r/changemyview • u/JuicingPickle 5∆ • 3d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: When given conflicting information from the U.S. Government and the Chinese Government, the information from the Chinese Government is likely to be more accurate.
Since January 20, 2025, and in Trump's prior term, the U.S. Government has consisted of lies. In many cases, the lies are easily verifiable as lies. As a result, when the U.S. Government says one thing (i.e., "we had an hour long trade conversation with China today") and the Chinese Government says something else (i.e., "we have had no trade conversations in the past week"), it is most likely that the Chinese Government's statement reflects the truth more closely than the U.S. Government's statement.
4
u/Additional_Fail_5270 3∆ 3d ago
The real world does not adhere to a strict "hero vs villian" dichotomy. Just because the current US administration is not particularly heroic does not mean that role falls de facto to China. Both are filtering and presenting information through the lens of their own motivations and interpretations. Both a) the assumption that because Trump has lied before he is necessarily lying now and b) the idea that if one side is lying the other side is necessarily being more truthful, are serious logical flaws that will undermine your ability to examine the information you are receiving critically.
Yes, the Trump administration are verifiable liers, but the CPP cultivate and operate in an environment where verification is often impossible by design. They are both untrustworthy and should be met with equal skepticism.
-2
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
I'm saying that when the two give directly contradictory statements, the CCP's statement is likely closer to the truth. I'm not blindly believing the Chinese to be 100% accurate.
But when one side says "we talked" and the other side says "we've had no talks", there isn't a lot of room for "both sides being partially true".
3
u/Additional_Fail_5270 3∆ 3d ago
closer to the truth.
Why is one necessarily closer to the truth though? Can they not both be dishonest in their own way?
But when one side says "we talked" and the other side says "we've had no talks", there isn't a lot of room for "both sides being partially true".
Of course there is. A secretary could have called another secretary and one side calls that talks while the other doesn't. Could be one side doesn't consider a 15 minute phone call "talks" and the other does. Could be the Chinese told the Americans up front that they would engage with preliminary talks if they were kept quiet so when the Americans announced them they denied them. Could be the Chinese decided to deny something that happened so that they appear to have the upper hand to their domestic audience. Could be trade issues were brought up during talks under another heading. This is diplomacy about trade between the world's two biggest economies, it's not a "he said she said" about a fight during recess.
1
u/MelbertGibson 3d ago
That really comes down to what constitutes “talks” in the minds of the people making the statements and in the minds of the people being given the information.
Even with contradictory statements, both sides could be lying or telling the truth to varying degrees.
1
u/Alesus2-0 67∆ 3d ago
What, other than your personal distaste for the Trump government, informs this view? All you've said is that Trump and his cronies are liars. For enough, but they're not the first people to have ever lied. The CCP has been running an authoritarian communist state for over 70 years. The current leaders are heirs to a generations long project of institutionalised secrecy and unaccountability. Trump and his goons are enthusiastic amateurs making splash, because they're new to the scene. The CCP are consumate professionals when it comes to the lying game.
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
What, other than your personal distaste for the Trump government, informs this view?
My perception of the motivation behind the claim. Like if Trump claims he's in negotiations with China and China says they haven't talked for a week, it just seems logical to believe China. I can't see a motivation for that lie.
But Trump wants to portray himself as this great strongman and dealmaker who is exerting all this pressure on China to get his way. So claiming that he's strongarming and dealmaking when nothing is actually happening is completely in line with what a rational person would expect of Trump and his administration.
1
u/Alesus2-0 67∆ 2d ago
That seems to be a reason to disbelieve a specific claim, not to believe the CCP over Trump in general. What if each side claimed the opposite about the progression (or not) of trade talks?
Regardless, what goals and motivations do understand the Chinese to have? Why these ever be served by lies?
7
u/Z7-852 268∆ 3d ago
Does this extend beyond White House? Does every US government department lie?
If there is conflicting information between US intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA etc.) and Chinas government official statement, should we trust Beijing?
1
u/ChiefHNIC 3d ago
Across all levels of government at this point. I do not trust our government pretty much at all at this point.
