Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

[Seanchaidh]

On a side-note, some of those FAIR criticisms are downright pathetic.

so you don't really give a shit if they're not terribly credible when it comes to targets of US hostility. OK. Is it sentimentality because they're based in England? Managing to look good in comparison to BBC or Sky? Strange.

So, the same standard you're happy to accept for atrocities committed by powers you already dislike, like the coup government in Bolivia. You post on-the-ground accounts or direct testimony all the time, but now it's suddenly specious and worth dismissing out of hand.

I do, in fact, believe that one should consider the function and not just the form, source and contents of a news story when deciding how skeptical to be. I hold accusations against governments that are targets of US hostility to a higher standard because it makes every sense in the world to do so: there is a demonstrable historical pattern of lies, fabrications, and speculations presented as fact being used to achieve support for a belligerent foreign policy. This will have only gotten worse as media ownership has concentrated, and worse still we're living through it so we're the primary targets of any deception. Neither of us were born yesterday; you know this as well as I do.

See this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

Look at how often there is an event that occurs before the invasion with a "date the public knew" that occurs after it. By that time, they'd gotten what they wanted. And our media has not changed its behavior since then. If anything, it's gotten worse.

 

[tstorm823]

I do, in fact, believe that one should consider the function and not just the form, source and contents of a news story when deciding how skeptical to be. I hold accusations against governments that are targets of US hostility to a higher standard because it makes every sense in the world to do so: there is a demonstrable historical pattern of lies, fabrications, and speculations presented as fact being used to achieve support for a belligerent foreign policy. This will have only gotten worse as media ownership has concentrated, and worse still we're living through it so we're the primary targets of any deception. Neither of us were born yesterday; you know this as well as I do.

See this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

Look at how often there is an event that occurs before the invasion with a "date the public knew" that occurs after it. By that time, they'd gotten what they wanted. And our media has not changed its behavior since then. If anything, it's gotten worse.

You know I share your lack of trust in the media (though from a very different perspective). If you're skeptical of what is said, you should follow the trail back to primary sources, check other sources, and maybe if none of those exist you choose to withhold judgment. I don't at all fault you for doubting the media. But if you follow the trail this way for the claim on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you get back to a single source who wasn't really vetted at all before the claim spread. If you do the same for Uyghur detention camps in China, you find hundreds of first hand accounts, reported by the media (both public and commercial), by governments around the world, by academics studying the region, the left, the right, and everyone in between. Being completely upfront, the Chinese government oppressing a religious minority isn't the sort of thing that makes me feel like I need to fact check it (cause, ya know, the Cultural Revolution happened once already), but if I give the claim the same amount of skepticism I give headlines like "Trump Tells Pork Industry to Regulate Itself", I find out that oh yeah, that genocide is definitely happening, and you'd have to believe in some absolutely insane conspiracy to think dozens of disconnected groups reporting from all different first hand accounts are repeating lies. Like, how do you imagine that being orchestrated? Is the CIA getting hundreds of Chinese Muslims to pretend to be fake first-hand accounts of mistreatment and not a single one has ever decided to tell the truth or slipped up on their story? Is a geographer who visited China 5 years ago just a plant for the long-con?

 

[Seanchaidh]

But if you follow the trail this way for the claim on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you get back to a single source who wasn't really vetted at all before the claim spread.

Not everything was Curveball, I don't think. A great deal of it, though, yeah.

You know I share your lack of trust in the media (though from a very different perspective). If you're skeptical of what is said, you should follow the trail back to primary sources, check other sources, and maybe if none of those exist you choose to withhold judgment. I don't at all fault you for doubting the media. But if you follow the trail this way for the claim on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you get back to a single source who wasn't really vetted at all before the claim spread. If you do the same for Uyghur detention camps in China, you find hundreds of first hand accounts, reported by the media (both public and commercial), by governments around the world, by academics studying the region, the left, the right, and everyone in between. Being completely upfront, the Chinese government oppressing a religious minority isn't the sort of thing that makes me feel like I need to fact check it (cause, ya know, the Cultural Revolution happened once already), but if I give the claim the same amount of skepticism I give headlines like "Trump Tells Pork Industry to Regulate Itself", I find out that oh yeah, that genocide is definitely happening, and you'd have to believe in some absolutely insane conspiracy to think dozens of disconnected groups reporting from all different first hand accounts are repeating lies. Like, how do you imagine that being orchestrated? Is the CIA getting hundreds of Chinese Muslims to pretend to be fake first-hand accounts of mistreatment and not a single one has ever decided to tell the truth or slipped up on their story? Is a geographer who visited China 5 years ago just a plant for the long-con?

