4 ms·

It’s not quite the same - it’s far more critical.

by zepto 5y ago

monocasa 5y ago
I disagree.
- zepto 5y ago
  ‘tensions continue to rise over the death of an ethnic minority in a agrarian province at the hands of state security forces’ Is absolutely nothing compared to the mountains of analysis of how racist and brutal the US police are, likening them to slave patrols, citing statistics about how often unarmed black people are killed, criticizing the Supreme Court for qualified immunity, explaining the overpolicing of trivial crimes in poor neighborhood and underpolicing of serious crimes that harm this same neighborhoods, the school to prison pipeline etc. etc. You’d be forgiven for thinking we live in an open society with a free press where people are unafraid to criticize the government and police.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It's a cute, but direct attack on the Imperialism that underpins the issues, including the function of police domestically. And the police here are racist, brutal, and mostly above legal consequences. The media here generally stops short of examining the power structures that makes that the case. It's more oh dearism than actionable information. And have you seen China's media? The allow and even encourage complaints about local government, including in mass media. What you've stated about "an open society with a free press" not some high bar of freedom, but generally used as a pressure release valve for malcontent that does nothing to address why it's like that in the first place. They, like the US, love a good story that let's them "fight corruption" in a way that doesn't change why the corruption was allowed to fester in the first place.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > They allow and even encourage complaints about local government. But not the communist party or it’s officials, eh? You can’t seriously be claiming that China is a more open society which allows greater media analysis of it’s power structures.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        I claimed nothing of the sort; I'm not sure how you jumped to that. I'm simply pointing out that the ability for media to complain about the local actions of security forces, .gov policy decisions, and the occasional high ranking official who serves as a focal point for malcontent does not make for a free and open society, using an example that we can both agree is neither free nor open.
        zepto 5y ago
        > media to complain about the local actions of security forces, .gov policy decisions, and the occasional high ranking official who serves as a focal point for malcontent does not make for a free and open society, using an example that we can both agree is neither free nor open Yes. I assert that this describes China, but not the US. Are you claiming it also describes the US? Which powerful individual or institutions do you think are protected from criticism?

It’s not quite the same - it’s far more critical.

by zepto 5y ago

It’s not quite the same - it’s far more critical.

monocasa 5y ago

I disagree.

zepto 5y ago
‘tensions continue to rise over the death of an ethnic minority in a agrarian province at the hands of state security forces’ Is absolutely nothing compared to the mountains of analysis of how racist and brutal the US police are, likening them to slave patrols, citing statistics about how often unarmed black people are killed, criticizing the Supreme Court for qualified immunity, explaining the overpolicing of trivial crimes in poor neighborhood and underpolicing of serious crimes that harm this same neighborhoods, the school to prison pipeline etc. etc. You’d be forgiven for thinking we live in an open society with a free press where people are unafraid to criticize the government and police.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's a cute, but direct attack on the Imperialism that underpins the issues, including the function of police domestically. And the police here are racist, brutal, and mostly above legal consequences. The media here generally stops short of examining the power structures that makes that the case. It's more oh dearism than actionable information. And have you seen China's media? The allow and even encourage complaints about local government, including in mass media. What you've stated about "an open society with a free press" not some high bar of freedom, but generally used as a pressure release valve for malcontent that does nothing to address why it's like that in the first place. They, like the US, love a good story that let's them "fight corruption" in a way that doesn't change why the corruption was allowed to fester in the first place.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > They allow and even encourage complaints about local government. But not the communist party or it’s officials, eh? You can’t seriously be claiming that China is a more open society which allows greater media analysis of it’s power structures.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I claimed nothing of the sort; I'm not sure how you jumped to that. I'm simply pointing out that the ability for media to complain about the local actions of security forces, .gov policy decisions, and the occasional high ranking official who serves as a focal point for malcontent does not make for a free and open society, using an example that we can both agree is neither free nor open.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > media to complain about the local actions of security forces, .gov policy decisions, and the occasional high ranking official who serves as a focal point for malcontent does not make for a free and open society, using an example that we can both agree is neither free nor open Yes. I assert that this describes China, but not the US. Are you claiming it also describes the US? Which powerful individual or institutions do you think are protected from criticism?