Yeah, pretty much the exact opposite of what I said is what I believe. I thought it was so over the top that it would be recognized as sarcasm, but I can see how it might look like something a Chinese propogandist would write
Is that sarcastic by any chance? If it is a serious argument, I feel it is pretty naive and delusional to expect China to accept and admit its wrongdoings.
all MSM talking points. it's no mystery where you get your info about china from.It's obvious that the CCP is a corrupt, fascist, oppressive, evil regime.
- Falun Gong
- Uyghurs
- Political use of psychiatry
- Tiananmen square
- Reeducation camps
- Child labor
- Corruption
If you need more reasons than that, there may be no hope for you.
What does that mean?
Yeah, pretty much the exact opposite of what I said is what I believe. I thought it was so over the top that it would be recognized as sarcasm, but I can see how it might look like something a Chinese propogandist would write
the post. what job is he talking about?Means, per post or by word?
You mean invade an unrelated country? Sounds about right.To answer the OP my guess it would go similar to our stiff repercussions we took against Saudi Arabia after 9/11
we're not interested in starting a hot war against china because it won't end well for either side.You mean invade an unrelated country? Sounds about right.
all MSM talking points. it's no mystery where you get your info about china from.
do you think the US government (and their PR arm, the media) has a motive to demonize china by spreading half truths or outright lies?
what of falun gong? you mean their barrage of disinformation channels all over youtube and facebook?
Falun Gong-aligned media push fake news about Democrats and Chinese communists
The Epoch Times, believed to be linked to the Chinese religious movement, is part of an anti-CCP influence operation tapping into the US right, according to a media watchdogwww.theguardian.com
uighurs, reeducation camps - already addressed here
tiananmen square - specifically what pertaining to TS.
child labor... again, very vague.
corruption? aside from the CIA engaging in corrupting CCP officials, c'mon, really? are we acting like corruption is not a thing anywhere else in the world, and not far worse in other countries including our own?
"MSM" is a term used by people afraid of journalistic consensus, and also people who support fascism.
Wut? MSM is just mainstream media - which is commonly associated with scrutiny, often times because the overwhelming majority of them have an agenda to run - in order to churn out our news not as informative - but on an "entertainment" basis. Hence the likes of Fox News broadcasters, CNN pinheads, etc.. etc...
There is a reason to not associate with any mainstream media - in particular if you want to be agnostically informed instead of parroted an overall conclusive narrative.
both sides are equally bad when it comes to factual, investigative reporting. they are beholden to sponsorships or ad revenue, and are a mouthpiece of the US govt.It's not quite that simple. The "MSM" does have its problems, but certain outlets are more reliable than others even when there's spin involved. CNN's op-ed people at least do their basic homework and stick to facts, however skewed their perspective may be. With Fox News, you can generally assume the op-ed and morning show hosts are either explicitly lying to you or selectively omitting 'inconvenient' facts... and even the regular Fox news broadcast will sometimes avoid events that don't fit its narrative.
Besides, there are MSM outlets you can trust to be reasonably neutral. AP, AFP, Reuters are a few examples. And yes, publications like the New York Times and Washington Post count, at least outside of their op-eds.
Being outside of the mainstream doesn't make an outlet better. Many of the non-mainstream outlets, particularly on the right, are both highly partisan and make basic journalistic mistakes (not double-checking sources, treating weakly supported claims as fact, that sort of thing). Rebelling against the status quo doesn't automatically make you smarter — sometimes, like with Trumpists and anti-vaxxers, it just makes you stupid.
It's not quite that simple. The "MSM" does have its problems, but certain outlets are more reliable than others even when there's spin involved. CNN's op-ed people at least do their basic homework and stick to facts, however skewed their perspective may be. With Fox News, you can generally assume the op-ed and morning show hosts are either explicitly lying to you or selectively omitting 'inconvenient' facts... and even the regular Fox news broadcast will sometimes avoid events that don't fit its narrative.
Besides, there are MSM outlets you can trust to be reasonably neutral. AP, AFP, Reuters are a few examples. And yes, publications like the New York Times and Washington Post count, at least outside of their op-eds.
Being outside of the mainstream doesn't make an outlet better. Many of the non-mainstream outlets, particularly on the right, are both highly partisan and make basic journalistic mistakes (not double-checking sources, treating weakly supported claims as fact, that sort of thing). Rebelling against the status quo doesn't automatically make you smarter — sometimes, like with Trumpists and anti-vaxxers, it just makes you stupid.
both sides are equally bad when it comes to factual, investigative reporting. they are beholden to sponsorships or ad revenue, and are a mouthpiece of the US govt.
here is CNN, on the topic of uighurs in china, blurring out the passport issue dates of a uighur who was supposedly being oppressed. now why would CNN go out of their way to hide that, and secondly, why would china issue a passport to a uighur, whom they are alleged genociding?
AP, AFP and reuters get their news from the CIA, pentagon and white house.
The Propaganda Multiplier
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system – and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global new…swprs.org
and we know how trustworthy the CIA is. they have agents working in the media, they plant fake stores, and they provide fake references so that in the event that someone actually tries to investigate the source, they're given the same fake story.
Wow. You not only managed to "both sides" an argument where even a basic inspection shows that's not true, you managed to deny a well-corroborated genocide and cite a poorly-written study that makes logical leaps I would have caught as a teaching assistant. I'm half-surprised you haven't blamed things on an ethnic group yet.
You've fallen for one of the most common traps: the belief that a source is credible merely because it challenges the mainstream message in a semi-plausible way. Anti-vaxxers do it, Trumpists do it, and you're doing it. It's not enough to question the official message; you must also question any claims to the contrary, or you're just trading one blind trust for another. And importantly, you should always question your own methods.
yes, AP and Reuters are the cleanest shirt in the laundry.It's really not - they cherry pick their data sets just like anything else. You can always construct a narrative along the way when you have an end-result conclusion that you want it all to lead up to.
CNN is absolutely in the same boat as Fox News. It's extremism to the core to point of hilarity. Please tell me that this is something you would put with a title of "mostly peaceful protests"? On first glance, anyone with half a brain would presume it's comedic satire - that hopefully it was a sketch from SNL - or from right-wing people. It's not though - and it's hilarious.
View attachment 48475
When I say MSM though, I'm mostly talking about TV news channels by the way - Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc... I don't commonly lump paper media in with it by default - though they have their own set of scrutiny to answer for. AP and Reuters being the most non-partisan - and from there is just goes downhill.
It's really not - they cherry pick their data sets just like anything else. You can always construct a narrative along the way when you have an end-result conclusion that you want it all to lead up to.
CNN is absolutely in the same boat as Fox News. It's extremism to the core to point of hilarity. Please tell me that this is something you would put with a title of "mostly peaceful protests"? On first glance, anyone with half a brain would presume it's comedic satire - that hopefully it was a sketch from SNL - or from right-wing people. It's not though - and it's hilarious.
View attachment 48475
When I say MSM though, I'm mostly talking about TV news channels by the way - Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc... I don't commonly lump paper media in with it by default - though they have their own set of scrutiny to answer for. AP and Reuters being the most non-partisan - and from there is just goes downhill.
Nah, it's not. I take CNN with a grain of salt, but it's more complicated than that. In the example you cited, I'd agree that CNN was tone deaf, but it also wasn't completely off-base — the protests were in fact peaceful up to that evening. The problem is that right-wing media seized on this to falsely claim CNN was pretending a riot was mostly peaceful. They stripped out the context, and counted on people like you to spread their anti-protest message without questioning it.
Fox, meanwhile, has hosts that routinely push objectively false claims... as in the kind of claims you could debunk with a 30-second Google search. It preys on xenophobia, a distrust of science and other irrational fears that shouldn't be acceptable regardless of political leanings.
I look at it this way: I can parse a skewed CNN story or op-ed enough to see that they at least have the basic truths down pat. You can't say that for many Fox stories.
Ummmmmmmm.....do you think the CCP (and their PR arm, state-run propaganda, has a motive to lie by spreading half truths or outright lies?