The reply to this that I'm aware of (which admittedly seems thin and possibly not even applicable in some cases) is that the asylum process systematically encourages embellishment. I don't think the explanation that it's all just a CIA conspiracy holds water (which is one reason I haven't proposed that to my recollection). ETIM exists, obviously, which speaks to some level of hostility between at least some Uyghur Muslims and the Chinese government prior to any intervention by Western powers, whether or not ETIM has received support from Washington.

Anyway, you may be right, but I see absolutely no reason that I should take a position on the matter; I do not wish to cede literally any excuse for the United States to increase hostilities with another nuclear power. Or anyone else, really, but especially not a country who could team up with the United States to perpetrate slaughter and destruction the scale of which has not been seen in all human history.

 

[Silvanus]

so you don't really give a shit if they're not terribly credible when it comes to targets of US hostility. OK.

I don't know how on earth you got that from what I wrote.

They're well recognised as generally reliable and reputable; more so than most international news sources, and far more so than the blogs of zero-experience commentators. You have a horrendous standard with regards to sources: if one disagrees, then we can dig up a few borderline or arguable biases or errors from the past decade and the entire organisation's credibility is tanked just like that. But if it agrees, it doesn't even matter if it's just a shitty blog containing the musings of an armchair commentator who's never been to the country in question. It's good enough!

I do, in fact, believe that one should consider the function and not just the form, source and contents of a news story when deciding how skeptical to be. I hold accusations against governments that are targets of US hostility to a higher standard because it makes every sense in the world to do so: there is a demonstrable historical pattern of lies, fabrications, and speculations presented as fact being used to achieve support for a belligerent foreign policy. This will have only gotten worse as media ownership has concentrated, and worse still we're living through it so we're the primary targets of any deception. Neither of us were born yesterday; you know this as well as I do.

Not only are you considering the "function" to trump any and all other aspects of the story (such as corroborative sources entirely independent of the US and its allies or their media), but you're also willing to completely ignore "function" from other perspectives. There's a demonstrable historical pattern of lies and fabrications presented as fact by the corporatist Chinese government, as well, used to achieve unquestioning support for belligerent expansionism, political and economic repression of workers, and forced homogenisation. This fits that pattern perfectly.

Look at how often there is an event that occurs before the invasion with a "date the public knew" that occurs after it. By that time, they'd gotten what they wanted. And our media has not changed its behavior since then. If anything, it's gotten worse.

Yes. And in China's case, the "date the public knew" never comes, because reporting on it gets you interned and summarily executed.

You are not applying the same standard of scepticism. And when you are acting with scepticism, you're allowing scepticism of some sources to entirely dismiss the accounts of unconnected sources that are not subject to the same flaws. Scepticism of the US corporate media is being used to dismiss and downplay first-hand survivor accounts and entirely independent reporting.

Anyway, you may be right, but I see absolutely no reason that I should take a position on the matter; I do not wish to cede literally any excuse for the United States to increase hostilities with another nuclear power. Or anyone else, really, but especially not a country who could team up with the United States to perpetrate slaughter and destruction the scale of which has not been seen in all human history.

This is really the crux of the matter. Your overriding concern is how the US might use it. Not whether or not it is true.

And in the interests of preventing Washington getting its hands on a casus belli, you're willing to look the other way regardless.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There's a demonstrable historical pattern of lies and fabrications presented as fact by the corporatist Chinese government, as well, used to achieve unquestioning support for belligerent expansionism, political and economic repression of workers, and forced homogenisation.

I live in the United States, not China. I'm subject to the United States propaganda ecosystem, not China's. The policy I have some marginal influence over is that of the United States, not China. What is not sinking in for you?

 

[Avnger]

I live in the United States, not China. I'm subject to the United States propaganda ecosystem, not China's. The policy I have some marginal influence over is that of the United States, not China. What is not sinking in for you?

"I recognize that I live in one state's propaganda system and therefore uncritically accept other states' propaganda to stick it to The Man."

That's certainly one way to inform yourself. Not a good one, mind you, but I guess it does technically qualify.

 

[Silvanus]

I live in the United States, not China. I'm subject to the United States propaganda ecosystem, not China's. The policy I have some marginal influence over is that of the United States, not China. What is not sinking in for you?

It's all "sunk in". A failure to understand is not my problem. I consider it morally indefensible to pretend something isn't happening, to look the other way, in order to serve some nebulous notion of geopolitical power-balance. The truth of the matter being known matters, and wilful ignorance is mute complicity.

On the other point: you (and I, and everybody) very much have been impacted by China's propaganda ecosystem. That propaganda system has stifled and repressed the information we receive from the region. You are more directly subject to the American propaganda system, but you still have more access to free information on what's happening in the US than you do in China. To pretend you haven't been affected by this violent information blockade is extremely naïve.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's all "sunk in". A failure to understand is not my problem.

It clearly is on some level. Otherwise you wouldn't keep saying shit like this:

You are not applying the same standard of scepticism.

