Incorrect! You see, there was no example offered by me that China does or does not employ hostile architecture, not even the slightest hint of implication.
Please note that this is not my post and I did not agree that this claim was even accurate, I have zero idea as to the accuracy of that photo, and it doesn’t matter, as both claims and more can all be “propaganda”
It doesn’t need to be your post to answer that question. The reason why they would do that is because this is blatant propoganda, no need to be on the fence about it.
But I answered my own question, it was a rhetorical question.I don’t see how it’s “blatant” over “kinda”; for example, do you consider all Lemmy posts to be propaganda because they are all online? If bored just ignore, I’m not trying to be difficult
I think it’s a sliding scale and maybe even subjective claims either way.
Propaganda doesn’t mean false, it’s used to manipulate public opinion whether true or false.
So, was this used to manipulate public opinion? I dunno, kinda
This example is also false because China also employs hostile architecture. Hell, they manufacture the stuff for the US.
Incorrect! You see, there was no example offered by me that China does or does not employ hostile architecture, not even the slightest hint of implication.
Why bring up a bad thing thats true for both countries and leave one of them out?
Guangzhou, China
Please note that this is not my post and I did not agree that this claim was even accurate, I have zero idea as to the accuracy of that photo, and it doesn’t matter, as both claims and more can all be “propaganda”
It doesn’t need to be your post to answer that question. The reason why they would do that is because this is blatant propoganda, no need to be on the fence about it.
But I answered my own question, it was a rhetorical question.I don’t see how it’s “blatant” over “kinda”; for example, do you consider all Lemmy posts to be propaganda because they are all online? If bored just ignore, I’m not trying to be difficult
I think it’s a sliding scale and maybe even subjective claims either way.
If it’ll manipulate public opinion into demanding good public transport then great.