• Durotar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It doesn’t mean that reports are false just because two states are enemies (which is an exaggeration).

    • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Just because the last 100 articles were bullshit doesn’t mean this one is too!”

      No. It does.

        • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It really is. Try it, next time you read a China Bad article, just decide that it’s bullshit first, then check into it and you’ll be proven right.

            • abraxas@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doing research to prove your assumptions correct or incorrect is literally how science works.

        • socsa@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A black and white world where objective measures of press freedoms are apparently inversely proportional to trustworthiness of said journalists.

          Random blog with a Soviet flag? Impossible to be propaganda, because only capitalism can do a propaganda.

          Some of the world’s oldest free media with a long history of investigating the British government? Literally nothing but propaganda.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • socsa@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • socsa@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • Durotar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because all the other times this faulty logic was used doesn’t mean this one is illogical too!

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.