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