A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
But I was told behavior like this in China would get several generations of your family sent to re-education camps?
Are you telling me I've been consuming propaganda??
Can you point me to where you were told something like this?
How do I point to my entire public education since the late 90s?
Well, it was probably on some text book then that you could cite.
But, clearly, the answer to my question is "no I can't." I suspect that this is probably because, at best, it's a terrible exaggeration of something you were told.
Yeah dude, let me take some time out of my day to track down the history text books I used in high school so I can cite to you some anti-China propaganda. You're funny.
Edit: Oh hey look. I literally just googled, "US education anti-china" and here's a pretty informative article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4472696-the-anti-china-academic-panic-is-hurting-america/
I'm sure that's the extent of it though, right?
That article doesn't, at all, support your point. It's about academics being harassed for being Chinese, not about our education system teaching kids that Chinese people are sent to reeducation camps for petty things.
Heaping dishonesty on top of your empty claims just makes your position look even weaker, and casts a shadow on your credibility and objectivity.
It's the chilling effect from years of anti-China propaganda, even amongst scientists. The fact that you're incapable of putting 2 and 2 together there speaks volumes. Or maybe you just don't want to.
I'm not a scholar on anti-China propaganda in the US (I just live/lived through it), but I am certain that if you actually gave a shit about this, you would do a modicum of research yourself. I'm not making some kind of fringe claim here dude.
Should I just call it "anti-communist" propaganda? Would you understand then? Or are you gonna pretend that's not real too?
Lol I asked for your "2" and you were unable to provide it.
You're projecting your ignoring of the facts to maintain your conclusion.
What a strange thing to do... Either a) you speak like an expert about something you clearly aren't familiar with (and likely didn't even live through personally), or b) you know exactly what you're talking about, yet you're doing some bizarre attempt to gaslight people into believing anti-communist, anti-China propaganda in the US. isn't something that has existed pretty much in the open since at least the Korean War. I guess the Red Scare didn't exist. I guess China had no involvement in the Korean or Vietnam wars. I guess China wasn't a massive factor throughout the entirety of the Cold War...
Both are weird, and unfortunately it seems more like the latter to me.
I guess good luck convincing other people?
I've never denied that there is anti China propaganda in the us. I challenged your bs claim that you were taught in school that people are sent to reeducation camps for petty things.
You just desperately need to reframe the debate because even you realize it's bs, but your ego is too fragile to admit that you were wrong or just exaggerating.
Although, it might predate me, if we are talking about pre-80s. But I assure you, the nonsense you claim was not part of my education post that time. It was more "China got much stronger once it adopted more capitalism. Isn't capitalism just fantastic!"
If this is your reaction any time a person makes a hyperbolic statement for emphasis on fucking lemmy, then you may need to re-evaluate your priorities.
All I did was ask you to show me where it happened. If you had immediately just said it was an exaggeration, that likely would have ended it. But instead you tried to argue that it did happen, but you couldn't show it.
But, sure, it's me who acted unreasonably and now needs to reevaluate my priorities. Lol
I'm not the one sealioning about easily provable things.
I asked a single question, one you answered by implying you can't prove it...and now I'm sealioning about something easily proven. I literally loled.
"You're a troll" is so often the harbor of a failing argument.
they're dressing in comfortable clothes, not starting a union. shill elsewhere.
Ah yes, the classic "anti-propaganda shill"
What a horrible thought, speaking out against propaganda.
Democracy in the workplace. We deserve better.
For those who don't know, it's not quite new (except for the word that describes it, Ban Wei 班味). Because of the long working time, a lot of Chinese companies (especially in the tech sector) allow very casual dressing, plushies, even folding beds in the office. Sounds good but is actually horrifying.
At least read the article before commenting. They're dressing this way on purpose against the wishes of their employers.
I'm not saying that this isn't a protest, but merely providing the context for the protest. They took the relaxed dress code to an extreme and deliberately interpreted it as "anything you like". It's more of a malicious compliance protest. That's why they were scolded by the leader, instead of being fired.
Another woman said the best part of wearing her fluffy sweater to work is that she can head straight to bed once she gets home.
"It's so convenient for both work and home. I have essentially reached a state where the office and my home have become one," she said.
It is not protest for the sake of protest, but mostly "convenience".
You have completely flipped the context of the quote. It's not just comfort for comforts sake, it's also a way of protesting the 996 work culture of China.
The article is definitely stating that this is a protest, your quote is about a fringe benefit.
Social media users have joked that if you wear your favorite outfit to work, it'll be contaminated by the "Ban Wei" as the office vibe creeps into your personal life.
The remaining option: wear your gross clothes to the office.
Candise Lin who creates content on TikTok exploring cultural trends in China, broke down this viral trend in a recent video.
She used an example of one blogger who said that they only wears clothes with holes in them to work to reflect their "crappy job and shabby pay."
Clearly stated like 2 paragraphs after your quote.
It is definitely protest. But they choose these outfit to protest because they are comfortable, as oppose to vampires costume, which would also violate the dress code.
This is related to what OP is saying. These outfit already exists because of toxic work culture, they are taking it to the extreme.
Pick a position and stick with it for more than a single comment:
It is not protest for the sake of protest, but mostly "convenience".
It is a protest using existing social expectations of dress code, it's not just about comfort.
"Protest for the sake of protest" is nonsense. By definition they're doing it for the sake of something. That something is not convenience, it's the 996 work culture like the subject of the article.
Another woman said the best part of wearing her fluffy sweater to work is that she can head straight to bed once she gets home.
I'm not following this part.
It's a one-piece pajama in the video. She has a coat over it during the work.
Yeah I never wear outside clothes to my bed. Sheets rotate weekly and 2-3 times a week in summer, only get in bed after shower and dry, only clean clothes. Also I have lots of air filtration with random oscillating fans.
I don't wear...clothes.