- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
What? Why would the Australian state stop academics from criticizing China when it’s busy manufacturing consent for war with China? I’m sure it’s very much encouraging academia to criticize China.
Has nothing to do with international politics or government diplomacy…
… it’s coming from the universities themselves, because they’re run as private businesses already, and they service the needs of international students as their primary income.
Which means some censorship of Chinese political history. Eg. Tianamen.
This is wrong on so many levels 😂 If you’re this propagandized, then I’m sure you don’t know what actually happened in and around Tiananmen Square, which by the way is not even censored in China like we’re always told.
- The Tian’anmen Square ‘Massacre’: The West’s Most Persuasive, Most Pervasive Lie.
- Columbia Journalism Review: The Myth of Tiananmen
- 1989 Tian’anmen Square riots
- A Note on the Tiananmen Protests
- Images from Tiananmen 1989 the West never shows (NSFW / CW: violence and death)
- Tank Man video footage. Tiananmen Square, Beijing, 1989
- How psy-ops warriors fooled me about Tiananmen Square: a warning
- [Carl Zha’s] Memories of Tiananmen Protest
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Global rule 2Good luck with that, reporter.
Those aren’t Australian universities, what are you even on about? China doesn’t even have YouTube.
…also none of them are recent.
Here you go: Chinese censorship on Australian Universities, 2021, by Reuters:
You know… The actual topic… from somewhere actually relevant.
These kinds of news articles are an example of how universities are being increasingly pressured by state actors to be more critical of China.
High numbers of Chinese students at Australian universities have created an environment of self-censorship with lecturers avoiding criticism of Beijing and Chinese students staying silent in fear of harassment, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch’s core mission is to publish negative propaganda about states that the US wants to have regime changed. The purpose of this article is to put pressure on universities to get in line with the new cold war.
Citations Needed podcast: Episode 08: The Human Rights Concern Troll Industrial Complex
I try to lead folks toward developing real media literacy: https://lemmy.ml/post/17665401/12094932
… you’re posting a podcast titled “CitationS Needed” that’s clearly trying to pass its self off as famous YouTuber Tom Scott’s “Citation Needed” (no plural) and it features Trump supporter, Glenn Greenwald (his fall from grace and later support of Trump is well documented, up there with Michael Moore, and Matt Tabili).
https://link.motherjones.com/public/35592388
It’s pretty sad that this is your idea of media literacy - name swapped podcasts and deadbeat Trump supporters.
Who did I present as evidence again? A small news agency known as Reuters? …and your idea of media litteracy is - a podcast pretending to be a more famous podcast.
Okay, stay confidently incorrect in the Five Eyes corporate media bubble then 👍
Reason: Rule 2
Good luck with that, @[email protected]
Yup. Clear violation of the rules.
That’s pathetic. That’s a pathetic misunderstanding of geopolitics and the nature of modern intelligence infrastructure.
You’re still in the mindset of “Having SIGINT = bad guys”.
As if places like Russia, and North Korea would just be magical kingdoms of freedom and accountability if they just didn’t have signals intelligence!
That’s stupid. What differentiates the west (much like what differentiates good media sources from bad) - is accountability, and oversight.
Anyways I’ll let you get back to your petty fears and misunderstanding the basic lay of the informational and geopolitical landscapes. Maybe if Trump magically wins the election Glenn Greenwald will spend Trump’s time in office attacking the Democrats and defending Trump and Russia again. I’m sure you’d enjoy that.
The crypto-rightwing are just like that. Aren’t you. Semi-pro-authoritarians who don’t understand what causes freedom, and think it’s something about being a soldier of fortune for a foreign state, or something that comes from “the barrel of a gun”. Idiots believing they’re freedom fighters popping some imaginary info-bubble.
You don’t know how lucky you are, or how good you have it, or why… That’s your problem, and your weakness.
… you’re posting a podcast titled “CitationS Needed” that’s clearly trying to pass its self off as famous YouTuber Tom Scott’s “Citation Needed” (no plural
This amounts to a conspiracy theory. It’s a completely different kind of format and the hosts introduce themselves up front. If it’s a knock-off, it’s not a very effortful one. You’d probably have an easier time saying they stole the name, because it’s a very good name.
Sorry, not everyone is willing to take: Random guy said it on a podcast, (or defender of Trump said it on a podcast cast) as a source worth listening to for trusted reporting.
Not to mention the rudeness of just assigning someone a podcast in an online discussion, or the fact the podcast had no relevance to the topic of whether Australian universities are self-censoring due to reasons of; Capitalist exchange.
Whether the podcast is relevant or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether it is credible or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether you are justified in feeling offended over it? Nothing to do with what I said.
For my own mental health I’m going to just not take the bait which is that parenthetical. Instead, I would like to focus on how “I refuse to listen to even two minutes of this podcast because I don’t like its pedigree” is not actually a go-ahead to blindly presume things about it like the conspiracy theory I initially pointed out. You can refuse to listen to it, that’s fine, but that puts you in a position of lacking a lot of information for making assertions about it. What that means is that what you can do is ignore it, or say you don’t want to engage with it for such and such a reason that you actually have good reason to believe and then leave it there. That’s how epistemology works.