Because China's credibility isn't the issue. Neither was it Saddam Hussein's credibility that was the issue in 2003. It is this media in the US, UK, and so on, including AP, Reuters, CNN, etc. which is laying the groundwork for US aggression, not Chinese media.

 

[Silvanus]

Because China's credibility isn't the issue. Neither was it Saddam Hussein's credibility that was the issue in 2003. It is this media in the US, UK, and so on, including AP, Reuters, CNN, etc. which is laying the groundwork for US aggression, not Chinese media.

China's credibility absolutely is an issue. Because it is propaganda there that lays the groundwork for ethnic cleansing, slavery, brutal assimiliationism and expansionism. And it is that that stifles the information we can obtain.

We have two competing narratives, both promoted by corporatist hacks from rival geopolitical powers. You've applied a sceptical approach to one such narrative, coming to the conclusion that this scepticism alone justifies acting dismissively towards all sources that may say similar things, regardless of affiliation. And you've accepted the opposing narrative-- nothing to see here, it's all fabrication-- unquestioningly. Even though it's equally a concoction of corporatist hacks.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You've applied a sceptical approach to one such narrative

Yes, the one that is considered conventional wisdom and is promoted by the media establishments of both our societies.

And you've accepted the opposing narrative-- nothing to see here, it's all fabrication-- unquestioningly.

Wrong.

I have simply not chosen to take a position on the matter and presented the opposing argument-- the negative case. Because that's the one you aren't anywhere near as likely to see.

 

[Gordon_4]

Yes, the one that is considered conventional wisdom and is promoted by the media establishments of both our societies.

Skeptisism is one thing, what you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Lalalala I can't hear you lalalala"

Wrong.

I have simply not chosen to take a position on the matter and presented the opposing argument-- the negative case. Because that's the one you aren't anywhere near as likely to see.

Jesus Christ has this idiotic exchange just you being the muggins who decided they'd run devil's advocate for Xi Jinping?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Jesus Christ has this idiotic exchange just you being the muggins who decided they'd run devil's advocate for Xi Jinping?

As opposed to all the bleating of the US State Department narrative?

 

[Zeke davis]

As opposed to all the bleating of the US State Department narrative?

Forgive me for jumping in but one can do both and will absolutely shut people if you said "This isn't relevant but yes Xi sucks on this issues in specific ways too."

If it turns out you either don't believe that or you said that already i'll join the peanut gallery.

 

[CM156]

As opposed to all the bleating of the US State Department narrative?

You know, it's interesting. A week or so ago, I was reading about the Cambodian Genocide. When it was going on, there were a few academics in the west (mostly English-speaking world) who were going to bat for Pol Pot and arguing the very same way that apologists for Xi and the PRC are doing right now. The usual arguments about refugee stories not being credible or being pumped up by the media to justify US foreign policy, from people with their heads so far up their ass. A few even got to visit Cambodia to visit the maniacs they spent time and effort defending, though not all got to return alive (Malcolm Caldwell learned the hard way about just how wrong he was).

Jesus Christ has this idiotic exchange just you being the muggins who decided they'd run devil's advocate for Xi Jinping?

There is no atrocity that can be committed by a totalitarian state or terrorist group that won't find some educated person in the West willing to defend it or deny it. And in the age of the internet, they can publish their nonsense for the world to see. I seem to recall some extremely fringe Trotskyist-Posadist group (probably with less than a dozen members) putting out some flyer talking about "limited critical support" or some such nonsense for ISIS fighting "American Imperialism".

 

[Seanchaidh]

I seem to recall some extremely fringe Trotskyist-Posadist group (probably with less than a dozen members) putting out some flyer talking about "limited critical support" or some such nonsense for ISIS fighting "American Imperialism".

Sounds like they'd share common cause with those who want to support ETIM to undermine China.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Forgive me for jumping in but one can do both and will absolutely shut people if you said "This isn't relevant but yes Xi sucks on this issues in specific ways too."

If it turns out you either don't believe that or you said that already i'll join the peanut gallery.

The compulsion to demand denunciations is frankly deranged.

 

[CM156]

The compulsion to demand denunciations is frankly deranged.

I dunno man.
As someone who hangs out in right-wing circles I've been asked by a few people before what my views are on various dictators, and I never have any problem with denouncing them. It's pretty easy to say "Autocracy is always bad" if it's what you actually believe.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I dunno man.
As someone who hangs out in right-wing circles I've been asked by a few people before what my views are on various dictators, and I never have any problem with denouncing them. It's pretty easy to say "Autocracy is always bad" if it's what you actually believe.

You sound like a Fox News host in 2002

 

[Avnger]

You sound like a Fox News host in 2002

And you'd make an excellent columnist for the Global Times.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And you'd make an excellent columnist for the Global Times.

You wouldn't make an excellent anything. Oh well.