.

But the great experiement that eventually ran at a continental scale had failed. By 1959, at Lushan conference, the country was meant to reset course. That didn’t pan out and instead paved the way for one of the darkest chapters in the memory of our civilisation. The cultural revolution was cruelty incarnate. The name “communist” earned its stain there, and earned it fairly.

No one knows the cost better than we do. In the aftermaths China adopted a new formula "socialism with Chinese characteristics." The second half did the leg work, it referred to something that’s always been deep in our bones - pragmatism.

Pragmatism is focused on the ends, not the means; and we’ve learned from every Chinese polity that has lasted that the only ends that matter is prosperity. Ideologies are welcomed only insofar as they produce prosperity. People want better lives, and that’s concrete.

The habit of pragmatism runs through the people too. It is partly why we celebrate our engineers and doctors, professions that reward solving a problem over holding a position. It is also why we are among the most naturally entrepreneurial populations on earth - call it capitalist if you like. From capital markets to silk markets, tycoons to scalpers, everyone has a nose for an opening. (Regulators have a tough gig!)

So in reality, we are beyond socialism or capitalism. we are just pragmatic.

PS. naturally, a lot more can be said for each of the point here, but this is just an X post, not a full treatise.

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

马，等搞出EUV回来打脸

[Bloomberg @business]

China is about a decade and a half behind in developing cutting-edge chipmaking tools, according to a top executive at Germany’s Zeiss, a key supplier in the global semiconductor industry https://t.co/n2Xbwz3REi

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@bbcchinese 挺好的，支持港府

[海兰珠（Victoria） @jinwang69489102]

越来越感觉老共这些年只管闷头发展自己的做法是对的

欧美媒体对老中的指责在今天看来更像一种无谓的聒噪

2017年时，BBC所在的英国，一场格伦菲尔塔大火，致使72名无辜市民被大火无情吞噬。

这本是一场冰箱冷柜电气故障引发的“小火”，但当火焰点燃翻新用的可燃外墙覆层并钻入更多楼层，英国的消防队依然相信让居民留在家里，利用防火分层能阻碍火焰蔓延——直至外立面烧成一场再无法控制的滔天巨火。伦敦消防队才如梦初醒，但一切都晚了。调查后来写明：这项建议本该早约八十分钟放弃。可他们却没做

如此拉胯的救援和监管，我不明白BBC到底有什么资格能在全世界都看到了老中的救援视频时，还能信誓旦旦地把话说的那么满:西藏洪水影像在中国未被展示，你们对那里的受害者知之甚少。

画面管控是有的，冲击瞬间被压也是事实。可整场灾害、成因动画、搜救规模，官媒并没有装瞎。依我看，这纯粹是没屁搁楞嗓子。面对西藏跨境泥石流救援的现状，他们比不了也没有能力去比，但他们一定要找点刺，挑点毛病。就像这些媒体的一贯作风:中国某某领先全球，但代价是什么？

同样的逻辑，放大了看也一样成立。现在他们能把吉隆的事包装为看不到，昨日他们也曾把战略忽悠包装成道德正确，包装成为儿女万代，为地球的明天。若老中昨日真的轻信了他们的忽悠，他们说拆掉核弹时，老中做了，那现在的老中就将是今天的乌克兰，得任人摆布；拆掉核电站，老中做了，那老中的今天用电就得看人脸色；实施市场休克疗法，老中信了，那如今的老中就是1991那个被掏空了家底的俄罗斯。

所以说，得感谢老中这些领导人是有智慧，虽然说人无完人，任何一个历史时代都会有自己的局限性，哪个时代也不可能没有点负面的事，但能快速醒悟并修改错误并带领举国民众富强，这一点早就超过许多国家，更超过了这个日落黄花、现在只能靠谎言维系的大英。

[莱克多巴猫 @iojgedcvjutf]

@bbcchinese 操你妈垃圾bbc

[Li Zexin 李泽欣 @XH_Lee23]

@BBCWorld BBC is such a disgusting rumor-mongering media.

[Carlos @agent_of_change]

Laura Bicker, BBC China correspondent, on the disaster at Gyirong Port on the Nepal–Xizang border: “Shocking footage isn’t being shown in China – and we know little about victims there.”

Numerous people in China have pointed out that the footage is, in fact, all over Chinese platforms; indeed, the very video in the BBC’s own report was released by the Chinese port authorities. So the sequence is: 1) the Chinese state published the clip; 2) the BBC ran the clip; 3) the BBC published a story about how the Chinese state is suppressing the clip.

@AndyBxxx has made another point worth noting: Chinese media doesn’t operate on the basis of “if it bleeds, it leads”. You won’t see grieving relatives and footage of bodies looped for 24 hours. The BBC treats the absence of disaster pornography as evidence of a cover-up rather than a different (and frankly much better) editorial culture.

The article concedes that Beijing has launched “a massive rescue operation involving hundreds of emergency workers”. Even the International Campaign for Tibet, an NED-sponsored Washington-based lobby group, is recorded here “praising the work of first responders”. Xi Jinping personally chaired an emergency meeting to coordinate it. Chinese media has provided “daily updates on the missing and the dead”, plus updates on the rescue operation and on the barrier lake at risk of overflowing. It has shown rescue teams scaling mountains and cliff faces and crossing raging rivers.

Premier Li Qiang was “quickly dispatched to the region” – a level of responsiveness from the top leadership that those of us in the West can only dream of. Compare for example the US response to Hurricane Katrina, or the British government’s response to the Grenfell disaster. From all of that, the article arrives at the phrase “muted response” 🤷🏽

The BBC reports that local CPC members have been asked to step up and help with relief efforts, and provide “emotional guidance or psychological support to affected residents”. This is predictably framed as an operation to “stem any signs of discontent”.

Our intrepid reporter finally reveals her motive with a single clause: “Tibet, which Beijing annexed in the 1950s”. A-ha. It turns out this is a story about British state media, not Chinese state media.

Tibet has been part of China since the 13th century. Taking advantage of the chaos of the collapse of the Qing dynasty, the British invaded Tibet in 1904, at which point they came up with the formula of recognising Chinese “suzerainty” over Tibet while asserting that the region was “independent in internal administration” – which de facto meant that the British could do whatever they wanted there. Incidentally, Britain didn’t abandon that formula until 2008, when it finally recognised China’s sovereignty over the region.

If the BBC is going to insist on a formulation of “Tibet, which Beijing annexed”, it should, for the sake of consistency, also refer to “Cornwall, which London annexed”, since this took place around the same time as Tibet’s absorption into the Yuan Dynasty.

The article goes on to repeat tired tropes about “the Chinese government oppressing and persecuting Tibetans”, albeit without going into the nature of this oppression, which includes raising literacy levels from 5 percent to 98 percent; 15 years’ publicly funded education; the highest per capita central government transfers in China; the elimination of absolute poverty; the provision of modern infrastructure, health care and social services; and impressive efforts to protect and promote Tibetan language and culture.

What doesn’t get a single mention is the cause of the disaster. This was a flash flood in the fastest-warming mountain range on earth, in a region where glacial lakes are multiplying and bursting. There is a genuine story here about climate change coming for the Himalayas and the hundreds of millions who depend on their rivers, but the BBC instead chooses to run with the usual anti-China rubbish.

Solidarity with the people of China and Nepal affected by this disaster, and with everyone working to save them. And shame on a state broadcaster that chooses slander over solidarity.