![]() | Baizuo has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Why is this part
"The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites". He further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.[8] The use of the word "Baizuo" could be an insult on the Chinese Internet."
Constantly edited away? I've lived in China, this is the meaning of the word, that is the best explanation anyone who doesn't live there will get of the word. Some words are harder to define than others because you learn their meaning through hearing it used, this is one of those, and those words need more explanation for people who do not speak the language to understand. This is a perfect explanation of how the word is used.
I find it VERY ironic that sensitive people in the west removes the definition of the word that is used to describe sensitive people in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.133.131 ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
By the enthusiasm of some random editors on this article. As if they see, finally, their comrades in another land far away. Am hardly serious though. There isn't really anything to modify or hide if you ask me. Those Chinese racists were rather blatant about their opinions since there is absolutely no social taboos about racism in China.(How do I know? I am from there myself.) Of course citations are needed and information needs to be reliable. However Wikipedia only provides you guys a page of information. The reality of this world lies 1 inch right of our Wikipedia.
An user has been attempting to add information mentioning the word being on Urban Dictionary. At first they cited Urban Dictionary directly, which is discouraged by WP:USERGENERATED. After a couple of reverts, they cited a source mentioning the Urban Dictionary definition, but to me it appears to be a mere mention of the definition (from what I understand anyway, the source is German) and not actually covering on the UD definition. Requesting other user input on this. -- TL22 ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable (my opinion: it's not) I don't believe we should be using Urban Dictionary as either the sole or a supplementary source for that. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Karl.i.biased has been blocked for edit warring again. To be fair, I should've pulled back sooner, myself, so here's a response. Contested content supported only by unreliable sources should be removed when it's identified. WP:UGC sources, such as Urban Dictionary Etc. should only be used as a supplemental source, but we need a specific reason to cite that source. It's not that we never cite such sources, but we need to explain why it's being cited. What does being on Urban Dictionary tell a reader about this word, according to reliable sources? Passing mentions don't cut it.
A source which explains the connection between regressive left and baizuo would be helpful. English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Wikimedia (where language links are stored) all have their own guidelines and practices, and do not, automatically, pass these on to each other.
Far-left? Who is calling this a term for the far-left? That's telling... The sources refer to Obama and Clinton as baizuo, and if Obama and Clinton are being labeled far-left in an ostensibly communist country, we're going to need to back up and find some more sources, because something got lost in translation. We need to be cautious of "white guilt" in the see also, because it's not a neutral connection, nor is it as obvious as it's presented. We're not trying to paint a conceptual picture of what we think the word feels like, we're trying to summarize what reliable sources have to say about it. Grayfell ( talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Karl.i.biased: The burden of proof is not on removal of content, it is on inclusion of content. You have simply not shown why this material should be included. Assertion is not proof. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 10:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Heat Street is not a reliable source. It may be used to state the opinions of those who write articles which appear on Heat Street where those opinions are notable, but it cannot be used for statements of fact. It's been discussed before on the reliable sources noticeboard here, but if you disagree and believe it's a useful RS then it would be best to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Karl.i.biased: The
Global Times article cited specifically attributes the line "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" to Chenchen Zhang. The paragraph containing the quotes, which are in quotation marks, concludes with ...reads Zhang's article published in opendemocracy.com on May 11.
These are not Global Time's definitions, they are merely reporting on Zhang's definition. Attributing this line to the Global Times is totally inappropriate, as it misrepresents sources. Additionally, the line after that starting with "in short..." is unsourced, and appears to be editorializing. It is only superficially neutral, as it is not a faithful summary of the previous source.
Grayfell (
talk)
08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey. I don't speak Chinese; could somebody figure out which journalist actually concluded that "the word is an example of "Chinese values" exported to Western countries
" so we can attribute this to them instead of the site itself?
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
There’s similar term means “Regressive left” on Chinese internet called “Baizuo”, See the related article on Chinese Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think we need several quotes of Chenchen's remarks- I think this is undue. I've cut it down to a smaller direct quote. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It comes off as petty that Chenchen's quote is repeatedly removed for no real reason, and shows bias as implied by Ojala when he mentioned "Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason" [for its removal.]
Whether its removal was due to bias or not the quote should remain as it will better define the word and make the reason for its usage less vague and better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
It appears there is somebody disagreement about some well sourced content. Perhaps an RFC is the next step? 23.114.214.45 ( talk) 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I've placed a {{Original research inline}} template on the following text:
What is exactly is "the culture wars in Western politics"? (note there is no article on this subject). This phrase gives very little in the way of Google searches, and I strongly suspect it is a statement inserted by someone with an overactive imagination. Surely the gradual general trend towards partisan politics in a small handful of Western countries does not constitute an actual war?
