81–90 of 137 posts
> It’s impressive to see the pace of Chinese censors. I'm not sure that impressive is the right term here...
It is. If someone eats 100 hot dogs in 20 minutes, you might still say "That's impressive" but also feel horrified and sickened.
For instance, if a nourishing lake had suddenly dried up, I'd use a different word. Perhaps devastating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably going to attract a lot of hate: why is conservancy such an important idea? I mean for a lot of websites, sure, I'd very much like to see that sort of thing backed up someplace but I've never once treated an Internet-based source as permanent. If I felt like it was something that would go away someday and that I would sorely miss, I downloaded it. I just don't understand and am curious where this idea…
> where this idea comes from that the Internet must be archived. Once newspapers finally kick the bucket (which is happening right now, in slow motion), all the information about our world will only be available in this ephemeral form - ready to be rewritten, manipulated or discarded by our rulers like China does now. Surely that is a terrifying thought, even if you haven't read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 ...? The accoun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a dude with a comedy show on HBO. How is it 'clearly another attempt of propaganda directed at these countries'? It's not like he's on VOA every week.
In a given year, Oliver's content reaches dramatically more than 10x the number of people that VOA does. He has a platform and he's pushing an ideological view. He isn't just a dude with a comedy show on HBO. That same argument was used to try to undercut critics of Jon Stewart, who similarly had a massive reach and was aggressively pushing a specific ideological view, using comedy to do so. It doesn't matter if you'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it. So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice. Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propagan…
Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though: >...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sur…
> using loaded language
You mean like using a loaded word like "propaganda" to describe "rhetoric" and "honest debate"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 20th century changed the meaning of the word to be more about manipulation, where as the original definition was neutral. [1] The manipulation suggested deceitfulness on the part of the party creating and distributing it. So it's one of these things where OP can use a politically charged word, and then claim it was used in the neutral voice. Personally, rather than have an argument about what amounts to "propagan…
Sure that's fair. He's been guilty of this part though: >...often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. And honestly, what major news outlet today _isn't_? Is that not a huge problem with "mainstream media" (I hate that term) currently? So... still not sur…
I think Oliver's segment is more accurately classified as an op-ed piece with some satire, it's not propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. I think the key word there is misleading . Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaga…
>I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously (specifically thinking about some comments he made on the wage gap, but I'd have to hunt for others.)
Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda?
Oliver's recent Xi Jinping segment wasn't propaganda, it was an op-ed/satire that was obviously produced under length constraints.
If your operational definition of propaganda allows you to label all expressions of opinion as propaganda unless they're ponderously lengthy (so as to never omit a thing that some critic might want to see), then I think your definition is flawed.
[flagged]
I don't agree with the censorship decision, but I completely get why other countries don't like Oliver's show. He likes to denounce other countries' politics from the point of view of liberal, first world policy, which may not be in the best interest of other nations. Even though he is doing comedy for the first world market, it comes off clearly as another attempt of propaganda directed at these countries. The way C…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's safe until we mention Winnie the Pooh. Woops. Context: in his China segment, Oliver asserts that China has banned Winnie the Pooh from the internet because it was used to mock the president. And then he (Oliver) used tons of Winnie the Pooh references. We already are seeing a lot of partisan arguments in this thread (as one could have expected, I guess). For my part, I don't care about the politics on th…
It won't work, China is perfectly happy to block every external Web site as necessary. They're fine with relying solely on their internal network, they've structured things to that end as it is now. Censorship does work if you're willing to insulate your nation from external media, as they prove time and time again that they are. That's why censorship has worked in North Korea for nearly 70 years. It works if you're…
If it's the case, it's not just only their population opinion that matters, but they need to have a good reputation in the world - that is, if they really want to be a part of it.
With US withdrawing from the world, China has a good opportunity. But the tyranny/autocracy archaism won't fly past their borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact libertarians were originally socialists, railing against capitalism as a tool of the state, back when the state used to break up eg strikes with violence. See Oscar Wilde for instance, “Man’s soul under socialism.”
The word still carries that connotation in some places. The Center of Libertarian Culture, in my EU country, is left-wing anarchist.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/3ucp8y/...