So I’m just taking your word for all this or is there some proof of this from a source without an incentive to make the numbers good or bad? China famously doesn’t openly share accurate negative information about itself.
China famously doesn‘t need to share anything at all, the US is very good at pulling dumb shit out of their ass to slander unfriendly nations for their own citizen’s indoctrination, like this shit recently.
What‘s a good, unbiased source for you? You sure that’s something that exists in politics? You’ll have to take the information and use your critical thinking abilities to further your knowledge about the world. The article from Dr. Michael Parenti from the other comment is very well sourced. Stop creating artifical standards, you have been excepting dumb propaganda in the past to form your current understanding.
No person or country needs to do anything. I wasn’t really debating that point, but you’re free to start tangential discussions if you like. Now what people and countries do is the best representation of them. Anyone can talk, actions are what speak.
Ideally information by a source who gains nothing from the numbers being good or bad. It doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference between what would be on some sensationalized state owned news channel vs what is published as an academic paper for the global community.
The actions were laid out in the OP comment and in the article you refuse to read.
You think Michael Parenti had to gain as much from writing up this article, that it’s not worth your time reading it? A published academic article for the global community.
Refuse to read? Do you have cameras in my house? Also did you read it? Just the diction alone is atrociously suffused with a particular intention. I think you would notice how it reads if it was on another topic, I get the sensation you’re not unbiased towards the content.
Lol not unbiased is putting it very lightly. Compare this to how information is displayed on any reputable sources or in studies. This mostly reads like hardcore propaganda. Just compare it to propaganda from any country at any time period vs legitimate research.
So I’m just taking your word for all this or is there some proof of this from a source without an incentive to make the numbers good or bad? China famously doesn’t openly share accurate negative information about itself.
Lol. It’s famous, is it?
Some more articles besides the one from parenti:
China famously doesn‘t need to share anything at all, the US is very good at pulling dumb shit out of their ass to slander unfriendly nations for their own citizen’s indoctrination, like this shit recently.
What‘s a good, unbiased source for you? You sure that’s something that exists in politics? You’ll have to take the information and use your critical thinking abilities to further your knowledge about the world. The article from Dr. Michael Parenti from the other comment is very well sourced. Stop creating artifical standards, you have been excepting dumb propaganda in the past to form your current understanding.
No person or country needs to do anything. I wasn’t really debating that point, but you’re free to start tangential discussions if you like. Now what people and countries do is the best representation of them. Anyone can talk, actions are what speak.
Ideally information by a source who gains nothing from the numbers being good or bad. It doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference between what would be on some sensationalized state owned news channel vs what is published as an academic paper for the global community.
The actions were laid out in the OP comment and in the article you refuse to read.
You think Michael Parenti had to gain as much from writing up this article, that it’s not worth your time reading it? A published academic article for the global community.
Stop wasting your time finding excuses.
Refuse to read? Do you have cameras in my house? Also did you read it? Just the diction alone is atrociously suffused with a particular intention. I think you would notice how it reads if it was on another topic, I get the sensation you’re not unbiased towards the content.
Lol
Not unbiased, but well sourced.
Mostly describing life in feudal Tibet.
https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism
In short: like european middle ages.
Lol not unbiased is putting it very lightly. Compare this to how information is displayed on any reputable sources or in studies. This mostly reads like hardcore propaganda. Just compare it to propaganda from any country at any time period vs legitimate research.
Brother is it exhaustively sourced, you just don’t want to believe what those sources have to say
Even the person who linked it is aware of the biased nature of their link. They said so themselves.
Every text it biased, the point is to acknowledge the bias, not to pretend to be unbiased (the modus operandi of liberalism).
Bias and factuality are separate concerns.