Grerkol

joined 1 month ago
[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 0 points 1 week ago

That's a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah... protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.

I just don't think it's productive to condemn violence in general. I don't think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn't gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.

Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren't mutually exclusive, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Pic unrelated

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That sounds nice but I don't think that's exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.

I'm not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it's best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they're willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking "democracy" alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.

Pic unrelated

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Provide security for whom?

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space -3 points 1 week ago (14 children)

I heckin' love the state's monopoly on violence!

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space -2 points 1 week ago

Nobody cares bro. My farts smell better than yours

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 2 points 1 week ago

Bruh when did I say "we need to be like the Chinese party-state because they have freedom of expression and information"?

I'm trying to say that this Article 19 group has no real principles beyond: "UK government protecting our 'information integrity'=good. Chinese censorship and 'misinformation'=bad." Also it's not even "Chinese media ownership", it's a US firm with a chairman who has ties to China.

But if you can't follow this beyond "this guy clearly loves China and hates Britain, I need to explain why China is worse", then go off I guess.

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

This article is so strange to me. Do these guys want "media plurality" and "freedom of expression and information" or to stop people with links to China from owning UK news outlets? On the one hand they're talking about this ideal of freedom of press and on another it's about how we need to restrict who can control the press. "Information integrity" sounds like justification for censorship to me.

It's so full of vague, conflicting ideals.

The idea of laws about transparency of ownership and funding seems reasonable I suppose. It's good media literacy to find out what you can about who owns and funds a news outlet. That's why I looked into who's behind this "Article 19" organisation.

https://www.article19.org/financials/

Ah... The UK and US governments, along with the infamous "National Endowment for Democracy". Seems it's bad when China tries to control the narrative, but not the UK or US.

As for whether I personally think this US firm that has some links to China should be allowed to buy the Telegraph, I don't care much either way, as long as I can access the media I want to and look up who owns it. It does seem like they're trying to set a precedent for blocking foreign outlets they don't like though.

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 64 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"both sides of the Israel-Palestine War"

Why are they still talking like this? Disgraceful

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think many people are gonna have "hot takes" based on a vaguely titled article behind a paywall.

Also "scandals" to do with the Chinese military have little to do with someone saying that Taiwanese military badges don't prove anything about the situation in China.

[–] Grerkol@leminal.space 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

What do you even mean here?

Any decision about censorship is a compromise of some kind between open communication/access to information and the prevention of the spread of content that could be deemed harmful in some way or another.

Maybe I'm just being thick right now but I'm really not sure who are supposed to be the "children". It seems it could just as easily be the CPC for being uncompromising in their censorship of the internet, fascist trolls who say they should have a right to use slurs and disinformation to incite violence, or liberals who are unwilling to accept that a hardline stance needs to be taken to censor the fascists.

I'm unsure if this is an enlightened centrist take, you saying the CPC (and similar) do what needs to be done or that we need our freedom and the commenter above is the child. Whatever you mean, your comment (at least to me) comes across a bit rude and unconstructive.

Ok your comment successfully ragebaited me so tbh I'm probably the child.

Edit: changed CCP to CPC because that is the technically correct term, even though for some reason most English language outlets use "CCP"

view more: ‹ prev next ›