The article says they are playing and not acting out of aggression. I don’t think Orcas are hunted much anymore, at least just not in large numbers, and the boats being targeted are small fishing vessels not whaling boats.
No they are afraid of election in current state. They control elections. The moment their economy stablizes military will put a puppet again. Just like once imran was.
I don’t think this changes thing. Not for me at least. He’s had at least a dozen other people accuse him - including people that don’t need his money or notoriety. And while he was cleared of criminal wrong doing in the Anthony Rapp case, I don’t think he ever denied making an advance on a 14 year old boy. Just that he “didn’t remember it” - which hardly matters. I don’t care how drunk I get. I’m not accidentally going to hit on children.
That’s kind of the point. We live in a system that is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. Not because people who commit crimes should get away with them, but because the opposite system would be completely untenable. How exactly is he supposed to prove that he is innocent? I don’t care how sure anyone is that he did it. Prove it, or by our legal standard, he must be considered innocent.
If you want to live in a society where accusation is tantamount to fact, you’re going to regret it as soon as anyone says anything about you.
Your conflating the legal system with greater society. He’s not in jail or paying a settlement because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him in court. The rest of society is not bound by these same restrictions and are free to pass judgment as they please.
I wouldn’t say accusations are tantamount to fact, but when you get dozens of people making the same accusation, about a crime that’s difficult to prosecute and convict because of the nature of the crime, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Are you not also passing judgement on the accusers here? You’re essentially calling them all liars who are guilty of making false reports. Both sides can’t be “innocent” here.
They were responding to a comment about the legal system and problems with prosecuting SA cases, so of course they are going to be discussing that over the wider social implications.
I don’t know why you are jumping to conclusions here. The point they made about the legal system is extremely valid. As a survivor of CSA myself it’s something I confront in my mind every single day, but they are right: the opposite method would be horrific.
I mean these types of comments come from the same crowd that chants “eat the rich” at every opportunity, without considering that, for the vast majority of the world, they are the rich and henceforth deserving of being “eaten”
Ah yes, more transphobic capitalist corporation on the fedi, surely federating with them will have no repercussion whatsoever /s Fuck them and anyone who federate with this bigots
I get what you mean, but I don’t think we should defederate with them. You must realise that this makes Mastodon more mainstream, which in the long term is a good thing.
Just to clear it up a bit, these are three different operations in three different states with three different intents and even different targets. While sad, the framing makes it seem like it was all one big coordinated effort by the “Brazilian Police,” which is actually divided in command on a state level (and are very independent from the government). For the Yankees, it’d be like reporting people killed in USA police operations in California and New York in a single breath. This is a common trick of Gringo news to make it seem like third world countries are more dangerous than they actually are, coupled with only reporting on them when tragedies happen.
The operation in Guarujá was criticised by Brazil’s Justice Minister Flavio Dino, who said the police’s reaction was not proportional to the crime committed.
I am curious, what would have been a proportional respond to a police officer being killed then? Let them get away without anything?
As tragic as any life loss is, I am not sure what other outcome could be expected from going after traffickers that are killing officers
Knockout gas? Tranquilizer darts? Anything that’s not a kill shot. These people were killed by the state without due process. Obviously killing anyone (a cop or otherwise) is bad and wrong, and should be punished after a fair trial. But spraying bullets, killing a total of 43 people in three separate raids, is indiscriminate and disproportionate, and does not represent a just outcome for anyone involved.
None of those are realistic options. Gas has to be administered by an anesthesiologist to be effective (else you get this), tranquilizers also have to be dosed and probably aren’t very effective on an armored target behind cover, and there’s no way to shoot someone just to wound like in the movies, since even a shot to the leg could sever the femoral artery and cause someone to bleed to death very quickly.
I agree that this was probably disproportionate, but I’m not sure what other option there is in the short term when the target is an armed and fortified paramilitary force.
I don’t want to defend police violence, but knockout gas and tranquilizer darts are more of a Hollywood trope than actual viable method of subduing combatants.
Can’t you guys just stop using Adrian Zens? Is no one else able to make up unhinged nonsense about China? Literally all it takes is for him to adopt a pseudonym and the credibility of the propaganda increases entirely for free.
