this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
218 points (79.8% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1003 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
It doesn't mean that reports are false just because two states are enemies (which is an exaggeration).
"Just because the last 100 articles were bullshit doesn't mean this one is too!"
No. It does.
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.
Just because all the other times this faulty logic was used doesn't mean this one is illogical too!
Must be easy living with such a black and white world view.
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.
Come in with preconceived notions and never second guess yourself? Sure, whatever.
Doing research to prove your assumptions correct or incorrect is literally how science works.
You missed the "check into it" part.
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.
The June 4th Incident gets wildly misrepresented very consistently in the west and China doesn't like being libeled as butchers. literally 1984
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Vu3zmbFGwQA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
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.
I'm not sure why you would say that.
Considering the exact placement, I would say the former. Considering their non-presence at other equally important locations? I would also say the former.
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.
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?
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.
Why should I believe you over pretty much every unbiased body in the world?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you might be thinking of some famous photos of what are clearly bikes strewn about and people taking cover.
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.
[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?
I'm curious what Zhao Ziyang said publicly after the massacre. But that's a laugh. He was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life with no charges ever being levied against him, ousted from his party leadership shortly before the massacre. Oh wait, shit, yeah, in secret memoirs he released, he acknowledged the massacre and that he agreed it was a grave mistake. Leader of the Communist Party until right before the massacre.
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.
You're just question begging, it gives me very little to engage with.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I've explained this already. I largely reject the notion that token dissent is less free than no dissent. As do both of the authors you cited.
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"
Okay, you dont know anything about vietnamese politics and you don't think there can be press freedom under government control, got it.
Are you saying the west has trustworthy press because Parenti and Chomsky were allowed to publish books?
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.
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")
Yeah, China was a major ally, but it is showing its dark (autocratic) side lately.
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.
It isn't sealioning to expect a government or corporate news agency to provide strong citations when making contentious claims.
Unlike when the liberals in this very thread accuse people of being brainwashed or paid shills, because then it is righteous!
lmao what dastardly trolls they are to care about sourcing
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.
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 saw a piece about the shadow police in germany lately. I am sure that the chinese foreign police exists.
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.