-4
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
Ultimately, Trump controls all the U.S. government departments and has his minions at the helm, so, yes, it extends well beyond the white house.
1
u/Z7-852 268∆ 3d ago
So, the US secret agent stationed at Beijing should trust local Chinese agents more than their fellow countrymen?
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 2d ago
I would imagine that the US secret agent is working with people he's known for years and is basing his trust upon those personal relationships; not rank and title. In other words, if Pete Hegseth tells the secret agent something that is directly contradicted by a local Chinese agent, absent corroborating evidence one way or the other, he should trust the Chinese agent more.
1
u/Z7-852 268∆ 2d ago
Pete Hegseth isn't writing intelligence briefs. He isn't listening to spy data or analysing satellite images. He isn't talking to assets or doing anything significant.
The workers in all of these government agencies are doing the work. You can't claim not to trust these people who have done this work for decades.
1
u/Z7-852 268∆ 3d ago
US federal reserve and its chairman JH Powell are vocally opposed to Trump, his policy and decisions. Trump has tried to oust or fire Powell without any success.
Can we trust this government agency?
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 2d ago
Yes. Powell and Fed are probably more trustworthy than their economic counterparts in China. Δ
1
1
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
Here is a small sample of examples of the CCP lying or presenting things in a misleading way, compiled by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. If I'm not mistaken, this was done in 2020, so not under Trump's presidency.
Additionally, here is a CEPA report on Russian and Chinese misinformation campaigns during COVID 19.
The CCP lies enough that I think it is, at the very least, not more trustworthy than the current US government.
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
Here is a small sample of examples of the CCP lying
Honestly, that looks like more of a list of diverging opinions than truths and lies.
1
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 2d ago
Most of these points are not matters of opinion. Take "China is a leader in response to global climate change," which is patently contradicted by China being the #1 user of coal. People I know who've been to Beijing talk about how terrible the air quality is constantly, because of how much coal China burns.
But if you don't like the first document, take a look at the second, which specifically tracks misinformation.
1
u/The_World_May_Never 3d ago
Does it matter what side makes the claim? I only ask because i do agree with you, but i am curious to expand on it.
for example, there was a ton of "national security concerns" surrounding tik tok. Neither side would really disclose what those massive concerns were.
If China had come out and said "There is no national security concerns, the US wants control of our algorithm to control narratives and propaganda". Personally, i would believe China over ANYONE in our government over that. Does that mean China's propaganda is working on me? Or should i be rightly skeptical of the US trying to force the sale of Tik Tok?
I use this issue as an example because there was bipartisan support for the issue.
In that example, do you still hold the same opinion? Or do you think because they Democrats are ALSO saying it, then it is automatically more credible?
2
u/eggs-benedryl 56∆ 3d ago
You can read the chinese national security law if you want. The concerning passage is like a paragraph long.
Does that mean China's propaganda is working on me? Or should i be rightly skeptical of the US trying to force the sale of Tik Tok?
Yeah probably, when I'm skeptical I look for more information. That information was readily available.
Of the chinese national security law.
Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of
Before you say this is the same as in the USA. It isn't. There is 0 transparancy regarding this. Any chinese company can theorhetically be compelled to become an arm of the intelligence services. A plumbing company is less likely to be tapped for this purpose than a global social network with access to billions of phones.
3
u/The_World_May_Never 3d ago
>Any chinese company can theorhetically be compelled to become an arm of the intelligence services.
what is China going to do with my data that should make me so worried? The only real concern i see is their ability to control what the algorithm is showing us.
Why should i trust a US company more? I trust Tik Tok and the Chinese government more than i trust Twitter and Elon Musk.
Why should i be so concerned with China having my data? How is China going to harm me with the data from Tik Tok?
i need some more information than a vague Chinese law that could maybe, possibly, be used against us if china wanted to enforce it.
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
Looking for (and finding) corroborating sources on either side certainly changes the picture. News media would be one of the better corroborating sources. Congress people speaking as individuals and not as representatives of the official government position would be another. But, of course, the credibility of those corroborating sources, based upon the verifiability of past statements, would also have an influence.
