The anecdote proves nothing because the model could potentially have known of the McGonagal character without ever being trained on the books, since that character appears in a lot of fan fiction. So their point is invalid and their anecdote proves nothing.
I have and I think that there is validity to the propoganda model.
But the propoganda model does not say that all reporting by Western media is false, only that Western media has a hidden bias. But while Western media has an underlying bias to shape a narrative that fits the interests of the wealthy, Chinese state media has an overt and explicit bias to push the narrative in a direction that fits the interests of the state.
So why would I be more skeptical of western reporting on the incident?
There were some Western news outlets that lied about the events and propagated false information, and there were some that that did not.
The fact that Western media outlets cannot be blindly trusted does not mean that the Chinese state controlled media can. The Chinese state has a lot more incentive to lie about the events than independent news orgs do.
You're right, there isn't a single Western country that has a freer press than China. In fact, China may be the world's last bastion of open information and free speech.
Exactly, because there were no civilians maimed or killed ;) Heck, tanks literally CAN'T maim or kill people, that's not what they're made for. Militaries exclusively bring in tanks to help spread love and peace and good vibes.
Actually, if you've seen the pictures of the military armed with rifles marching around the city that day, did you know that those were just the kind with the flag that pops out and says 'BANG!'? Haha they were just trying to give everybody a good laugh to ease the tension. And it WORKED and NO ONE GOT HURT!
Yes, Western media can definitely not be trusted. Better to get the real story from the secretive, authoritarian government that heavily suppresses speech and directly controls its major media outlets.
As we all know, militaries NEVER use tanks to kill or injure people. They actually mostly use them to transport puppies and kittens, and the army's very best huggers to spread love and joy :)
Did you cleverly infer that from the fact that I said, "no"? Or were their other subtle clues you picked up on?
The pictures of dead, maimed, mutilated civilian corpses and crushed bicycles/cars were actually staged by the protesters to frame the kind, peaceful Chinese military, who were only there to have friendly dialogue with the protestors.
No. how could I? Armored tanks are EXCLUSIVELY implements of peace, they are NEVER used lethally or to inflict harm. The Chinese military DEFINITELY brought in armored tanks for peaceful, humanitarian reasons.
Those poor soldiers that were attacked in their tanks :( They were just visiting Beijing as tourists that day and had no orders to violently suppress any protests. Total misunderstanding.
This is and has always been a red herring. It's irrelevant if people were killed in the square or in the streets around the square. People were killed in Beijing by the Chinese military in order to suppress the protests. End of story.
Honestly, I think yes, it’s inevitable. The reason why is that keeping up with constantly changing technologies requires constantly learning how to do everything over again, and again, and again. It will get tiring eventually, and people will feel that learning the ins and outs of yet another social media app just isn’t worth it when they can already get by.
I say this as as software developer who sees a new tool or framework or language come out every year that’s bigger and better than the last, and I see the writing on the wall for myself. I’ll be outdated and just some old geezer who works on legacy tech stacks in 10-20 years, just like the guys working in COBOL or whatever now.
Just want to say that this is a fantastic answer. Pay attention to the parts about printing/downloading stuff. There are huge parts of America where you won't get a reliable cell signal sometimes for hours.
So to be clear, I don't agree with them that this is a good enough reason to block ranked choice voting. All I'm saying here is that the reason for blocking isn't just "hur dur Democrats are racist too", which is the main takeaway of everyone in this comment section.
I’m a socialist but not a tankie. Criticizing tankies!= criticizing socialists