fishtacos

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yikes, I was specifically referring to Muslims, but yeah looks like America isn't even better than that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, insults, the highest form of conversation. Always indicates you are correct. Good job.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, because we aren't allowed to compare things right? It would be terrible if your country looked worse than the ones you demonize so hard.

Okay for me but not for thee

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It was a neutral way to summarize a long article.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like a threat. Fuck off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (20 children)

And the argument from ignorance continues.

All I have to say is read more and be online less.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (26 children)

So... No, it's not like Russia at all. But that nuance is too long for me to explain right now. Short answer is that Russia is capitalist, and China is 50/50 capitalist/socialist, depending on definitions, and yeah a lot of nuance.

But China is run by the people, their authoritarian politics keeps their billionaires and induatry in check. Their local politics is a negotiation with the national politics.

And... How exactly is China antagonizing nations abroad? Because a lot of countries are choosing to work with China because they AREN'T antagonizing them as much as America and Europe. So... The reality is the opposite.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who were you replying too? Lost? Got a bit overzealous with your keyboard warrior persona today?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (61 children)

I found this to be a decent enough primer: https://medium.com/@bobbyarlan/a-case-study-in-racist-anti-chinese-sentiment-fuelled-by-american-bots-and-western-propaganda-f0a69978d568

A decent TLDR: The article argues that anti-Chinese propaganda spread by the U.S. and Western media is fueling racist sentiment. Claims of mass detention of Uyghurs are based on flawed studies and sources like Adrian Zenz, a far-right Christian fundamentalist. Atrocity propaganda is a common tactic used by the U.S. to justify wars. The U.S. is threatened by China's economic rise and technological progress, so it is trying to portray China negatively and prepare public opinion for a potential conflict. However, most of the world sees China positively and as an economic opportunity, making a new Cold War against China unlikely to succeed

In short, a lot of information about China that has come out of Western news media has been proven to be based on known biased sources, known anit-China rhetoric, and/or outright lies. It's difficult to prove/disprove of any information specifically, that takes time and reporting, but a lot of people see the anti-China pattern in BBC reporting, and tend to dismiss it because of known history.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

This is so key to propaganda. When researchers do a study on 58 people, you can barely claim you have a good representation of the population. And even in that case, if they are good, high quality researchers, they aren't pushing any opinion, just stating facts. It's just that 58 people can't represent the population well, It's just a starting point.

Now if we're talking about an opinion and not just stated facts, 58 people is hardly representative, easy to manipulate, especially when you don't have to cite specifics, just conclusion.

Okay, let's assume these are facts. 58 people were threatened, etc. This is still propaganda. Opinion, and interpretation can push the conversation in one direction or the other very heavily.

For example, let's draw a comparison to a system that people find more familiar (For westerners, at least), such as the united states police system or the FBI. How many US citizens are threatened to stop talking when pushing the limits of conversation publicly (Say, about calling out the inhumane treatment of others by the US military)? How many people have talked publicly about being approached by the FBI, or said they can't comment on their interactions with the FBI, or of some private corporation that paid them off to keep their mouths shut about some insider deal, money laundering, or underage sex scandal? Governments and even private citizens coming after people who are talking shit publicly happens in capitalist states all the time.

And that's just taking into account regular people who live in western countries. How about an even more direct comparison? The Uyghurs are Muslims that participated in terrorism in China, but the United States had Muslim terrorists of their own, what did they do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq You can find all kinds of resources about the human rights violations that the united states participated in against the muslin people, even in western sources such as wikipidia, and others https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/iraq-20-years-since-the-us-led-coalition-invaded-iraq-impunity-reigns-supreme/ have lots and lots of facts surrounding this.

"rules for thee, but not for me" comes to mind.

Sorry didn't mean to unload on you. I'm vehemently agreeing!

view more: next ›