> I'm not conflating anything.

Yes, you are, as you admit to it with the next sentence. I have read your argument why it should be okay and understand it, but I cannot allow you to be less than precise with your writing. When we examine the (in)actions of the party, we should name the party, or talk about the government. We should not use the term for the country because that concept also subsumes the territory and the people. The people as a whole however cannot be held responsible for the government because most of them neither support it (in the sense that if they could magically wish it away tomorrow free of consequences, they would do so) nor did they vote for it or bring it into power nor are the interests of the government and the interests of the people aligned or represented.

Talking about the country or the people as a way to deflect from the party is an old propaganda trick employed on a daily basis by the party, it must always be challenged.

> bad communists, aren't they?

What's the point of that tangent? Everyone knows there is not much communism left, the reforms after Deng have completely abolished the concept in its economic interpretation. The word itself, the trappings of hammer and sickle, the raised fist during a vow, this is all but for show. The most ardent adherents to the ideology can nowhere be seen in positions of power, that's mostly found among block wardens who have a genuine interest in helping out their neighbours and sharing among the local community and also the members of the youth organisations because young minds are easily impressionable by the theory.

If I would characterise the CCP as it relates to the outward world, words like deliberate liars and cry-bullies, incredible neglect and delinquency of duty, not giving a shit about human dignity or life, destroyers of the environment come to my mind first, rather than communist.

> How exactly does that help us now?

It helps by changing our mind in the light of information. We will not be blind-sided any more by information that turns out to be manufactured or false, we will be more cautious and we can make better decisions that way in the future. To make this more clear: instead of operating on a baseline of medium to high trust as it is has developed as the common case in our Western high culture over the last centuries, we recognise that the trust has been abused and operate from a baseline of low trust instead.

> does it excuse some of our democratic governments from screwing up?

Yes, I think somewhat. They are a victim of disinformation. I keep a large share of the blame on our governments because they are more interested in stocking water cannon lorries and police APC rather than masks and other disaster supplies.

> Or people from not getting vaccinated?

IMO that is not in the purview of any government, in the sense that they should offer vaccination free of charge to any resident, but not enforce ("accept vaccination or face repression by the power of the state") or even nudge ("accept vaccination and receive a yellow pass or face not being able to participate in social life any more"). I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that any amount of force is a human rights violation on medical ethics grounds. This should be an explicit part of the human rights declaration, but sadly is not.

I am vaccinated, I personally encourage the people near me to get vaccinated, and demand that those who refuse on non-medical grounds must take responsibility for the consequences of their choice and when getting sick go into a forest to die and not take up a hospital slot because it is not fair to earn the benefits of being part of society without paying the dues.

> But COVID? Not so much.

I don't get it, you enumerate five items of suck, but the spread of the virus through neglect and disinformation which falls into the same observable operative patterns of the party will not be a part of it?