deleted by creator

IIRC, it's about banning food glorification and the types of vids where people gorge themselves on camera. But of course...taps sign

"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them."

China could simply pass a law stipulating that every household would be issued a free 2 gallon jug of purified water in a glass bottle every morning, and the headline would read "China mandates that it's citizens consume only 2 gallons of water per day", with many ancillary headlines about how China is ruining water stores, how they are wasting infrastructure to provide this, how consumption of this water killed someone according to RFA, how the water is actually bait to sterilize/kill/harm people, etc.

is it actually or it the usual bullshit reporting taking everything out of context?

:sicko-yes: