carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]

  • 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlGreat deal ngl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    their users tend to talk in a very demeaning and insulting manner.

    About half of the popular posts on Hexbear are about making fun of people or communities

    it’s more about their toxic behaviour

    This can be interpreted as bad faith if you don’t mention towards whom this behavior is directed at.

    Their political views are less of an issue

    Thank you for admitting it’s about the optics (which is not a concern for us)




  • I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones.

    You’re strawmaning hard here, because I never said it’s a definition or that it’s the only one. It’s just my understanding of the term. What part of it is wrong in your opinion? I want to consider it

    It’s your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

    Because it’s obvious that when you’re challenged on your understanding of words you have nothing to say?



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

    Is it really that hard to consider context?

    Thoughtexperiment: You have a neo-nazi outlet having two reports. One is citing high ranking fascists talking about problems in their organization spilling insider knowledge that no other outlet wrote about. A second report is on ethnic and sexual minorities. Would you consider these two reports to be of the same value or would you “consider one of them when convenient for you”? (Don’t actually read Nazi outlets obv)

    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.

    I said for the source to be equivalent. Ofc you can cite a western source, but I’ll read it like its a neo-nazi rag writing about ethnic minorities aka it being heavily biased

    Also just an fyi there are Chinese outlets reporting on Xinjiang…

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

    Please read up on Adrian Zenz, read about the methodology and the report on Xinjiang itself and think if it’s not suspensious that every western outlet cites him (or military funded think Tanks like ASPI) and his very thin findings

    Also here’s an QA with Zenz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwy7KE7WoNo (The non cringy edit is hard to find, I wonder why that is)