3 ms·

I have no good opinion on whether or not China, the nation and its government, should be considered an "enemy". But reasonable people can believe a government i

I have no good opinion on whether or not China, the nation and its government, should be considered an "enemy". But reasonable people can believe a government is an antagonist, while not blaming individuals from that nation. If people are getting confused, or are just plain racist, and are blaming individuals for the sins of a government, then that's the problem to solve. But the way to solve it isn't by avoiding uncomfortable truths about governments (or about anything).

ahelwer 6y ago
This "I hate the government, not the people" schtick is a cop out. The Chinese people overwhelmingly support the actions of their government. Beyond that, the idea that the media can wash their hands of this because people should know they're talking about the Chinese government, not Chinese people, is just incredibly generous to a class of people who absolutely know what they are doing.
- solipsism 6y ago
  The Chinese people overwhelmingly support the actions of their government. How is that relevant? A person who disagrees with me isn't my enemy. Beyond that, the idea that the media can wash their hands of this because people should know they're talking about the Chinese government, not Chinese people, is just incredibly generous to a class of people who absolutely know what they are doing. I can't figure out what you're saying here. What do they know they're doing? And do you have any evidence of your claim?
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    What they are doing is establishing a shared belief among Americans that Chinese people are deserving of punishment (implied: via military means). For evidence I refer you to the book Manufacturing Consent by well-known computer scientist & political activist Noam Chomsky, who details how the US media again and again has used a strategy of selective reporting to categorize the world's people as deserving or undeserving victims in line with America's foreign policy goals.
    - solipsism 6y ago
      The media are colluding to purposefully shift the mindset of American citizens toward believing that Chinese people deserve punishment? This has the ring of a full-on conspiracy theory. Sorry, but I don't believe for a second that the media could effectively collude on anything of that nature. Certainly not to the point of effectively gradually shifting American sentiment. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen these days. No one has time to read every book by every conspiracy theorist.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        Chomsky's model does not rely on a conspiracy for the media to function the way it does. It simply follows from incentives. Cribbing from the wikipedia article, we have: The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are: (1) Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers. (2) The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers. (3) Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12] (4) Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12] (5) Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism. Also it must be remarked: calling Chomsky a conspiracy theorist? On hacker news? Come on, man. This is an extensively researched, respected, and cited work.
dtn 6y ago
> But reasonable people can believe a government is an antagonist, while not blaming individuals from that nation. That's the exception, not the rule, from my experience. It takes very little to go from "fuck China" to "fuck Chinese people". > If people are getting confused, or are just plain racist, and are blaming individuals for the sins of a government, then that's the problem to solve. Is this seen as a problem for the powers that be? Will it ever be addressed? It's just collateral damage from what I can see- same as how brown people were treated during the War on Terror. I'm glad that there's a bit more visibility on this topic, but it's nowhere near solved. I doubt it can ever be solved, cynical as it sounds.

ahelwer 6y ago

This "I hate the government, not the people" schtick is a cop out. The Chinese people overwhelmingly support the actions of their government. Beyond that, the idea that the media can wash their hands of this because people should know they're talking about the Chinese government, not Chinese people, is just incredibly generous to a class of people who absolutely know what they are doing.

solipsism 6y ago
The Chinese people overwhelmingly support the actions of their government. How is that relevant? A person who disagrees with me isn't my enemy. Beyond that, the idea that the media can wash their hands of this because people should know they're talking about the Chinese government, not Chinese people, is just incredibly generous to a class of people who absolutely know what they are doing. I can't figure out what you're saying here. What do they know they're doing? And do you have any evidence of your claim?
- ahelwer 6y ago
  What they are doing is establishing a shared belief among Americans that Chinese people are deserving of punishment (implied: via military means). For evidence I refer you to the book Manufacturing Consent by well-known computer scientist & political activist Noam Chomsky, who details how the US media again and again has used a strategy of selective reporting to categorize the world's people as deserving or undeserving victims in line with America's foreign policy goals.
  - solipsism 6y ago
    The media are colluding to purposefully shift the mindset of American citizens toward believing that Chinese people deserve punishment? This has the ring of a full-on conspiracy theory. Sorry, but I don't believe for a second that the media could effectively collude on anything of that nature. Certainly not to the point of effectively gradually shifting American sentiment. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen these days. No one has time to read every book by every conspiracy theorist.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Chomsky's model does not rely on a conspiracy for the media to function the way it does. It simply follows from incentives. Cribbing from the wikipedia article, we have: The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are: (1) Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers. (2) The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers. (3) Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12] (4) Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12] (5) Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism. Also it must be remarked: calling Chomsky a conspiracy theorist? On hacker news? Come on, man. This is an extensively researched, respected, and cited work.

dtn 6y ago

> But reasonable people can believe a government is an antagonist, while not blaming individuals from that nation. That's the exception, not the rule, from my experience. It takes very little to go from "fuck China" to "fuck Chinese people". > If people are getting confused, or are just plain racist, and are blaming individuals for the sins of a government, then that's the problem to solve. Is this seen as a problem for the powers that be? Will it ever be addressed? It's just collateral damage from what I can see- same as how brown people were treated during the War on Terror. I'm glad that there's a bit more visibility on this topic, but it's nowhere near solved. I doubt it can ever be solved, cynical as it sounds.