this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
40 points (88.5% liked)

Memes

53486 readers
498 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago (41 children)

Sources:

  • china news propaganda site
  • medium article from rando
  • project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news)
  • a wiki page from an incredibly biased group
  • a youtube link...
  • a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books)
  • a substack link

This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you've provided proof of something. All you've done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…

Previously:

The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.

The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.

This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.

The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”

None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.


* I’ve criticized MBFC & Ad Fontes before:

[–] dangrousperson@feddit.org -3 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

It's OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the Chineses Government in this matter is beyond me.

Did you not see the insanely violent crack down on Hong Kong Democracy Movement with you own eyes? Do you not remember Tianamen Square? Great Fire-Wall?

Theres liyteraly over 10GB or evidence of the persecution of Uyghurs by the Chinese Government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_Police_Files

I can understand not wanting to believe/trust the US and EU Govs, but trusting the Chinese Government is (IMO) insane.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It’s OK to distrust more than one Government

Then you should try it, you hypocritical dipshit. You believe everything that comes out of the western propaganda machine without question, and then assume anyone who doesn't believe them are "believing the Chinese government"

If it were 2002 you would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq of having WMDs of "believing Saddam!"

Do you not remember Tianamen Square

So do you do this in the opposite direction? When people doubt a claim made by China, do you start randomly bringing up unrelated events from forty years ago. What exactly was the chain of reasoning that made you thought this was relevant? Oh right, there wasn't one: you've just been trained like a literal dog to compulsively blurt out "Tinyman Square!" every time you hear the word "China".

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Cursing

get a load of this

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

That's the reddit mindset: being as rude, condescending, and smug as humanly possible is fine, but a naughty word is just uncivil.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)