whoops no this is UC Davis in 2011. the cop pepper spraying these nonviolent student protestors filed for worker’s compensation claiming “psychiatric damage” due to having his name released and won more than $38k USD in compensation.

  • Microw@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    As long as the Chinese government censors the topic, it’s hard to know what exactly happened and what didnt. We are left with political statements and third-hand “knowledge”. Which isnt ideal.

    • context [fae/faer, fae/faer]@hexbear.netEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      i don’t see that as a reason to spread unfounded rumors of outlandish atrocities that are flatly contradicted by the evidence available. doing so is also not ideal, in my opinion.

      • Microw@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        Definitely. I dont even know where these rumours originate from, but I’ve heard them often enough online and a lot of people seem to believe them although even western-based encyclopedia etc clearly state the opposite.

        • context [fae/faer, fae/faer]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          it originates in western “news” sources such as

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tiananmen-square-massacre-death-toll-secret-cable-british-ambassador-1989-alan-donald-a8126461.html

          that repeat old rumors and heavily imply they’re a more reliable account than all the other evidence we have, or

          https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/30/ma-jian-tiananmen-square-remembered

          that present an actual work of fiction and imply that it’s an eyewitness statement, and which the person i originally replied to tried to use as evidence.

          i think a more interesting question is why do people fall for it? are the journalists doing this intentionally or are they essentially also part of the audience, eagerly seeking out spurious evidence of outlandish atrocities in order to protect themselves from having to confront their own cognitive dissonance?

          The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough — there’s no reason to expect them to study China, and retrospectively I think to some extent it was a mistake to personally have spent so much time trying to teach them. It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.

          What is this social purpose? Westerners want to believe that other places are worse off, exactly how Americans and Canadians perennially flatter themselves by attacking each others’ decaying health-care systems, or how a divorcee might fantasize that their ex-lover’s blooming love-life is secretly miserable. This kind of “crab mentality” is actually a sophisticated coping mechanism suitable for an environment in which no other course of action seems viable. Cognitive dissonance, the kind that eventually spurs one into becoming intolerant of the status quo and into action, is initially unpleasant and scary for everybody. In this way, we can begin to understand the benefit that “victims” of propaganda derive from carelessly “spreading awareness.” Their efforts feed an ambient propaganda haze of controversy and scandal and wariness that suffocates any painful optimism (or jealousy) and ensuing sense of duty one might otherwise feel from a casual glance at the amazing things happening elsewhere. People aren’t “falling” for atrocity propaganda; they’re eagerly seeking it out, like a soothing balm.

          https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/