China, under growing global pressure over its treatment of a Muslim minority in its far west, is mounting an unprecedented and aggressive campaign to push back, including explicit attacks on women who have made claims of abuse.
Given the nature of this bit of news, and how hardline I am against the narrative anyway, I try to consider information as it comes out with at least a bit of good faith. Reuters would have to be straight up lying if this isn’t what the guy was doing. To me it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility, so I’m not gonna come out the door and say “this is most definitely made up” when I have no reason to. Ofc, the very real potential of intentional poor translation is always there.
I mean, how would you characterize mainstream American reporting on Xinjiang?
The right approach with unreliable sources isn't to treat new reporting from them with good faith -- they've done nothing to earn that, and quite a lot to show it's undeserved. The approach is to be agnostic on the new reporting until you get better information.
I largely agree with you. I’m mostly considering this on terms of a party official getting out of line in his approach in combating the narrative. You can be right and still communicate things in a poor and irresponsible way, this applies to a wide range of potential situations. This kind of conversation, of course, is only suitable among comrades as they can grasp the nuances of the situation.
Given the nature of this bit of news, and how hardline I am against the narrative anyway, I try to consider information as it comes out with at least a bit of good faith. Reuters would have to be straight up lying if this isn’t what the guy was doing. To me it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility, so I’m not gonna come out the door and say “this is most definitely made up” when I have no reason to. Ofc, the very real potential of intentional poor translation is always there.
I mean, how would you characterize mainstream American reporting on Xinjiang?
The right approach with unreliable sources isn't to treat new reporting from them with good faith -- they've done nothing to earn that, and quite a lot to show it's undeserved. The approach is to be agnostic on the new reporting until you get better information.
I largely agree with you. I’m mostly considering this on terms of a party official getting out of line in his approach in combating the narrative. You can be right and still communicate things in a poor and irresponsible way, this applies to a wide range of potential situations. This kind of conversation, of course, is only suitable among comrades as they can grasp the nuances of the situation.
:100-com: