I’m sure Xi is beyond having his feelings hurt by Biden, but just look at Bilken’s reaction lmao.
Inviting a head of state to your country to publicly insult them is unacceptable anywhere, so this is only going to further tarnish the shitty reputation of American diplomacy.
What do you think is lacking from the term used in the essay, “licensing”?
I can’t see it catching on. I mean, have you ever seen anyone here use the term (other than to define it)?
“The US is running a licensing campaign against Russia.”
“These people have all been licensed.”
“Dude shut it with the Uyghur shit, you’re super licensed.”
It just doesn’t fit right in anything other than an academic context.
Accusing someone of being “brainwashed” isn’t, as far as I have seen, so rhetorically effective that I think we need a drop-in replacement like “hate-passed.” If “you’re super licensed” sounds silly it’s because “you’re super brainwashed” is also silly.
What about:
“Do you actually believe that nonsense or does it just give you license to discount the incredible social progress China has made?”
I think the post earlier in this thread used it well. They’re not defining the term, they’re explaining the phenomenon. Because it uses a familiar term, it is easy to understand and doesn’t read jargony:
Rejecting the term “brainwashing” means not only improving our understanding of how propaganda works but also improving our rhetoric.
People call each other brainwashed all the time though? I’ve heard people say another person is “so/super/incredibly brainwashed” irl. It gets the message across pretty well I think
I’ll admit licensing does sound natural in those sentences but I guess I just want a pithier way of saying something similar. It still comes off as academic, like someone saying “contradiction” instead of disagreement.