zerfuffle @ zerfuffle @lemmy.ml

Posts

13

Comments

527

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's actually not how modern China gained territory. The settlements in Xinjiang were explicitly designed to not step on the traditional Uyghur economic/cultural center of Kashgar. Instead, settlement surrounded Urumqi, a place that used to be a backwater of backwaters (the name meaning "beautiful pasture"). Even today, Kashgar and it's surrounding areas are majority Uyghur (by far), while Urumqi is majority Han.

Idk I think I'd enjoy being obscenely rich off of my government's oil money

It's usually an annotation because Internet/phone penetration among the rural, uneducated, and poor in those countries isn't great. They don't have means to survey these people. Surveying the people who do have access to Internet is representative of what "normal people" feel.

The US has ~91% Internet penetration, while China only has 73% and India only 43%.

I don't really like how HRW does their reporting tbh. It basically consists of "here's some random Chinese article that suggests something that they might do, which, because China is a single-party state, MUST describe what they do" coupled with "here are some sources from US-funded parties detailing what they claim to be happening in China."

It's not a question of whether their statements are accurate, but it's a question of whether they've provided enough evidence to make those statements.

Privatization is such a waste of taxpayer money. You spend all those resources developing domestic capability and then sell it off to the highest bidder for a short-term cash infusion.

Good. Everyone knows it. It's not news unless you've been living under a rock.

Who the fuck downvotes the National Interest?

This is literally American policy idk why anyone's surprised

You're a terrorist, you're not a terrorist. You're a terrorist, you're not a terrorist. You're a terrorist, you're not a terrorist...

If Yemen and Israel are at war, seizing and even sinking ships is perfectly legal under international law.

Repeatedly saying something does not make it a fact

Intent doesn't really matter when you have an Apache helicopter with large munitions lol

I'm sure they were all Hamas.

Now they are all hummus.

Anyone citing MBFC as anything other than a joke site needs to reconsider. Thing is, we don't even know who the author of the site is, and from what he has claimed he has no credentials to make any sort of bias or factuality assessment.

Statement by Hamas' Izzat Al-Rishq;

"Regarding what the spokesman for the terrorist enemy army said about the arrival of prisoners of the occupation to Al-Shifa Hospital, we said early on that the resistance transferred many prisoners of the occupation to hospitals to receive treatment and undergo surgical operations, especially after some of them were injured as a result of the occupation’s aircraft bombing them.

We risked our fighters to guarantee the injured prisoners the best treatment. Possible in hospitals in the Gaza Strip.

We have published many pictures about this; Now their army spokesman presents it as if they have discovered something great.

What the spokesman for the occupation army says completely condemns them. These are points that are recorded for us and not for us.

Taking care of the prisoners, treating them, and giving them possible medical care is a point for us and not for us."

Surely this will not be seen as an escalation and a deterioration of relations?

The fact that the Chinese navy intervened suggests that it's likely a Chinese fishing net in contested EEZ.

I don't know about you, but "Australian warship sails into Chinese waters and fucks up Chinese fisherman's nets and livelihood" doesn't sound great.

Objectively, they didn't do good journalism and cite primary sources.

Primary sources were the interview with Yasmin Porat on Haboker Hazeh (which was censored by Israel) and the interview conducted with IDF helicopter pilots on, I think, Haaretz. Everything else is commentary on the same evidence.

The fact that the Tampa Bay Times failed to cite those two primary sources really calls into question their legitimacy as an institution for journalism. It's basic journalistic etiquette to cite primary sources where possible.

I mean, I agree as a whole, but I'm assuming that the online population trends upwards socioeconomically. 140k USD isn't that high of a salary for the US coastal elite.

It says that the top 1% makes 140k USD....

The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year