Socialism is when nobody does any work
![User banner]()
Grerkol @ Grerkol @leminal.space 帖子 0评论 28加入于 3 mo. ago
Grerkol @ Grerkol @leminal.space
帖子
0
评论
28
加入于
3 mo. ago
Ok... I'll bite.
How is this supposed to be funny and/or what kind of commentary is being made here? I think I already know the answer and if I was a mod I'd probably ban you, but I'm taking the bait here so feel free to argue.
I think I know all of these apart from the Arabic one (which is hard for me to look up since I don't know Arabic)
(Top, "made up nonsense")
- CGTN is China Global Television Network and is an international outlet ran by the Chinese government
- Telesur seems slightly more complicated than the rest, in that it's owned in part by 3 different Latin American governments (Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba), though it's headquartered in Venezuela. I actually often watch/listen to Telesur because it streams 24/7 on Youtube and I've been trying to teach myself Spanish (obviously it's also available in English). It's very anti-US.
- RT is Russia Today and is probably the most hated news channel in the west, since it's ran by Russia. A lot of major online platforms have banned or censored it for "misinformation"
(Bottom, "so true")
- NPR is (US) National Public Radio, funded partly by the US government but also by some limited advertising. NPR seems to have the best reputation among US liberals out of all these stations
- VoA (Voice of America) and RFA (Radio Free Asia) can kinda be lumped together. They were both made and ran by the US gov to broadcast pro-US/anti-communist propaganda internationally, and have never really deviated from that. I don't know how many people unironically take them seriously, considering there are other outlets with similar perspectives that aren't such blatant propaganda
- BBC (British Broadcasting Company) News is the UK government state news... a lot of genocide denial from them recently
I spent longer than I thought I would typing this, but I hope somebody cares and tells me what the Arabic one is (or just corrects/adds anything else I missed out or got wrong)... Hope it was interesting/helpful though.
Bruh... not everything that happens is a distraction from another thing that happened
I mean... I wasn't trying to mock you as a person, only your politics.
I wasn't being very direct and constructive, but I was trying to address some of what you were saying, albeit in a sarcastic way. I'm sure you don't love Mark Zuckerberg and worship the free market like my caricature though. I tried to make my tone clear, but I appreciate that it's hard online, especially for autistic people.
This is just the same kind of libertarian talking points again. Good job that you don't personally like or use Twitter or Facebook, but big tech is always gonna act in the interest of capitalists and try to create monopolies that control information (at least in The West©).
Not sure what sources of information you like, but I guarantee you they're either very obscure, discredited by propaganda or have similar problems to the social media you hate so much. Social media itself also affects what ordinary people can share and what they can communicate with others around the world.
All you're really doing is responding to the guy yankin' your chain by repeating yourself and saying I misrepresent you when I troll you.
I’m not even saying that
proceeds to explain how to vote with your wallet, how monopolies wouldn't exist if people were smarter and that nobody needs these things anyway
🗽
I love how tech CEOs contribute so much. I mean, they built the internet! Their platforms got so big fair and square, and the free market never creates harmful monopolies. Just vote with your wallet. These freeloaders who think corporations that I OWN (my property) should be controlled or even stolen from me by the general public (lazy ignorant people who do NOTHING for society) piss me off so much!
Anyway, these tankies don't even understand "communism". It's supposed to be when only hard working people like Mark Zuckerberg and I have any say (I mean, I won in the free market, so that makes me the rightful authority). Don't listen to these fools, my fellow entrepeneur. I love you.
That's like saying "I'm racist"
Ok but this isn't really the same thing. A home isn't a tool you rent just to use when you need it. Everyone needs a shelter to live in.
You give two reasons it's preferable to rent rather than own your home:
- You have to store it.
That's just ridiculous.
- You have to maintain it.
You do realise that you're still paying to maintain it, right? The landlord is just also taking extra. Even if the landlord were charging you only what was strictly necessary for maintenance (which they aren't), they'd still have unnecessary leverage over you just for existing in a space.
Don't try to make excuses for landlords. We all know they're vermin. They're not doing you any favours by forcing you to keep paying high prices to live.
(Edit: formatting)
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I'd realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no "good person" simply owns a residential property that they don't live in.
I know I'm not who you're replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on
It seems like you only want people with certain "values" to be able to vote. What even are a nation's "values" anyway? Most of the time I hear that it's just vague nationalist propaganda about how our nation and our people are wonderful. I will admit that's a bit of a specific nitpick though.
As for "the structure of government and the content of the constitution", I honestly don't think the details of how laws are passed or how many seats are in congress, etc, matter much when it comes to deciding which policies you support and which party you'll vote for.
By their very nature, laws like this exclude people who are less educated and have less free time and/or motivation to study for your test. These are almost always going to be also the most disadvantaged and poorly treated people in society.
It's always just
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)
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.
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.
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"