241–250 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same happened to South Park where the network ended up censoring a depiction of Muhammad - well, in the one episode, in an earlier one it was still up. And thankfully they didn't quit, they ran with it because it points out the hypocrisy, double standards, and weird morals that the US networks have.
Lives were literally at stake in that particular instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't fight censorship by doubling down on censorship. It's entirely possible to show the uncensored version in America and raise awareness that the segment was censored in other regions.
It's entirely possible to fight censorship by selectively doubling down on censorship when you know or suspect the effect of that censorship will backfire and have the opposite result. It's not just about what you do, it's about the outcome you expect and aim for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) Nobody really knew about such camps. B) The 'final solution' stuff did not happen until much later ie. i) scale and ii) death C) That was in 1930. There was barely radio. There was no 'globalism' or 'global news'. There was no global awareness. What 'went on in Germany' might have been going on on mars. It's 2019 now, China has no excuse, and we have no excuse.
>It's 2019 now, China has no excuse, and we have no excuse. Well, I guess the question is : if things were so much different in the 30s, and it was stalled by the lack of global information awareness, why are we (humans on earth) complicit with the camps that exist now-a-days (and in more places than just China.)?
There are some 'dark spots' in the world where this happens, but there, it's chaos: Syria, Congo, Somalia.
The reason we don't hear about it from China is exactly the basis of the article: China has everyone in fear of them.
China speaks with one voice, the West with thousands: political leaders, CEO's, NGOs, deans of big schools - in the West nobody really has that much power - and China is hyper aggressive in pursuing their power everywhere, and in everything.
CEO's will never hint a word, they don't need to be told to shut up because they want money.
Politicians, sadly are spooked, mostly for economic reasons as well. Governments are very afraid to speak out due to fear or the response. Germany sells a lot of high end gear to China.
Airlines that use the actual name of Taiwan for example are threatened with not being able to fly in China.
The head of the student union at Ryserson in Toronto is Tibetan, and this drew mass outrage from the Chines 'expat' community, it was fierce and organized from back home.
Consider that 'Tibet' used to be a huge thing in Hollywood/Cali 20 years ago, now magically everyone has just 'shut up' about it. If any political group or state even mentions the Dalai Lama, China screams. So we haven't heard about him in a while.
Almost everyone is afraid to speak out, so it only happens behind closed doors.
Trump, oddly, is one of the few people with both the power and wherewithal to say things but I don't think he cares: if negotiations are going bad with China he'll scream murder, if negotiations are going well, he'll talk about China as such a great partner in peace etc..
The issue of the concentration camps in China is met with strong force and intimidation the world over.
And sadly, it's pretty easy not to care.
I feel like free speech has never been under such attack. Culturally, we don't care about it, we find offensive content more offensive than censorship of offensive content. Politically, they can censor you completely if they want to by hitting you with an NSL. EFF says that happens 60 times a day. The most hard hitting journalist in the west, Julian Assange, was just put in jail. I'm scared about the future. It's not…
The fact that hundreds of thousands of Muslims are put into concentration camps and the world does nothing is amazing. I think that is how bad the world wants cheap stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nazi Germany had concentration camps as early as 1933 (Dachau) and nobody did anything either until they started invasions and a war. Most genocides have happened as the world watches and says "oh wow that's terrible we should do something" and then do nothing. This is simply how humans behave on an international scale. There is nothing 'amazing' about it.
A) Nobody really knew about such camps. B) The 'final solution' stuff did not happen until much later ie. i) scale and ii) death C) That was in 1930. There was barely radio. There was no 'globalism' or 'global news'. There was no global awareness. What 'went on in Germany' might have been going on on mars. It's 2019 now, China has no excuse, and we have no excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Native ads are what print newspapers have, and they don't require logins. They'd just charge Chevrolet $50,000 to run a skyscraper on sports articles for a week or whatever.
Print newspapers don't require logins because you can't read a print paper unless you already purchased it. To replicate that online, a login is necessary. I was under the impression the New York Times didn't allow companies to pay for custom articles until recently, but I could be wrong. Do you know when this happened?
That's not true, and there is a publishing industry term for it: "pass-along." It's used to calculate readership for...advertising rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Julian Assange is a journalist? Not sure I agree with that labeling.
I thought he was at one point, but now it's sadly obvious he's an intelligence asset. He was literally an employee of Russian state media, and I have yet to see him publish anything that would embarrass Russia.
Citation needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Print newspapers don't require logins because you can't read a print paper unless you already purchased it. To replicate that online, a login is necessary. I was under the impression the New York Times didn't allow companies to pay for custom articles until recently, but I could be wrong. Do you know when this happened?
Apparently Native Ads means something else: having your own adtech on the website, rather than doubleclick or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China isn't even in the same league when it comes to the harm of US hegemony. No need to pick one or the other. There's plenty of hegemony from both to go around: "The Communist Chinese invasion in 1950 led to years of turmoil, that culminated in the complete overthrow of the Tibetan Government and the self-imposed exile of the Dalai Lama and 100,000 Tibetans in 1959. Since that time over a million Tibetans have be…
> No need to pick one or the other. There's plenty of hegemony from both to go around Indeed, there really is. https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti... [couldn't copy and paste an excerpt because it's far too long]