3 ms·

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. L

by 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?
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    The original comment was: NYT is way too negative, all they do is say bad things about china; on the ground (in China), everything looks perfectly fine. My reply: if all you read is xinhua, you wouldn't see it. Western press provides us with information, even negative information, in uncertain times. That is all good. Your reply: westerner performing an ad hominem by calling parent a Xinhua wumao shill; you should be ashamed of yourself! So please excuse me if I took offense. I do read western press...at work where I can. But I feel like I'm in a bubble starved for information since the Chinese press is so biased and unreliable, which isn't great in these very uncertain times. NYT provides valuable information, mostly solid reporting (this article isn't even controversial at all, even by Chinese standards), information that tells me if I should make a dash for the bank and convert my RMB savings into dollars and get it out of the country! We won't know that the sky has fallen until it hits the ground. For now, we are stuck reading tea leafs to figure out what will happen next. We live in interesting times.

by IIAOPSW 11y ago

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?
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  The original comment was: NYT is way too negative, all they do is say bad things about china; on the ground (in China), everything looks perfectly fine. My reply: if all you read is xinhua, you wouldn't see it. Western press provides us with information, even negative information, in uncertain times. That is all good. Your reply: westerner performing an ad hominem by calling parent a Xinhua wumao shill; you should be ashamed of yourself! So please excuse me if I took offense. I do read western press...at work where I can. But I feel like I'm in a bubble starved for information since the Chinese press is so biased and unreliable, which isn't great in these very uncertain times. NYT provides valuable information, mostly solid reporting (this article isn't even controversial at all, even by Chinese standards), information that tells me if I should make a dash for the bank and convert my RMB savings into dollars and get it out of the country! We won't know that the sky has fallen until it hits the ground. For now, we are stuck reading tea leafs to figure out what will happen next. We live in interesting times.