psilocybin @ psilocybin @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

100

Joined

2 yr. ago

More like "We'll make good value from your privacy"

"We value your privacy"

On a Pixel with GrapheneOS

I use KISS, I wanted an opensource launcher

Its quick actions, history and tags are exactly what I need.

You need to customize it heavily to get it to look good: I use a very minimal amoledBlack&white config with Arcticons and I love it

Lol standard halfwit take:

Adopting the "tankie" slur for everyone without substance and obviously no knowledge of what they are talking about - check

Being embedded in propaganda and blaming others who point it out - check

"You're not including facts" - lol for what? Am I responding to a factual argument? Am I demanding facts from you?

But sure have some facts:

Guardian from 2011 - Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

Intercept from 2014 - HACKING ONLINE POLLS AND OTHER WAYS BRITISH SPIES SEEK TO CONTROL THE INTERNET

Believe me it has only gotten worse in the >10 years since

Twitter files revealed pentagon bots were whitelisted as well

If you miss your propaganda friends that hard reddit is still there for you

Edit: I realize your missing punctuation threw me off, I read: "(aka anything, they don't like including facts)" ...doesn't change much though

I appreciate the honest response and honestly I relate to the sentiment of not engaging in this discussion further as these are typically extremely wide ranging and require a lot of contextualisation, doing this online can be extremely exhausting.

But I find the question you are raising quite interesting as to how exactly a countries (govs) impact on the progress of humanity is to be defined. This is exactly the direction in which I was thinking to go when I was considering to compile a list.

Thanks for the compliment about my username;) I don't really associate your name with anything concrete but I assume there was a drug trafficker from LA who was referred to by that name? I am not from the states so I might not know everybody that has become infamous like that!

I legitimately don't understand why Leninists are so keen on making folk heroes out of tyrants.

What a sentence! You're jumping to conclusions all over the place!

You're conflating information with a desire to "make folk heroes out of tyrants", trying to denormalise a desire to understand what was actually happening.

There was bloodshed but not on the Tienanmen square and the conditions are less clear than you believe

It is obvious that most peoples idea of what happened is heavily influenced by propaganda, I know mine was.

If you could stop sabotaging efforts to cut through the disinformation that would be great thanks

Also: "They are tyrants" thanks I'll defer judgement as long as the evidence you present us with turns out to be propaganda, there are other "tyrannical governments" much more in reach

Tough to defend position if you only consider systems intact today (and thereby filtering out nazi-Germany for example)!

The US only has made a science out of propaganda (see Walter Lippman & Edward Bernays) and the capital to pay for it all over the word (NED/bellingcat/victims of communism foundation/radio free liberty|europe|iraq|asia/"congress for cultural freedom" and other direct CIA derivatives)

Its whole shtick is to manufacture narratives to paint your opponent so bad that you appear without alternative. Be it domestically (presidential elections) or abroad (country x is ruled by the next hitler)

I am not gonna attempt to compile a list, bc i would want have to add sources and I am tired to loom that up. But start with Operation Condor since OP kindly mentioned that, but the rabbit hole goes deep

I agree, the best thing is to not jump to conclusions neither the conclusion "Everything is 100% CIA lies" nor the conclusion "China bad" and be patient with individual topics before stepping onto the emotional roller coaster

I've listened to a podcast ("Silk and Steel") by a Chinese living in the US and he describes the media coverage of China in the West as skewed, but he describes it as narrowed onto a certain slice of Chinese reality that is there just blown out of proportion.

I don't remember his exact words and I am not an English native so I might not transfer the nuance precisely. But along those lines is what I remember. And even IIRC its just the opinion of one person, but it stuck with me. Tbf that was years ago though and narrative has certainly picked up since then

Thank you for the appreciation, I have to say I have yet to get used to the discussions on lemmy being seemingly way more good-faithed than on reddit!

Also your summary sounds like ChatGPT

Nah they have a typo ("anit-China") in their summary I think they're fine.

the article you posted

Wasn't me. I haven't read that article yet

It's in the article I referenced

As I obviously have not read yours. I will catch up on both. Thanks for quoting that anyways

NGO is some kind of CIA backed organization

I wouldn't be surprised. The CIA has a history of backing NGOs like this dating back to the Congress for Cultural Freedom whose goal it was to purge leftism in europe of communism. Nowadays they usually use the NED for that though

.. "Devil Eyes" .. is bit disengenious to bring up. .. they only ever built a few prototypes. .. I don't think we can really trust China's take on this.

Whether or not it is true they only ever produced prototypes I don't think its disingenious as my point was not the impact it made but how the CIA operates and this is a good example as it simultaneously needs to be: somewhat recent, yet not too recent so its publicly known (declassified or uncovered) and ridiculous.

I wanted to push back on your notion that something sounds too ridiculous for the CIA to pursue, which generally is just not a framework in which to understand the CIA.

The Chinese source was not "China's take on this" it was a source of the washington post in China where the CIA allegedly commissioned the dolls (which they did not dispute according to wapo).

But since you brought up the trustworthyness of a take: I wouldn't trust the CIAs take on this, which is the source claiming "too their knowledge" only 3 dolls were produced.

But personally I think its clear these dolls never got into the hands of many customers, its just such a dumb plan.

