this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
-1 points (33.3% liked)

World News

32317 readers
1018 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

What does incarceration rate have to do with how good the country is?

not "how good it is" "How it treats its people" America locks up its people way more (531/100k) than other China (119/100k). Is imprisoning people treating them well?

Kids in cages. There's some photo's there and I think you'll probably respect WaPo as a source.

removed externally hosted image

You can try again but I'm gonna guess that it is just a picture of a building or some prisoners with no context on how many people are there or why they are there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I apologize for saying "how good it is." I was in a rush and couldn't think of a better phrase.

I just read through the article from the Washington Post you linked. That really is bad and I believe that the Trump government should not have treated the (although illegal) immigrants. The grim appearance of that facility really isn't something that the immigrants should have faced when they set foot on the US. However, compare that to the situation in Xinjiang. Here is an opinion post from the Washington Post. What China is doing to its Uyghurs is genocide. Not that it justifies anything that the US have done to its immigrants, but in comparison what the US is doing seem pretty mild.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No offence but your lack of media literacy is showing..

You understand that using WaPo as a source for American wrong doings is not the same as using WaPo as a source for wrong doings it's geopolitical rival. You'd need a Chinese outlet admitting to their faults for it to be equivalent..

Nonetheless I clicked on your link:

The disclosure comes in an investigative report from the Associated Press and a new research report by scholar Adrian Zenz for the Jamestown Foundation.

Literally the second paragraph...

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

I hope I don't sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it's convenient for you. Besides, the media in China are heavily controlled by the government. I don't think a news outlet would survive if they dared to report such things.

Literally the second paragraph...

Sorry, I don't understand how that makes this any less trustworthy?

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

I hope I don’t sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it’s convenient for you.

That's not quite what they're saying. They're saying WaPo is also subject to censorship and coercion, so their word holds more weight when it's a topic where they might be penalised for publishing. If you don't think there are any Chinese sources that can publish things critical of China, then you can still follow carl_marks_1312's methodology in part by finding articles from sources with a free press but geopolitically aligned with China.

Sorry, I don’t understand how that makes this any less trustworthy?

To us, Adrian Zenz automatically means you can dismiss the evidence. The person you're talking to went in with that assumption, and then was lambasting you for not noticing such an obvious and glaring problem with the article. So that's where the disconnect comes from. Of course without that assumption the comment doesn't make sense.

Zenz is a garbage person, but more importantly he's not reliable. He's verifiably been caught lying several times. The tweet you commented on is out of context. I don't know what the context is, it probably doesn't change what's being said, but without reading the context I can't know if it's a justifiable thing to say. Perhaps it was. Perhaps he was explaining Nazi mentality without trying to justify it. It doesn't matter. Zenz is a bad source because he's a liar primarily. He uses bad science and statistics, he makes wild inferences, he pretends not to notice mistakes that he must've noticed, etc. He only ever cites circular sources. That is to say media reports of his own publishings.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)