3 ms·

seanmc accused contigenics of "only getting their news from xinhua". This is on intellectual par with responding to a slightly liberal argument by saying "stop

by IIAOPSW 11y ago

seanmc accused contigenics of "only getting their news from xinhua". This is on intellectual par with responding to a slightly liberal argument by saying "stop watching fox news". I merely speculated on contigenics nationality to point out the that he/she likely does not only watch xinhua. I stand by my speculation, but it is not central to the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is "Let's not dismiss every pro China comment as CPC shilling".

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
It is obvious that contigenics is in China, they admitted that in their post; you were only calling out nationality, but that isn't even relevant. If they don't have a VPN, like I don't, where else are they getting news from? NYT is blocked, WSJ is blocked, BBC is blocked. You don't have to tell me to "stop reading NYT" because I can't! So your whole argument makes an assumption that is not even technically correct. So what argument are you making here? That all news sites are freely available for browsing in the PRC? Because if that's the case, well, we obviously live in different worlds.
- IIAOPSW 11y ago
  You aren't addressing what contigenics said. You are just filling in whatever you wish they had said and attacking that. This is called a straw-man argument. Let's look again at the source material: "Wow, yet another anti-China article from NYT. I can't get over the volume and frequency. Things look pretty good on the ground here!" No one said anything about the availability of news sources. Contigenics simply pointed out that the article in discussion is incongruous with what you are likely to see on the ground in China. He/she further points out that NYT seems to publish a disproportionate number of negative stories on China (which may also be of dubious veracity). Therefore it is worth entertaining the possibility that the NYT might be full of shit. This possibility is independent of whatever qualm you wish to raise with regards to CPC journalism policy.
  - gress 11y ago
    Where do you think contingenics is getting their information if not from the local press?
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    > Therefore it is worth entertaining the possibility that the NYT might be full of shit. Irrelevant: we have no way of knowing, it's blocked. So whatever we want to say about CPC vs, NYT journalism is irrelevant, we are only getting the former. Unless you have a VPN, you are vastly uninformed - it is quite simple! You just don't seem to get that, at all. Contigenics made an observation from China, where news sources are very limited because of the CPC. It is not from a position of open access to knowledge. You refuse to acknowledge that aggressive censorship exists in the PRC, but it is a verifiable fact. Come visit China and try to access NYT. Or buy a newspaper in the airport with blacked out articles. Censorship taints all discussions about Chinese vs. Western press, it is there, everyone know it is there, and it can't be ignored or brushed off as some silliness. I've been here for 8 years and that just becomes more and more true; only the apologists think otherwise.
    - IIAOPSW 11y ago
      >Unless you have a VPN, you are vastly uninformed >If they don't have a VPN, like I don't Modus Ponens you are uninformed. > I've been here for 8 years and that just becomes more and more true See, you are doing exactly what contigenics did. You are trying to inform me about China by appealing to your personal experience within China. But by your logic I should be able to simply dismiss you because you don't have access to all news sources and are thus uninformed. I'm not comparing Chinese press and Western press. I am pointing out that people within China (like you, me and Contigenics) add value to the conversation in spite of censorship by telling us what things are actually like on the ground. If you did read NYT and WSJ et al, you might believe that the sky was falling in China. I know when I look on the streets of Shanghai, I see a people absorbed in their new found consumerist appetite rushing to buy the most fashionable knock-off status symbol and post their moments on wechat. The sky is not falling anytime soon. Perhaps things are different for you?

by IIAOPSW 11y ago

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

It is obvious that contigenics is in China, they admitted that in their post; you were only calling out nationality, but that isn't even relevant. If they don't have a VPN, like I don't, where else are they getting news from? NYT is blocked, WSJ is blocked, BBC is blocked. You don't have to tell me to "stop reading NYT" because I can't! So your whole argument makes an assumption that is not even technically correct. So what argument are you making here? That all news sites are freely available for browsing in the PRC? Because if that's the case, well, we obviously live in different worlds.

IIAOPSW 11y ago
You aren't addressing what contigenics said. You are just filling in whatever you wish they had said and attacking that. This is called a straw-man argument. Let's look again at the source material: "Wow, yet another anti-China article from NYT. I can't get over the volume and frequency. Things look pretty good on the ground here!" No one said anything about the availability of news sources. Contigenics simply pointed out that the article in discussion is incongruous with what you are likely to see on the ground in China. He/she further points out that NYT seems to publish a disproportionate number of negative stories on China (which may also be of dubious veracity). Therefore it is worth entertaining the possibility that the NYT might be full of shit. This possibility is independent of whatever qualm you wish to raise with regards to CPC journalism policy.
- gress 11y ago
  Where do you think contingenics is getting their information if not from the local press?
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  > Therefore it is worth entertaining the possibility that the NYT might be full of shit. Irrelevant: we have no way of knowing, it's blocked. So whatever we want to say about CPC vs, NYT journalism is irrelevant, we are only getting the former. Unless you have a VPN, you are vastly uninformed - it is quite simple! You just don't seem to get that, at all. Contigenics made an observation from China, where news sources are very limited because of the CPC. It is not from a position of open access to knowledge. You refuse to acknowledge that aggressive censorship exists in the PRC, but it is a verifiable fact. Come visit China and try to access NYT. Or buy a newspaper in the airport with blacked out articles. Censorship taints all discussions about Chinese vs. Western press, it is there, everyone know it is there, and it can't be ignored or brushed off as some silliness. I've been here for 8 years and that just becomes more and more true; only the apologists think otherwise.
  - IIAOPSW 11y ago
    >Unless you have a VPN, you are vastly uninformed >If they don't have a VPN, like I don't Modus Ponens you are uninformed. > I've been here for 8 years and that just becomes more and more true See, you are doing exactly what contigenics did. You are trying to inform me about China by appealing to your personal experience within China. But by your logic I should be able to simply dismiss you because you don't have access to all news sources and are thus uninformed. I'm not comparing Chinese press and Western press. I am pointing out that people within China (like you, me and Contigenics) add value to the conversation in spite of censorship by telling us what things are actually like on the ground. If you did read NYT and WSJ et al, you might believe that the sky was falling in China. I know when I look on the streets of Shanghai, I see a people absorbed in their new found consumerist appetite rushing to buy the most fashionable knock-off status symbol and post their moments on wechat. The sky is not falling anytime soon. Perhaps things are different for you?