This contentious wording sentence needs sourcing, re-wording, or removing. -- Anxietycello ( talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
"A related term is shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "holy mother", title for the mother of an emperor), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are guided by emotions and a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy, represented by celebrities such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson." This phrase has prejudge of certain person.
For awhile now this passage has been added and deleted from the page: 'In more than 400 answers submitted by Zhihu users during 2015 to May 2017, the term is defined as referring to those who are hypocritically "obsessed with political correctness" in order to "satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority" motivated from a "ignorant and arrogant" Western-centric worldview who "pity the rest of the world and think they are saviors".'
Though the passage isn't generally cited when people add it, it appears to be more or less pasted from the openDemocracy piece. I've been deleting it as in my view it seems to violate WP:UGS. The content isn't necessarily bad though, and I can see it being justifiable as source for how the term is used. What do people think? Darthkayak ( talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Leucoleftism. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Leucoleftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Western leftism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Western leftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The pinyin is right but the Mandarin pronunciation is wrong, recommend deleting it and leaving the Pinyin 2A02:3032:E:6918:77A6:7C61:C23E:9AA7 ( talk) 08:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In short, baizuo(白左) is idiot (baichi, 白痴), a naïve, simple, and narrow-minded liberalist.
The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
The two terms resemble the American slang ‘libertard’ but are not as closely tied to the liberal-conservative political spectrum. They are more of a generalisation of the ‘classically Western’ image in Chinese public discourse.
On June 22, 2017, the Guangdong Communist Youth League conducted a similar online survey but phrased the question slightly differently: “The Middle East refugees continue to increase. Does the Chinese government have the responsibility to accept refugees?” Out of 10,000 votes cast, only 51 people, i.e., 0.5%, agreed to “accept the Middle East refugees because they are in need.”
While non-liberal intellectuals in China also fall prey to Trump-mania and Trumpism, they do not as much (re)shape public discourses in China as their liberal counterparts, who, upon absorbing raw Trumpian sentiments supplied by ordinary pro-CCP netizens, are able to theorize, systemize and legitimize those sentiments under the guise of liberal democratic values.;
In particular, the longstanding appropriation of the left-political vocabulary by the CCP (which, after all, is a self-styled ‘leftist’ party), and the traumatic horrors and catastrophes of Maoist totalitarianism—the Anti-Rightists Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, the Three-Year Famine, and the Cultural Revolution—committed in the name of ‘revolutionary’ ideals, have continued to overwhelm liberal critics and mold their political perceptions, aversions and imaginations;
Projecting their fear ofthe Cultural Revolution onto the imagined West, beaconist liberals have repeatedly analogized, say, removal of Confederate memorials to ‘posijiu [destroying the Four Olds]’, Black Lives Matter activists to ‘hongweibing [Red Guards]’, and the MeToo movement to ‘dazibao [Big-Character Posters]’ and ‘gongshen [show trials]’, and are highly receptive to the idea that the feminist, anti-racist, and anti-colonialist ‘baizuo [white lefties]’ are suffocating Western societies with meticulous and inhibitive norms of ‘political correctness’.
Second, the horrors and disasters that liberal intellectuals suffered under the Maoist ultra-leftist totalitarian regime pushed them on a blind political pilgrimage to the West as an ideal political destination and catapulted them on a slippery slope from anti-ultra-leftist Maoism to opposition against all leftist progressive politics
Earwig mostly catches the Carlson quote box, but it does raise a suggestion. One or two of Zheng's comments probably should be quoted as his own words in long stretches, especially "sense of real problems in the real world".
There are no images. I reiterate as an encouragement Z1720's peer review comment that images would make the page more attractive to readers, if reasonable.
The line below is confusing and reads like they are opposed to netizens' support of Trump -
The term originated in the 2010s, probably initially to mock American and Western communists who traveled to China to support the communist revolution and has since come into widespread use due to Chinese netizens' criticism of Western liberal to leftist ideologies and of European governments, particularly Angela Merkel and the German government, for their alleged over-tolerance to immigration issues, and to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies. 103.119.209.197 ( talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
and due to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies). ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@ JArthur1984: Hi. So in fact a large part of the use associated with the word baizuo is against Muslims and Islam (per sources), and in this case I do think the quote is of some importance. Of course, if you have any other comments, such as better and more important quotes, I am willing to hearing about it. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Baizuo has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Why is this part
"The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites". He further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.[8] The use of the word "Baizuo" could be an insult on the Chinese Internet."