Antcedotally, I've heard other stories of China doing stuff like this

Historically many narratives about China have been proven false or misrepresented too (social credit system, authenticity of tiananmen papers,...) thats why I am sceptical.

Thanks to the illusory truth effect this anecdotal gut feeling is terribly vulnerable to manipulation. It happens in media all the time, i.e. some rightists believe the LGBTQ community is full of groomers bc its what they are told all the time (not sure if this is a good example, I just wanted to pick a partisan one)

If the targets voice is not represented its even worse bc the claims stay largely uncontested and false claims can stack up (one misrepresentation giving you the feeling "this is totally something they would do", strenghtening your misconception), creating a gut feeling in the population that is wrong. A fairly uncontested example for such a deconstruction of a foreign target through the media would be Iraq pre invasion. You can look up polls from around the time and correlate it with the reporting of the time. This is also the effect of filterbubbles of course filtering out the opinions you lose the corrective

Whether or not the CIA was/is involved in influencing public opinion like this (personally I have no doubt), this is absolutely what is happening WRT reporting on China ATM, there is no corrective and false claims just stack up.

Look at the histeria that an off-course weather balloon caused: people would line up at an event to scream at Biden about the balloon, even though the initial press release of the pentagon clearly states that this was not an uncommon phenomenon and that there is no threat associated with it (granted its longer than that and one can have a discussion about some of the wording, but this comment is long enough already)

As long as you don't question that the enemies of US imperialism deserve it you should be mostly fine. The big geopolitical topics are more sensitive.

I was permabanned from multiple subs for sharing this telegraph article for example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230701133656/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

It differs from sub to sub but the bigger and more political the stronger the imperial narrative is enforced.

r/worldnews is one of the worst, and honestly suspect its astroturf and run by assets or a derivative of an imperial institution (council on foreign relation, think tanks, the likes)

Thanks for the source, definitely gonna read it later.

when I researched I thought a couple of things were off curious what light the article shines on that

These types of stories have been popping up around the world

Can you specify? How many cases do you know? And in which countries? Otherwise its hard to guess if the CIA can fake it. But I'd say if it is up, say to a hundred then: Yes totally something the CIA could and would do.

and I doubt the CIA has that kind of reach in some attempt to... what... make China look bad?

To influence public opinion and manufacture consent for a wide range of political actions against the only threat to US hegemony in existence

That is not even close to the "too ridiculous for the CIA to do" scale. They once produced Bin-Laden dolls whose face would scrape off to reveal a demon. It was called operation Devils Eyes.

You have to imagine people sit there 8h a day to hatch schemes on how to best sway public opinions

Some of the assasination attempts on Castro were also quite ridiculous.

This, my friend, is the absense of neocon/neolib censorship and propaganda that you were so used to on corporate social media.

Isn't it great?

There was obviously never a communist state as you have correctly depicted communism is a goal. No argument there.

I also agree that you can make the point the USSR wasn't socialist, but that was also not what I was arguing for. (Spoiler: I describe the USSR as "state socialist")

I was arguing against calling the USSR capitalist, even state capitalist, and I stand by it.

the desire to use the words by their meaning

Capitalism is defined through private (not personal) property -- There was no private property. I think that should be enough to dismiss the notion the USSR was capitalist in amy capacity. But it also lacked competitive markets, "free" price systems and a ubiquitous profit motive, finance capital and certainly more characteristics.

Regarding the ownership of the means of production: I already agreed with you that it was not owned by the workers. However, being state owned, it was public ownership. You can say that isn't totally fair to you bc the name implies a level of participation of the people in the state which wasn't there, but their collective interests still somewhat mattered where today rules the profit motive (i.e. housing). That is not to say that planning, production and distribution did not fail the people often, they certainly did.

Since we were also talking about intent to build up a socialist system: When you look at it in the early days when it started out as a soviet republic, with worker soviets sending delegates to parent soviets cascading and culminating into the supreme soviet, the idea certainly was to create a state with (if not control then) direct expression of the workers interests. In that sense state ownership would be justified much more. This is also what has led me to call the system "state socialism".

The soviet union did definitively degrade hence I concede that it is well possible that initial intent to build socialism did not exist in late stage USSR leadership, I don't know much about that, to be honest and if that is what you experienced as a child I believe you.

But that this intent drove the initial conception should be obvious or do you think the writings of Lenin/Stalin and the internationals were all a big charade to get to power?

The degradation of the USSR, the communist party specifically, is one point why I mentioned the soviet union is an example to learn from. I believe Maoists have derived from that the principle of self-revolution within the party.

In the end to rationally learn from it is the important part, as long as we can do that it isn't important how its economic system is called or even if it was "good" or "evil" or whatever. And while I have opinions they honestly aren't always strongly held, as there is a lot to learn. Its just a mechanism of online discussions and them being overwhelmingly bad-faithed that brings that out

Lol that killed me.

The Make-a-wish foundation visits a sick child and gift it dead parents, realizing their mistake they proceed to kill the child after one day of anguish, respectfully shake hands and congratulate each other for another job well done.

Not after the day he isn't

If you want a starting point to address your ignorance:

Juche on wikipedia

Bc I haven't heard of the cultural identity of a government

And its still not true, they have a distinct political ideology that used to be called juche, idk if they changed the name.

Also you said: "the problem with North Korea is..." not really an indicator you're talking about the government, especially given the context of a cultural identity