▲ 732 ▼ A Feel Good Capitalism Story (thelemmy.club) submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml 66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Retail4068@lemmy.world -22 points 5 months ago* (7 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 32 points 5 months ago* (5 children) Citation needed. China has the world's largest social security net permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago (4 children) I'm not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a gov.cn website, regardless of the content permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago I don't expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I'd get real engagement anyway. It's mostly for interested third parties. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children) people who want to shit on China Won't believe anything that doesn't shit on China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don't know, I think it's good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won't if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn't dismiss them outright. That is if they're discussing (or just reading) in good faith I think it's important in public spaces especially, where the person you're discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I'm sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago tankie shit Is when you have a 55 year retirement age instead of a 50 year retirement age? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 32 points 5 months ago* (5 children) Citation needed. China has the world's largest social security net permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago (4 children) I'm not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a gov.cn website, regardless of the content permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago I don't expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I'd get real engagement anyway. It's mostly for interested third parties. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children) people who want to shit on China Won't believe anything that doesn't shit on China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don't know, I think it's good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won't if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn't dismiss them outright. That is if they're discussing (or just reading) in good faith I think it's important in public spaces especially, where the person you're discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I'm sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago (4 children) I'm not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a gov.cn website, regardless of the content permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago I don't expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I'd get real engagement anyway. It's mostly for interested third parties. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children) people who want to shit on China Won't believe anything that doesn't shit on China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don't know, I think it's good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won't if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn't dismiss them outright. That is if they're discussing (or just reading) in good faith I think it's important in public spaces especially, where the person you're discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I'm sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago I don't expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I'd get real engagement anyway. It's mostly for interested third parties. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children) people who want to shit on China Won't believe anything that doesn't shit on China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don't know, I think it's good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won't if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn't dismiss them outright. That is if they're discussing (or just reading) in good faith I think it's important in public spaces especially, where the person you're discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I'm sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 child) I don't know, I think it's good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won't if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn't dismiss them outright. That is if they're discussing (or just reading) in good faith I think it's important in public spaces especially, where the person you're discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I'm sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago tankie shit Is when you have a 55 year retirement age instead of a 50 year retirement age? permalink fedilink source parent