Constantly edited away? I've lived in China, this is the meaning of the word, that is the best explanation anyone who doesn't live there will get of the word. Some words are harder to define than others because you learn their meaning through hearing it used, this is one of those, and those words need more explanation for people who do not speak the language to understand. This is a perfect explanation of how the word is used.
I find it VERY ironic that sensitive people in the west removes the definition of the word that is used to describe sensitive people in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.133.131 ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
By the enthusiasm of some random editors on this article. As if they see, finally, their comrades in another land far away. Am hardly serious though. There isn't really anything to modify or hide if you ask me. Those Chinese racists were rather blatant about their opinions since there is absolutely no social taboos about racism in China.(How do I know? I am from there myself.) Of course citations are needed and information needs to be reliable. However Wikipedia only provides you guys a page of information. The reality of this world lies 1 inch right of our Wikipedia.
An user has been attempting to add information mentioning the word being on Urban Dictionary. At first they cited Urban Dictionary directly, which is discouraged by WP:USERGENERATED. After a couple of reverts, they cited a source mentioning the Urban Dictionary definition, but to me it appears to be a mere mention of the definition (from what I understand anyway, the source is German) and not actually covering on the UD definition. Requesting other user input on this. -- TL22 ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable (my opinion: it's not) I don't believe we should be using Urban Dictionary as either the sole or a supplementary source for that. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Karl.i.biased has been blocked for edit warring again. To be fair, I should've pulled back sooner, myself, so here's a response. Contested content supported only by unreliable sources should be removed when it's identified. WP:UGC sources, such as Urban Dictionary Etc. should only be used as a supplemental source, but we need a specific reason to cite that source. It's not that we never cite such sources, but we need to explain why it's being cited. What does being on Urban Dictionary tell a reader about this word, according to reliable sources? Passing mentions don't cut it.
A source which explains the connection between regressive left and baizuo would be helpful. English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Wikimedia (where language links are stored) all have their own guidelines and practices, and do not, automatically, pass these on to each other.
Far-left? Who is calling this a term for the far-left? That's telling... The sources refer to Obama and Clinton as baizuo, and if Obama and Clinton are being labeled far-left in an ostensibly communist country, we're going to need to back up and find some more sources, because something got lost in translation. We need to be cautious of "white guilt" in the see also, because it's not a neutral connection, nor is it as obvious as it's presented. We're not trying to paint a conceptual picture of what we think the word feels like, we're trying to summarize what reliable sources have to say about it. Grayfell ( talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Karl.i.biased: The burden of proof is not on removal of content, it is on inclusion of content. You have simply not shown why this material should be included. Assertion is not proof. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 10:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Heat Street is not a reliable source. It may be used to state the opinions of those who write articles which appear on Heat Street where those opinions are notable, but it cannot be used for statements of fact. It's been discussed before on the reliable sources noticeboard here, but if you disagree and believe it's a useful RS then it would be best to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Karl.i.biased: The
Global Times article cited specifically attributes the line "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" to Chenchen Zhang. The paragraph containing the quotes, which are in quotation marks, concludes with ...reads Zhang's article published in opendemocracy.com on May 11.
These are not Global Time's definitions, they are merely reporting on Zhang's definition. Attributing this line to the Global Times is totally inappropriate, as it misrepresents sources. Additionally, the line after that starting with "in short..." is unsourced, and appears to be editorializing. It is only superficially neutral, as it is not a faithful summary of the previous source.
Grayfell (
talk)
08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey. I don't speak Chinese; could somebody figure out which journalist actually concluded that "the word is an example of "Chinese values" exported to Western countries
" so we can attribute this to them instead of the site itself?
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
There’s similar term means “Regressive left” on Chinese internet called “Baizuo”, See the related article on Chinese Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think we need several quotes of Chenchen's remarks- I think this is undue. I've cut it down to a smaller direct quote. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It comes off as petty that Chenchen's quote is repeatedly removed for no real reason, and shows bias as implied by Ojala when he mentioned "Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason" [for its removal.]
Whether its removal was due to bias or not the quote should remain as it will better define the word and make the reason for its usage less vague and better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
It appears there is somebody disagreement about some well sourced content. Perhaps an RFC is the next step? 23.114.214.45 ( talk) 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I've placed a {{Original research inline}} template on the following text:
What is exactly is "the culture wars in Western politics"? (note there is no article on this subject). This phrase gives very little in the way of Google searches, and I strongly suspect it is a statement inserted by someone with an overactive imagination. Surely the gradual general trend towards partisan politics in a small handful of Western countries does not constitute an actual war?
