Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.

I'm not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there's a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.

While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.

Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn't seem that they are addressing your initial claims.

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think you've misread my comment.

"Xi doesn't get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent" was the point of my original comment.

I believe this context is important if we're to discuss the likability of a country's leader based on their actions. Additionally, "acting within the defines of state ideology" would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

~~With due respect, that's quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.~~ edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.

As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don't see how they're related. Criticizing China's crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That wasn't his point and he doesn't need to edit his comment because you misunderstood it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you're right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.