Adrian Zens is integral to the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
This is honestly pretty dismaying. This isn’t meant as a put down because it is outside of your control but we’ve got to work on investigative literacy as a country if so many people are having a hard time doing simple stuff like this.
How is he so integral? I’ve looked all over their site and at a few of their reports and there’s nothing about it him or his findings? Look, I’m willing to hear people out but I’ve looked and I can’t find anything that backs up what people are claiming here so I don’t think it’s me that needs to work on investigative literacy.
I encourage anyone on the fence about this to do their own research. His Wikipedia article has some interesting points:
"As a result of his work on Xinjiang, Zenz has become a target for coordinated disinformation attacks from pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entities. Zenz and his work on Xinjiang have been criticized by the Chinese government, which, according to The Globe and Mail, “has called his findings ‘lies’—even when it confirmed them.”
“During an interview with The Daily Telegraph published in May 2021, Zenz defended himself against allegations of fabrication, noting that 95% of documents he has analyzed are publicly available government records.”
Plus his findings have been corroborated by lots of reputable reporters. I’ve seen a lot of claims that people need to stop believing the lies and look at the sources. I’ve done that and not found what they are claiming so what exactly am I missing here?
Yep, I googled it and I encourage everyone else to do it too. There was nothing. I did see a few Chinese sources calling him out as fraud but nothing unbiased. I did see lots of other credible organizations backing up his findings too.
The Wikipedia article was simply a good starting point that I encouraged people to check out. There’s tons of citations in there that back up their points.
Did you find where Adrian was used in each of these articles? Can you tell me the extent that he is relied on by the organization, based on how he is used?
I encourage everyone to look into the links provided and see for yourself what I’m talking about. In the very first link, out of 32 citations provided, Zenz was used 4 times. I’d hardly say his research was a critical part of their research or regardless there’s plenty of other sources provided if you don’t like him as a source. Don’t listen to all the others saying and look for yourself. There’s very little to back up their reasons for dismissing everything as some kind of anti China conspiracy.
That is incredible because I intentionally made them invalid URLs. I get redirect errors when I click on them, and I assume folks who actually bother to click on them should get similar errors.
You should ask yourself why you’re so committed to intellectual dishonesty.
Uhh, what? The links work perfectly fine and are not “invalid”. You do get a redirect notice but that doesn’t make them invalid links?
I’m not the one being intellectually dishonest here, man. I haven’t even accused other people of being dishonest. I’m just saying that I looked into what people have claimed and I can’t see what they are saying. People should check for themselves and I think they’ll see quickly who’s really spreading BS here…
You’re right here actually. Some devices give a redirect warning without letting you go to the site. That’s my bad.
Still, 4 of the 32 links directly reference zenz. If you read all of the links sources however, you will note that they overwhelmingly have zenz somewhere in the citations. This is why I’m not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because I keep telling you to vet the citations, and when you go to check, you do not properly vet the citations.
This institution is also funded by the NED (through a shell org) which is a US government tool for regime change.
Also, if 1/8th of the citations are directly from a Christian fascist why would you assume the rest are credible? Even following the logic of your shoddy research I really don’t get that.
OK fair enough. I’ll admit that I first didn’t see any connection to Zenz at all, but then I noticed you have to click on each citation individually to see all of the sources (I assumed all the citations would be listed at the bottom so I could just search for his name and when it didn’t pop up I assumed he wasn’t there at all).
I fully admit that I don’t have the time to look through and vet every citation (who does?) and I never claimed I checked everything. People were just claiming that Zenz was the source of all of this info and that was clearly not true based on just a quick check. Lots of this information is corroborated by lots of reputable organizations so I don’t think it is appropriate to just dismiss it all.
I think at least the thing we seem to agree on is that people should do some research into this stuff themselves rather than blindly believe what everyone is shouting. I fully support that. I took a look and what I saw didn’t convince me of the claims people are making here. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Lots of this information is corroborated by lots of reputable organizations so I don’t think it is appropriate to just dismiss it all.
Except Aria just walked you through how there were no reputable citations for this specific article.
