Do you have any other sources that can be verified? Otherwise, I’ll have to dismiss your claim as baseless. But like I said in other comments, I’m referring to the article and how it sensationalized the death penalty for website clicks, not about China’s intent behind the law or it’s application.
Absolutely. I agree that life would be so much simpler if it was only black and white issues, but rarely is that the case. And I get it, those binary beliefs are comfortable. But we need to endure the difficulty of questioning our assumptions, pushing out of that simplistic worldview, and learning. It’s the only way we grow as people.
I never discounted the inclusion of the threat of death, I only commented on the fixation on it in that article. Of course the inclusion of the death penalty needs to be a part of the discussion.
We can spend the rest of forever discussing what-ifs and hypotheticals. I don’t think it does the original discussion justice to boil it down from the severity of secession to parking issues. I fear your simplification misrepresents the original discussion, as the nuance of the China-Taiwan situation cannot earnestly be recreated with parking violations in a city.
But yes, to answer your question, I do think that journalistic integrity is important at any level.
If you keep reading in that translated article linked in the original article, it says that if you change your stance and make an honest attempt to undo the damage you did, the charges may be dropped. So one could end up with no punishments at all.
My comments aren’t advocating, ignoring, or accepting the death penalty. I can’t speculate to China’s intent behind the law, or assume it’s application.
I was addressing the sensationalist nature of the article, about how it latched onto the passage about death for the purpose of generating clicks.
To discuss the why or the how behind the law is another matter entirely and goes well beyond the scope of my comment. I’m sure there are plenty of discussions out there that cover those topics, however.
I saw this duck over here, quacking and waddling around, so I called it a duck. Some people took offense, apparently. There was some good discourse, though.
The clickbait nature of the headline does seem to imply that it’s death right off the bat. I never said that death wasn’t on the table, as unfortunate as that is. The death penalty is far from the only outcome, which is difficult to surmise from just this one article alone.
However, I’m not going to edit the comments I made in an attempt to present it differently. My goal was to get people to read into it, question their assumptions, and not take the article at face value. Media literacy is a skill and involves going well past the headline, so hopefully some people saw that while trying to prove me wrong.
I feel the downvotes are unjustified as well, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. It’s a sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I saw that going into it.
It seems that way. I only addressed the article, and some of them were talking as if I was advocating death penalties for people expressing themselves.
Yeah, it’s legal language that’s been translated, so I can’t expect vernacular clarity.
I don’t get the tankie comments, either. My original post was about the article being biased towards sensationalism. It seems lots of people have strong opinions and feel the need to lash out.