say anything even vaguely related to China without also saying how much you hate China and everything about it = tankie

Then inevitably one person will come along and say “haha tankie, opinion rejected” and another will try to change the topic entirely to why “China is bad” for some very loosely related reason.

(Edit: typo)

Basically everyone has little knowledge about the vast majority of things. People who have strong beliefs generally think they have good evidence for them (even if what they think is clearly untrue and their evidence is nonsensical).

I’ve heard of “appeal to authority” and such, but at the end of the day I think that it’s generally sensible to just believe the mainstream expert consensus on something until you’re given good evidence otherwise, especially if you’re dealing with hard science.

Of course it’s ideal to know more about a topic than basic things you were told and took as fact and this should be paired with some level of media literacy and critical thinking, though.

Sounds like what chuds think the world is already like

the first and most tragic story is October 7

That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.

I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.

Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

Pic unrelated

That sounds nice but I don’t think that’s exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.

I’m not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it’s best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they’re willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking “democracy” alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.

Pic unrelated

Provide security for whom?

I heckin’ love the state’s monopoly on violence!

Nobody cares bro. My farts smell better than yours

Pretty sure it’s real journalism.

Bruh when did I say “we need to be like the Chinese party-state because they have freedom of expression and information”?

I’m trying to say that this Article 19 group has no real principles beyond: “UK government protecting our ‘information integrity’=good. Chinese censorship and ‘misinformation’=bad.” Also it’s not even “Chinese media ownership”, it’s a US firm with a chairman who has ties to China.

But if you can’t follow this beyond “this guy clearly loves China and hates Britain, I need to explain why China is worse”, then go off I guess.

This article is so strange to me. Do these guys want “media plurality” and “freedom of expression and information” or to stop people with links to China from owning UK news outlets? On the one hand they’re talking about this ideal of freedom of press and on another it’s about how we need to restrict who can control the press. “Information integrity” sounds like justification for censorship to me.

It’s so full of vague, conflicting ideals.

The idea of laws about transparency of ownership and funding seems reasonable I suppose. It’s good media literacy to find out what you can about who owns and funds a news outlet. That’s why I looked into who’s behind this “Article 19” organisation.

https://www.article19.org/financials/

Ah… The UK and US governments, along with the infamous “National Endowment for Democracy”. Seems it’s bad when China tries to control the narrative, but not the UK or US.

As for whether I personally think this US firm that has some links to China should be allowed to buy the Telegraph, I don’t care much either way, as long as I can access the media I want to and look up who owns it. It does seem like they’re trying to set a precedent for blocking foreign outlets they don’t like though.

“both sides of the Israel-Palestine War”

Why are they still talking like this? Disgraceful

I don’t think many people are gonna have “hot takes” based on a vaguely titled article behind a paywall.

Also “scandals” to do with the Chinese military have little to do with someone saying that Taiwanese military badges don’t prove anything about the situation in China.

Agreed.

https://theonion.com/you-cant-even-watch-a-movie-anymore-without-seeing-some-theme-explored/

What do you even mean here?

Any decision about censorship is a compromise of some kind between open communication/access to information and the prevention of the spread of content that could be deemed harmful in some way or another.

Maybe I’m just being thick right now but I’m really not sure who are supposed to be the “children”. It seems it could just as easily be the CPC for being uncompromising in their censorship of the internet, fascist trolls who say they should have a right to use slurs and disinformation to incite violence, or liberals who are unwilling to accept that a hardline stance needs to be taken to censor the fascists.

I’m unsure if this is an enlightened centrist take, you saying the CPC (and similar) do what needs to be done or that we need our freedom and the commenter above is the child. Whatever you mean, your comment (at least to me) comes across a bit rude and unconstructive.

Ok your comment successfully ragebaited me so tbh I’m probably the child.

Edit: changed CCP to CPC because that is the technically correct term, even though for some reason most English language outlets use “CCP”

I know. I never said they were the same. I’m trying to say that this comes across like a zionist strawman.

Complaining about antisemitism right now is just cringe.

Jews have a right to exist. Israel doesn’t.

There are genuine concerns about people promoting “Israel” to benefit from the extermination of the Palestinian people, and that’s what this looks like a strawman of, to me.

And to be clear, I don’t think “the Jews” are behind this. It’s largely rich and powerful people from the US (and UK and other countries), who often consider themselves to be Christian.

I’m not trying to defend the crazy guy in the comic. I’m trying to say that we shouldn’t be pretending this guy is representative of anyone who matters.

Well sure… but this is a political comic that’s basically saying “these crazy people hate the Jews and blame them for everything”.

Obviously you can post whatever you want and there surely are crazy people like this, but to me this comes across as though it could be trying to discredit certain criticisms and seems in bad taste right now. It doesn’t really matter what you say you personally believe.

But if you find this funny then sure. I’m not trying to have your post removed or anything.

Nobody should be defending Israel right now.

Someone might go further than that but we’re not allowed to say anything positive about groups like Palestine Action or anyone trying to protect Palestinians.