You are assuming that there are plenty of reputable organizations that support this with quality evidence, but Im assuming this is the most in depth you’ve ever gone on looking at sources for claims here and all of them were not trustable.
There is evidence of a crackdown in response to terrorism(the US government funded Islamic extremist groups in the area) and some excesses from that crackdown, but every time a claim rises to the level of genocide, you’re going to go back into Adrian Zenz or the state run media says lala land.
To the best of my research, the counterterrorism program is primarily focused on improving economic prospects and reassuring folks that their culture will be respected. And they have used very heavy handed methods, such as involuntarily throwing people who are only marginally connected to extremists in vocational training centers -where abuses do happen- in order to do the former. And they very much deserve to be criticized from an informed place about that. But you know what, the US would just kill them or black site them, as we’ve seen play out over and over again in the middle east the last 20 years, which just created even more insurgents.
I am this thorough whenever something new comes out because I care about being informed about this as China is the largest socialist project in the world and as a socialist I think its flaws need to be very carefully studied so as not to be emulated.
I’d like to draw attention to how every tankie who commented in this thread actually looked at the sources whereas the liberals mostly read the headline.
Did you really look at the sources? Because the first source in the article links another BBC article (which links to another article) that ultimately sources research from the Uyghur Human Rights Project. That project does not appear to have any connection to Adrian Zenz. So my original question still stands what does Adrian Zenz have to do with this?
You say every tankie who commented actually looked at the sources but, as far as I can tell, they are just parroting propaganda talking points that they are accusing everyone else of falling for.
Look, I get being skeptical of what the West says about China but I don’t think anyone can deny that anything anti China gets quickly astroturfed on Lemmy. I’m seeing lots more knee jerk reactions from tankies that obviously did not read the article and are accusing everyone else of just falling for Western propaganda without doing some real introspection that they are basically just doing the same thing.
Adrian Zens is integral to the Uyghur Human Rights Project. I suppose I don’t do new research, I just follow links until I find something I’ve judged as untrustworthy before. He’s not directly credited as a contributor, but Uyghur Human Rights Project uses him as their source for all their publishing, and invites him to their events.
Well, I don’t know what else to tell you. I couldn’t find anything about him on their site or him being used for any of research that I looked into. Now, I didn’t go over everything so it is possible he’s worked with them in the past but I don’t think that would be a reason to discredit all the work the UHRP.
What am I seeing is anything critical of China getting downvoted and a bunch of people congrating themselves for not falling for the propaganda when I literally looked and could not find anything they were claiming as part of the article.
I encourage anyone seeing all these comments discrediting this story and look into the details yourself. I could not find any evidence for all the claims they are making to discredit this. There has been some good thoughtful discussion and I appreciate that but lots of knee jerk reactions that people not doing proper research when even just a cursory check doesn’t back up what they are claiming.
Anyone reading the above comment, simple Google “Uyghur Human Rights Project Adrian Zenz” and investigate how involved he is with the links on their own website that show up. It will be obvious how full of shit this poster is.
Ctrl F, RFA 7 matches, RFERL 6 matches, radio free 7 matches, uhrp.org to see how many times they source themselves. There are 23 matches but only 19 instances of them using circular sourcing. ASPI 1 match. Jamestown 2 matches. There are some better sources in there, like Human Rights Watch, but the HRW article in question uses Adrian Zenz as their source. The only source I’m seeing quickly that isn’t directly with zero steps of separation tied to a NATO member spy agency or propaganda agency is NY Times.
For the New York Times article though be careful following their Tinyurl link because it goes through a Viglink reroute that is unlikely to be safe. I can’t imagine why else they’d find it appropriate to use a tinyurl link in their paper if not to attack readers. You can use an extractor service. But anyway if you read that article you’ll see that their source is only Uyghur Human Rights Project so it’s a circular citation again. No I don’t check stuff like this every time. But by now we should know that Uyghur Human Rights Project is an untrustworthy front for Adrian Zenz and stop when we encounter it.
That’s not their most recent published work. That was published in Feb 2023 and they released a more recent report on Jul 2023 (and I believe it has less troublesome references but I’ll admit I don’t have the time to go through them all):
Regardless, your point still stands, there’s likely more circular referencing than I originally believed. I’m still not convinced it is as much of a conspiracy as others have claimed, but it is food for thought. I appreciate the less combative tone and a willingness to discuss in good faith.
I’m still not convinced it is as much of a conspiracy as others have claimed, but it is food for thought.
Two things about this:
It doesn’t require “conspiracy” on the scale of dozens of different international organizations conspiring and then working in lock step. What you have is a set of media entities (following the governments who they have a vested interest in getting along with) following their individual interests of publishing bullshit, and when another company publishes bullshit of the same genre you are publishing, there’s a good chance you will find it worthwhile to recycle their reporting (as many do with AP and BBC articles, for example). There is no need for these groups to “conspire” to produce this result, there is only need for common interests that are observably true to us. Circular citations making spurious claims again, say, China is the natural result of media outlets being aligned with an entity like NATO because of a number of factors like funding and access journalism. That’s the market for you.
The view that conspiracy is an epistemic hazard (though it does certainly happen) is correct and important. I encourage you to keep that in mind next time you read an article about North Korea calling basically every observed part of the country a potemkin village, or all the flimsy claims of subterfuge by China when they do things that are normal for other states but blown up into world-domination catastrophizing when the BBC puts it through its very filtered lens.
How could you possibly believe this? Which part of his work do you find well reasoned? Is it the work he does with VoC where he says Covid-19 is a communist weapon? Is it Worthy to Escape where he says that if you abuse women, homosexuals or children, you’re always morally in the right because those actions repel the Antichrist?
A little disappointed in BBC with the clickbait title there… All is not lost as the headline implies, per the article:
While fuller communication is not yet established, Voyager 2 is programmed to reset its orientation multiple times each year to keep its antenna pointing at Earth. The next reset is due on 15 October, which Nasa says “should enable communication to resume”.
Frustrating that they make it sound like this is a big deal.
They did update the title later to “Voyager 2: Nasa picks up ‘heartbeat’ signal after sending wrong command”, I’m using original title they used when publishing the article.
It’s pretty frustrating that the news lately just goes out of their way to make things look bleak. Like that CNN story about Saturn’s rings “disappearing”. They mentioned that “future astronomers might not get the chance to view Saturn’s rings.” and went on about how they were disappearing. At the very end of the article was the estimate of the timeline, and it was 100 million years. Give me a fucking break. These fucking news outlets with their clickbait bullshit titles just irritates me. I get you were just posting what was there. My frustration is just at the news outlets themselves.
Its a very weakly sourced state sponsored media article reporting on their state enemy. You have to be willfully credulous to believe their claims without further proof.
That statement is illogical. You must have huge problems with the simplest logic to argue that. You can’t bent logic by twisting what I said. Stop clowning.
I swear some of these people have never even been to China. I’ve had the opportunity, and had a lot of Chinese expat friends. I will say THEY believe the same as rest of the world does on a lot of these issues. I was told in no uncertain terms by my tour guide not to say anything about “things you might have heard” when I went to Tienanmen Square. And trust me, the soldiers everywhere with automatic weapons were enough to dissuade me from THINKING about it.
There are a lot of differences that can be passed off as unpleasant cultural differences (like the one guy was a second class citizen and couldn’t get a city passport because he was from a village… the other guy had a full country Visa with zero effort because he grew up in Beijing), but other things “yeah, we’d look up the truth on all that stuff, but we had to work hard to get around the censors and some of our friends got in caught and got in trouble for doing it”.
These tankies never seem to cover the part where the Chinese government is ACTIVELY suppressing this stuff in China. I could walk up to the site of the Bonus Army massacre and LOUDLY announce “I can’t believe the US government opened fired on American troops here over a peaceful protest” and not so much as draw police attention.
So you’re ok with guys with machineguns keeping people to afraid to ask about the Tianenmen Square Massacre because you think it’s “misrepresented”? As an American in China who thoughts things were overblown, I left China 100% sure the Massacre is as bad as I was taught, because of the way the Chinese government behaved in Tienanmen Square when I was there.
And you really feel that it’s ok that there’s human rights advocates serving time for the crime of “inciting others to knowingly participate in unauthorised assemblies” about the Tianenmen Square Massacre, like Chow Hang-tung? Do you approve of jailing for speech where most countries will, at worst, have civil libel charges?
What’s the most severe penalty you would approve of for people who witnessed and survived the massacre recounting stories that are absolutely true to them? Maybe execute them all?
In my world, EVEN if the victim witnessed the event incorrectly, this is at best Witness Intimidation, and at worst its own human rights violation.
You seem to be projecting a lot of things that don’t have a firm basis in external reality. Are the guys with machine guns there to intimidate tourists, or are they there because Tienanmen Square is right in front of the Chinese equivalent of the White House and several other important buildings that require high security? The incident (which, let us be clear, also involved armed insurrectionists with incendiaries and commandeered rifles) wasn’t even the last major violent event in the area, as people did die actually in the Square some time later when Falun Gong members set themselves and a small girl on fire in protest of the group being banned!
The thought police you are imagining seem, if anything, to be a much better case for you being wrong. However you might feel intimidated in the moment, clearly once you left you understandably made a firm association between the Square and machine guns!
Furthermore, you’re making silly excuses for liars. There were people who weren’t even there for the supposed massacre (see the video) who were accounting very peculiar events in lurid detail, like tanks running over inhabited tents and then mulching them and such. Do you think some scared college student is going to have an anxiety-based hallucination that causes them to think they were places they weren’t and saw things that have probably never happened anywhere? When does that happen besides severe schizophrenics and children who aren’t processing that they just had a nightmare?
It seems to me that you are reaching for excuses, especially since you are disregarding the numerous witness, both domestic and foreign visitors, who all saw that there was no massacre in the Square as the media hysterically portrayed. Leaked state documents over the years (from ambassadors and such) only affirm this further. I can look up some if you like.
You seem to be projecting a lot of things that don’t have a firm basis in external reality
I’m not sure why you would say that.
Are the guys with machine guns there to intimidate tourists, or are they there because Tienanmen Square is right in front of the Chinese equivalent of the White House and several other important buildings that require high security?
Considering the exact placement, I would say the former. Considering their non-presence at other equally important locations? I would also say the former.
The incident (which, let us be clear, also involved armed insurrectionists with incendiaries and commandeered rifles) wasn’t even the last major violent event in the area,
Do you know what double-think is? Was the military killing armed insurrectionists, or was it all made up? Or were they standing their with tanks and watching the armed insurrectionists kill everyone? I trust Amnesty international more than you, and more than propaganda recordings from the Chinese government. Not as someone with a prejudice against China, either. The narrative makes sense, where yours does not.
when Falun Gong members set themselves and a small girl on fire in protest of the group being banned
Are you implying that the soldiers with machineguns were ther ebecause Falun Gong members set themselves on fire? And not because of the internationally known incident that, whether true or not, China is clearly censoring and jailing people for publicizing?
However you might feel intimidated in the moment, clearly once you left you understandably made a firm association between the Square and machine guns!
You’re absolutely right. I did not think China were death dealers before Tianenmen Square, but now I do. They succeeded in terrifying me, and I think that was their intention. I was sure as hell afraid to speak truth aloud in China.
Furthermore, you’re making silly excuses for liars
Why should I believe you over pretty much every unbiased body in the world?
There were people who weren’t even there for the supposed massacre (see the video) who were accounting very peculiar events in lurid detail, like tanks running over inhabited tents and then mulching them and such
Are you referring to the on-site live announcers saying they were witnessing it in real time, and the grisly follow-up photos that China was unable to suppress of a line of corpses with tank-tread sized crush marks destoying their bodies? Are those the lie? All the photos that show half naked and unarmed people killed by large military vehicles were fabricated? Or did “armed insurrectionists” bring tanks?
Do you think some scared college student is going to have an anxiety-based hallucination that causes them to think they were places they weren’t and saw things that have probably never happened anywhere?
No you’re right. People can have panic-based hallucinations when tanks open fire. And the first thing they’ll do is try to take photos of it. And no matter how hard you try, the photos come out eventually. Let me reiterate, photos of bodies crushed by tanks.
It seems to me that you are reaching for excuses, especially since you are disregarding the numerous witness, both domestic and foreign visitors, who all saw that there was no massacre in the Square
I’ve seen photos of the massacre. I have heard witness testimonies that corroborate those photos, and witness testimonies that do not. I am aware of several governments (including my own) that have used false or intimidated witnesses to try to hide an atrocity. Why EXACTLY do you see me as “reaching for excuses”? Do you think I WANT any government to mass-murder its protestors?
At what point should I throw out every piece of evidence I’ve ever seen in my life and believe this? How would you prove to an outside observer that Tienanmen Denial is different from Holocaust Denial?
Do you know what double-think is? Was the military killing armed insurrectionists, or was it all made up? Or were they standing their with tanks and watching the armed insurrectionists kill everyone?
You are underestimating me. There was no killing in the Square itself, but there was fighting all around the surrounding area. The Square was killed with the highest degree of violence being hitting some protestors with batons when they didn’t disperse on the deadline after having many hours to comply.
My position is completely consistent.
and more than propaganda recordings from the Chinese government.
It was a documentary made by westerners! The people speaking were student leaders at the protest and all remain Chinese dissidents! What level of being a “friendly source” could even hypothetically meet your standard without agreeing with you? I can dig up literal internal memos from US political actors that were leaked and you would still call it Chinese propaganda!
I can dig it up for you if you’d like, though.
Are you implying that the soldiers with machineguns were ther ebecause Falun Gong members set themselves on fire? And not because
I’m saying there is a history of many violent incidents in connection with the Square and the government doesn’t want to let more happen. You literally suggest they are there to wordlessly pressure people into what to think despite that same incident that lead to that conclusion having the opposite effect on you! It’s a nonsensical psychodrama, not a cogent political observation.
No you’re right. People can have panic-based hallucinations when tanks open fire
As far as I know, the tanks never opened fire, it was all gunfire from the PLA side. It was an urban combat situation within Beijing (because it wasn’t on the Square itself, but slightly more closed areas) so having the tanks fire seems like it would be excessively destructive and hazardous. Then again, I don’t know.
And the first thing they’ll do is try to take photos of it. And no matter how hard you try, the photos come out eventually. Let me reiterate, photos of bodies crushed by tanks.
I think you might be thinking of some famous photos of what are clearly bikes strewn about and people taking cover.
I’ve seen photos of the massacre. I have heard witness testimonies that corroborate those photos, and witness testimonies that do not. I am aware of several governments (including my own) that have used false or intimidated witnesses to try to hide an atrocity. Why EXACTLY do you see me as “reaching for excuses”? Do you think I WANT any government to mass-murder its protestors?
I don’t know your life, I can’t say. You give the impression that you are a sensitive person who was traumatized and now you seek to affirm that trauma, but that’s just my impression. Atrocity propaganda is very effective, turns out, and western powers are happy to give you as much morbid slop as you can stomach. If you’ve seen any photos of people killed on the Square, feel free to reproduce them.
At what point should I throw out every piece of evidence I’ve ever seen in my life and believe this? How would you prove to an outside observer that Tienanmen Denial is different from Holocaust Denial?
[Aside from that being a hysterical comparison] When you speak so strongly about the evidence and then don’t produce it, you aren’t really giving me a reason to believe you. If I wanted to persuade you on the Holocaust, I’d have plenty of photos that I could show you of mass graves, piles of shoes, piles of gold teeth and fillings, nail marks on the doors of the gas chambers, and notably virtually no one who was kept prisoner in the camps who denied that killing and brutality were taking place! It’s not like we have people who were prisoners in Auschwitz saying “yeah, there were no gas chambers, no butchering, it was just a prison.” Plenty of Holocaust Deniers say that, but none were prisoners of Auschwitz.
And yet, I can point you to people who were actually at the Square and say no one was killed on it, meanwhile other people who were already gone by that time talk about viscera being washed down gutters. In the video I showed you, two people were there to see it and one person wasn’t, and you are literally defending the “witness testimony” of the person who wasn’t there! Furthermore, she says in the hotel interview before the Incident that [in so many words] it was her plan to create atrocity propaganda in order to “wake the Chinese people up”! She explicitly wanted stories of bloodshed for the sake of her political goals, to the point of trying to deliberately endanger students who trust her for the sake of them being harmed! What makes you think she wouldn’t lie when every fact about the situation also makes it impossible for her to be telling the truth?!
I don’t know what you seem to think about the billions of people who know about the Massacre and millions who know enough about it not to be convinced by you. You are taking the same tactic of other deniers, expecting me to have nothing but Tank Guy and my High School History book in my back pocket.
Further, you are now accusing ME of being broken or “sensitive” for simply knowing the Tienanmen Square Massacre happened. I’m going to apply the outsider test of faith here again (I know it won’t work, I don’t care). You sound exactly like a Holocaust Denier I dealt with a year ago.
After the hysterical comparison claims… are you asking me to post the grisly photo of a line of human bodies, crushed, with joints in wrong directions, or you won’t believe it’s true? I’m not trying to convince YOU. I know from “How to Respond to Tiananmen Trolls” (from anti-propaganda Doublethink Labs) that a video of it happening would do nothing but make you smile and say “see, no evidence”. I just need to provide a voice that the world is indeed round so that flat-earthers don’t get a better foothold.
As for the evidence, most people have already seen it and you’re just helping them forget it was there by pointing out that I haven’t bombarded YOU with articles and photos you would just deny. I would really love (hate) to hear your rebuttal to the disgusting photo of corpses crushed by tanks, but I will not be posting NSFL content in this place.
Also, for anyone reading, I’d like to remind people of one rebuttal to your Holocaust comparison response. YES, there are more pictures of the Holocaust than the Tienanmen Square massacre. The holocaust happened over TWELVE YEARS and there are dozens of photos. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on ONE day. And for the casual observer who might still be here, note that this wasn’t just some protest-turned-riot. It was a long peaceful protest that was ended by the march-in of the military. In fact, there were upper leaders in the Chinese government who wanted to NOT kill all the protestors, and instead find a peaceful agreement with them (Zhao Ziyang comes to mind) whose career ended for not being on board. But I guess they’d just be Tienanmen Square deniers too?
There’s literally nothing but a few obviously coerced confessions that counter the truth of the massacre. And you don’t care. Ultimately, Massacre deniers will just start defending China’s “necessary” action to kill those innocent protestors, as you’ve already started doing. What you did wrong was accidentally doing it while still pretending it didn’t happen. People will notice that.
A black and white world where objective measures of press freedoms are apparently inversely proportional to trustworthiness of said journalists.
Oh my god, are you seriously claiming you can objectively measure press freedoms while saying socialists live in a black and white world? Just want to give you a chance to walk back your statement
I am quite curious to know your methodology for measuring press freedom so we can compare and perhaps find something which can be considered locally objective.
You’re retreating into “locally” objective. In this topic you’re not going to get agreement on what constitutes press freedom, so it is pointless. My point is that the claim of objective press freedom existing is ridiculous. You walked it back, but to a position that still seems ridiculous to me.
For example, I dont believe there is such thing as a free press. Any org that can produce a press machine is going to influence that press, whether that is a government or private interests. Editorial freedom isn’t possible, editorial control just ranges from the subtle to the overt.
You are the only one making assumptions here. I want to find some common ground.
So let’s pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?
So let’s pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?
Of course bias is inevitable, Im saying institutional bias will always be enforced down the chain onto journalists and writers.
Can you give me your definition of press freedom? Because it seems contradictory if the owner of a press will influence what is published but journalists of that press somehow have press freedom.
Well so first of all, I don’t consider only corporate or state owned media outlets to be “the press.” But certainly, editorial freedom is a big part of press freedom. One media outlet can only exert editorial control over its own journalists. It cannot force editorial restrictions onto all media the same way a government can. I think this is pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to press freedom - individual bias can be averaged out, but centralized, legally enforced bias cannot. This feels axiomatic to me, but it may not be to others whichbis why I think these conversations are so interesting.
cannot force editorial restrictions onto all media the same way a government can. I think this is pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to press freedom
Yes they can, it is called private (as opposed to personal) property rights enforced by the state. The range of opinion will always be broadly supportive of the capitalist government.