"An extra-constitutional body called the 6-10 Office was created to lead the persecution of Falun Gong,[39][40] and authorities mobilized the state media apparatus, judiciary, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces to “struggle” against the group.[41][42]
Since 1999, Falun Gong practitioners have been the targets of systematic torture, mass imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuse, all with the aim of forcing them to recant their beliefs.[43][44] As of 2009, the New York Times reported that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been killed amid the persecution campaign;[45] Falun Gong sources documented over 3,700 named death cases by 2013. Due to the difficulty in accessing and relaying information from China, however, this may represent only a portion of actual deaths.[43]"
"Since 2014, Uyghurs in Xinjiang have been affected by extensive controls and restrictions which the Chinese government has imposed upon their religious, cultural, economic and social lives.[212][213][214][215] In Xinjiang, the Chinese government has expanded police surveillance to watch for signs of "religious extremism" that include owning books about Uyghurs, growing a beard, having a prayer rug, or quitting smoking or drinking. The government had also installed cameras in the homes of private citizens.[216][217]
Further, at least 120,000 (and possibly over 1 million)[218] Uyghurs are detained in mass detention camps,[219] termed "re-education camps", aimed at changing the political thinking of detainees, their identities, and their religious beliefs.[220] Some of these facilities keep prisoners detained around the clock, while others release their inmates at night to return home. According to Chinese government operating procedures, the main feature of the camps is to ensure adherence to Chinese Communist Party ideology. Inmates are continuously held captive in the camps for a minimum of 12 months depending on their performance on Chinese ideology tests.[221] The New York Times has reported inmates are required to "sing hymns praising the Chinese Communist Party and write 'self-criticism' essays," and that prisoners are also subjected to physical and verbal abuse by prison guards.[216] Chinese officials are sometimes assigned to monitor the families of current inmates, and women have been detained due to actions by their sons or husbands.[216]"
"Remembering the protests is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.[24][25]"
"the total number of child labourers remains high, with UNICEF and ILO acknowledging an estimated 168 million children aged 5–17 worldwide were involved in child labour in 2013.[17] "
"Since the Tiananmen Square protests, corruption has not slowed as a result of greater economic freedom, but instead has grown more entrenched and severe in its character and scope. Business deals often involve corruption.[11] In popular perception, there are more dishonest CCP officials than honest ones, a reversal of the views held in the first decade of reform of the 1980s.[6] Chinese specialist Minxin Pei argues that failure to contain widespread corruption is among the most serious threats to China's future economic and political stability.[10] He estimates that bribery, kickbacks, theft, and waste of public funds costs at least three percent of GDP. "
He’s calling you a wumao, obviously. A paid Chinese propaganda shill.What does that mean?
Textbook shill wolf-warrior comeback. I’ve even seen them say that to people I know who lived there for a decade plus and only came back in the last year or so. They say it to imply that Xinjiang or China or whatever has changed that much since they were last there. Well, it kinda has… and the direction it was heading is exactly why they left.you seem pretty knowledgeable about china, based on all this wikipedia linking. when were you last there?
He’s calling you a wumao, obviously. A paid Chinese propaganda shill.
Textbook shill wolf-warrior comeback. I’ve even seen them say that to people I know who lived there for a decade plus and only came back in the last year or so. They say it to imply that Xinjiang or China or whatever has changed that much since they were last there. Well, it kinda has… and the direction it was heading is exactly why they left.
I don't like the way you put that, it's slanted and unfair. Your style is semantically suspect. "Two sides to every story" and "truth somewhere in the middle" are lazy terms you should eschew. They are not wrong ideas, but they are lazy in discourse.and yet you can't dispute it head on, and proceed to provide anecdotes.
the news we get regarding china is overwhelmingly one-sided, agree or disagree?
the US has a vested interest in villainizing china. again, agree or disagree?
do you think someone whose only sources about china are from third parties are more reliable than someone who's actually been there?
that's like expecting a chinese person to have fair and balanced views of america because they saw BLM riots on the news.
I don't like the way you put that, it's slanted and unfair. Your style is semantically suspect. "Two sides to every story" and "truth somewhere in the middle" are lazy terms you should eschew. They are not wrong ideas, but they are lazy in discourse.
"95%" of Chinese may not disapprove of the central government in some way (surveys?? Given the power of the CCP, opposition is difficult and dangerous) but this doesn't excuse its sins which are rather egregious. Same kind of thing can be said about Russia.
Here's a book by a guy knows China really well that can give extraordinary insight:
and yet you can't dispute it head on, and proceed to provide anecdotes.
the news we get regarding china is overwhelmingly one-sided, agree or disagree?
the US has a vested interest in villainizing china. again, agree or disagree?
do you think someone whose only sources about china are from third parties are more reliable than someone who's actually been there?
that's like expecting a chinese person to have fair and balanced views of america because they saw BLM riots on the news.