This contentious wording sentence needs sourcing, re-wording, or removing. -- Anxietycello ( talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
"A related term is shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "holy mother", title for the mother of an emperor), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are guided by emotions and a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy, represented by celebrities such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson." This phrase has prejudge of certain person.
For awhile now this passage has been added and deleted from the page: 'In more than 400 answers submitted by Zhihu users during 2015 to May 2017, the term is defined as referring to those who are hypocritically "obsessed with political correctness" in order to "satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority" motivated from a "ignorant and arrogant" Western-centric worldview who "pity the rest of the world and think they are saviors".'
Though the passage isn't generally cited when people add it, it appears to be more or less pasted from the openDemocracy piece. I've been deleting it as in my view it seems to violate WP:UGS. The content isn't necessarily bad though, and I can see it being justifiable as source for how the term is used. What do people think? Darthkayak ( talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Leucoleftism. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Leucoleftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Western leftism and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Western leftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The pinyin is right but the Mandarin pronunciation is wrong, recommend deleting it and leaving the Pinyin 2A02:3032:E:6918:77A6:7C61:C23E:9AA7 ( talk) 08:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In short, baizuo(白左) is idiot (baichi, 白痴), a naïve, simple, and narrow-minded liberalist.
The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
The two terms resemble the American slang ‘libertard’ but are not as closely tied to the liberal-conservative political spectrum. They are more of a generalisation of the ‘classically Western’ image in Chinese public discourse.
On June 22, 2017, the Guangdong Communist Youth League conducted a similar online survey but phrased the question slightly differently: “The Middle East refugees continue to increase. Does the Chinese government have the responsibility to accept refugees?” Out of 10,000 votes cast, only 51 people, i.e., 0.5%, agreed to “accept the Middle East refugees because they are in need.”
While non-liberal intellectuals in China also fall prey to Trump-mania and Trumpism, they do not as much (re)shape public discourses in China as their liberal counterparts, who, upon absorbing raw Trumpian sentiments supplied by ordinary pro-CCP netizens, are able to theorize, systemize and legitimize those sentiments under the guise of liberal democratic values.;
In particular, the longstanding appropriation of the left-political vocabulary by the CCP (which, after all, is a self-styled ‘leftist’ party), and the traumatic horrors and catastrophes of Maoist totalitarianism—the Anti-Rightists Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, the Three-Year Famine, and the Cultural Revolution—committed in the name of ‘revolutionary’ ideals, have continued to overwhelm liberal critics and mold their political perceptions, aversions and imaginations;
Projecting their fear ofthe Cultural Revolution onto the imagined West, beaconist liberals have repeatedly analogized, say, removal of Confederate memorials to ‘posijiu [destroying the Four Olds]’, Black Lives Matter activists to ‘hongweibing [Red Guards]’, and the MeToo movement to ‘dazibao [Big-Character Posters]’ and ‘gongshen [show trials]’, and are highly receptive to the idea that the feminist, anti-racist, and anti-colonialist ‘baizuo [white lefties]’ are suffocating Western societies with meticulous and inhibitive norms of ‘political correctness’.
Second, the horrors and disasters that liberal intellectuals suffered under the Maoist ultra-leftist totalitarian regime pushed them on a blind political pilgrimage to the West as an ideal political destination and catapulted them on a slippery slope from anti-ultra-leftist Maoism to opposition against all leftist progressive politics
Earwig mostly catches the Carlson quote box, but it does raise a suggestion. One or two of Zheng's comments probably should be quoted as his own words in long stretches, especially "sense of real problems in the real world".
There are no images. I reiterate as an encouragement Z1720's peer review comment that images would make the page more attractive to readers, if reasonable.
The line below is confusing and reads like they are opposed to netizens' support of Trump -
The term originated in the 2010s, probably initially to mock American and Western communists who traveled to China to support the communist revolution and has since come into widespread use due to Chinese netizens' criticism of Western liberal to leftist ideologies and of European governments, particularly Angela Merkel and the German government, for their alleged over-tolerance to immigration issues, and to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies. 103.119.209.197 ( talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
and due to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies). ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@ JArthur1984: Hi. So in fact a large part of the use associated with the word baizuo is against Muslims and Islam (per sources), and in this case I do think the quote is of some importance. Of course, if you have any other comments, such as better and more important quotes, I am willing to hearing about it. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)