Please read inventing reality or manufacturing consent. I am tired and I feel like you aren’t interested in learning, with or without changing your opinion.
I don’t know why you think I have not read those books. I’m quite familiar with both, and agree with many aspects of them. I assure you though, Chomsky is not a press skeptic they way I think you are implying. And not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. You are the one shutting down conversation and making accusations.
But either way, this is quite easy to back test. Is there no western media you can think of which is critical of Capitalism? Maybe even someone you just cited?
Based on what you’ve said you really need to read those books again.
But either way, this is quite easy to back test. Is there no western media you can think of which is critical of Capitalism? Maybe even someone you just cited?
Point out the flaw in this rhetoric like Parenti would, given you’ve read him.
The corporate media will always serve the elites over token dissent. And token dissent protects capitalists from Capitalism. He is quite funny and self aware when he wants be.
Trust me I get it. What I don’t recall is Parenti expressing general skepticism of press freedom as a first principle. He mostly argues that capitalism corrupts the media. Again, this is laughably self evident.
Parenti and Chomsky are more left-libertarians though. Chomsky in particular is a outspoken and vocal critic of Lenin’s centralism and is a vehement defender of press freedom. I would say that my ideas of press freedom are quite aligned with theirs, and it seems as if you are one who has fundamentally missed the message.
The corporate media will always serve the elites over token dissent. And token dissent protects capitalists from Capitalism. He is quite funny and self aware when he wants be.
So why did you say the silly thing you said in the first place? And why do you consider corporate press to be more free than government press?
Do you have proof that there is no dissent within socialist countries? Because based on my readings there is plenty of lively debate. Hell, you can look at streams of the vietnamese assembly.
I literally know nothing about Vietnamese politics. But I also don’t think I’ve made any assertion that press/individual freedoms are incompatible with socialism. In fact, I think I’ve been pretty clear about this forum “deserving a better brand of socialist”
Wow, what? Communists talk openly about propaganda… You have no idea what you’re talking about.
We are well aware what our biases are. We are trying to get westerners to see their own biases. Being called out as hypocrites feels like an attack, but when we say everyone have biases, we know it’s true about us too.
Absorb news from a wide variety of sources, including sources from other countries, and you’ll see that the BBC is in fact biased against China.
It takes time, and reading a lot, and you won’t get it from Lemmy/Reddit/twitter(or X or whatever now)/FB. Even ground news only has so many sources. And you know what, the BBC does great coverage for a lot of things, they are a pretty high quality source for a lot of news. But yeah, everyone has biases, and the BBC is biased against China.
It doesn’t mean that reports are false just because two states are enemies (which is an exaggeration).
If they were strongly cited I would not be criticizing people believing them. All sources are biased, the question is how factual a source is.
The BBC is strongly biased against China. If they make claims without proof the most logical course of action is to not assume they are telling the truth and not incorporate what they say into your beliefs. (Note that this is different than “assume they are lying”)
Aren’t these threads wild? These people don’t want to engage in actual discussion here. They just want to remove your agency by calling you brainwashed, do the sealion “source” thing, and then ad hominem away any sources you do provide.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the world deserves a better class of communist.
They just want to remove your agency by calling you brainwashed
Unlike when the liberals in this very thread accuse people of being brainwashed or paid shills, because then it is righteous!
do the sealion “source” thing,
lmao what dastardly trolls they are to care about sourcing
and then ad hominem away any sources you do provide.
Like you’d ever accept People’s Daily or whatever. The “tankies” need to mostly rely on liberal outlets because you will discard reporting out of China (etc.) out of hand.
the world deserves a better class of communist.
If we had a better class of communist, you’d hate them too because you’d believe everything you’re told about them, just like you do with the existing breeds.
I have no doubt, every nation has secret police. I simply doubt they are doing what the article suggests theyre doing. It seems to me the article is interested in explaining why there aren’t many uyghur Muslims joining their narrative and why a lot of them are supportive of China and feel their culture is respected.
bbc.co.uk
Active