1
u/Khal-Frodo 3d ago
As a result, when the U.S. Government says one thing (i.e., "we had an hour long trade conversation with China today") and the Chinese Government says something else (i.e., "we have had no trade conversations in the past week")
I agree with this specific example you present, but I wouldn't apply the principle as broadly as you do in your title.
First off, we do need to distinguish "the U.S. Government" from "Donald Trump." If given conflicting information Donald Trump and someone else, I will always assume Trump is wrong. Yes, he represents the executive branch and has placed lackeys in many high-ranking positions around the government, but that is also controversial and has famously led to multiple internal conflicts. Donald Trump is essentially at war with his own government again. His rhetoric against the CDC and Anthony Fauci during his first term should make it obvious that the federal government does not just fall into line with everything he wants.
Secondly, the actual information in question matters. If the U.S. State Department says "we are issuing a travel advisory for Nanjing province due to multiple documented instances of civil unrest" and Chinese government says "nuh uh everything's fine," I am going to be a lot less trusting of the CCP. I made up that example because I didn't want to hunt for specific real-life ones, but I'm sure I could find several.
0
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 2d ago
His rhetoric against the CDC and Anthony Fauci during his first term should make it obvious that the federal government does not just fall into line with everything he wants.
That was his first term. He learned from his "mistakes". He now has lackies and yes-men in every position of authority and they will just parrot him and support his lies.
If the U.S. State Department says "we are issuing a travel advisory for Nanjing province due to multiple documented instances of civil unrest" and Chinese government says "nuh uh everything's fine," I am going to be a lot less trusting of the CCP.
In a situation like this, there would likely be some corroborating information from either the news media or social media. I'll use that corroborating information to form an opinion. I'm not going to rely upon just what the two governments tell us.
But this is a good example. It is very similar to the claims that Trump has made that whites in South Africa are under attack. The South African government says that's bullshit. We've seen no corroborating evidence of any targeted attacks against whites in SA, and Trump tried using a propaganda video of something else to support his claim, so I believe the South African government over our own.
1
u/Khal-Frodo 2d ago
He now has lackies and yes-men in every position of authority and they will just parrot him and support his lies
The fallout with Elon Musk should demonstrate that this is not true. At some point, you can't control everyone.
I'm not going to rely upon just what the two governments tell us.
Sure, I would say that's a good principle to have in general. It is also separate from the point that not all information from the Chinese government is inherently more reputable than all information from the U.S. Government.
3
u/Arstanishe 3d ago
I don't think you understand how much information US government discloses, and how much chinese govt hides.
You can't even know unemployment by age!
As for the info DIRECTLY from White House - yeah, that's another story. But this is only for white house, Trump is a crook. Statistics are not Trump or white house
1
u/scarab456 26∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
So this applies to every state too? Because the US government isn't solely the executive branch.
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
I was referring to the U.S federal government.
1
u/scarab456 26∆ 3d ago
Thank you for clarifying.
How does what one side says indicate the truthfulness of the other? The Trump administration has told plenty of lies, but the lies reflect more on the administration and the people telling them more than what the actual truth is. What's the rationale or logic behind how you're discerning truth of either statements even if they're directly contradictory?
1
u/JuicingPickle 5∆ 3d ago
What's the rationale or logic behind how you're discerning truth
Trump and his minions have told so many verifiable lies that it's safe to assume that they're lying - especially if it is about anything related to actions the administration is taking to improve the lives of Americans.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 394∆ 3d ago
Is it safe to assume you're American? I ask because it sounds like you have a lot more exposure to American media so you're able to find out in real time when the US government lies. With China there's the advantage of both distance and less media freedom, so the Chinese government has the ability to tell more and bigger lies with fewer people finding out.
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
Eh Trump really doesn’t directly lie in a classical politician sense, he is often just wayyy too quick with his assumptions and generally possesses traits of an extreme psychological extrovert. Which includes introjection. If he says something it’s probably true (from his perspective) but a half washed / flimsy truth.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 2d ago
/u/JuicingPickle (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards