this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
215 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13392 readers
1069 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If anyone wants a good example of this brainworm freshly-regurgitated by our .World friends: https://lemmy.world/comment/10437862
Tankies, famous for pretending Tank Man media exists only in the form of one picture. Also one of them says "Peking" for some fucking reason.
There was a “guide” on how to debate tankies on the neoliberal sub. Basically, a tankie will likely cite some author or newspaper article or academic or etc., but if you can’t find any information about that from the Wikipedia article of the related topic, then it’s best to assume the tankie is lying and wasting your time.
Idiot probably didn’t read any of them.
I've seen this used as a gotcha -- most notably by the Columbia Journalism Review (lmao). Though correct, it's an extremely weak argument.
Even then they're still calling it a massacre. Like i am 100% certain some number of uninvolved civilians were deliberately shot and killed by pla troops who believed them to be insurgents, but as you drill down and drill down and drill down there's no moment where the pla fired en masse and indiscriminately on people
Like, pure armchair general math, but from the pictures it looks like if the 280 number is accurate then probable 5-10% of the people killed were pla soldiers and cops. Which, like; i don't think that has happened in the us. I don't think there's ever been an incident in the us where 10% of the people killed during a protest were soldiers or cops. Like, idk, maybe yes? But that would be in a case where 1-3 cops where killed, idfk.
Like, this isn't just a small amount of violence relative to the scope of the movement, it's a kind of violence that doesn't have clear parallels in the us. Right wing protestors attacked and killed an army troop convoy and then the military fought them and stopped the. This isn't kent state, where the army deliberately rolled up and killed a bunch of students, the armed pla troops came in specifically to stop the insurgents.
https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/#fn29
I think this way of framing it to libs -- a focus on the facts themselves, and how deadly violence by the protesters led to a deadly response -- is better than focusing on what is or isn't a "massacre." It's easy to get bogged down in semantics and hypotheticals when talking about if certain facts fit a definition. The facts themselves should take center stage, and keeping the discussion focused on them leads people to question whether "massacre" is fitting on their own.
I specifically use "insurgents" because that's what they were - cia backed insurgents trying to escalate who attacked unarmed soldiers and bured them alive. They weren't part of the protest movement, they were parasites trying to hijack it. The protest movement was mostly Maoist, like there were all kinds of issues being raised, but it was primarily a Maoist movement protesting Dengist market liberalization. The Insurgents weren'ty part of that.
That's a good point, too, though maybe something like "instigators" or "hijackers" would be even better. I'm trying to put on my lib hat to see what would cause unproductive debates over language, and "come on, there wasn't an insurgency" seems like an easy one to avoid.
The George Floyd protests were also recent enough and popular enough to provide some good examples of how many protests don't involve everyone acting in lockstep, and their very nature invites all sorts of people to try and steer the crowd to their preferred ends.
Oh god this entire thread is full of gems
Isn't that like... The basics of how a democratic mandate works?
Not that I've ever seen it as a topic here but still. If Rishi Sunak continues as ~~president~~ PM beyond his term time I'm calling him illegitimate. In fact I'm calling him illegitimate now and forever because we literally never got to vote for the fuck. He has/had no mandate.
EDIT: Fuck me libs jump to the dumbest conclusions over the smallest shit.
Term limits aren’t very indicative of democracy. If someone keeps requesting someone to lead beyond a nominal limit, is it not undemocratic to reject it? I still think a mental/age limit should be in place though.
I think any functioning and sensible democracy would not require one. The problem that the US has with geriatrics is a problem of a malfunctioning bourgeoise-democracy. It's underperforming as a "democracy" even for the bourgeoise because of this.
The us has term limits specifically because what's his ass kept winning and wasn't fashy enough.
Rishi... President? Yea, I don't think you're front the UK.
doesn't seem like you are either
Don't be a dickhead. The pronouns are literally right there in front of your face.
Lmao I was running on 36 hours of being awake when I posted that. I currently reside in Woking if you're wondering, but only for 2 more weeks or I wouldn't be saying that here lmao.
Also a mod over on /r/greenandpleasant, probably banned you at least once if this is the kind of conclusion you jump to over stupid shit.
That's why he's an illegitimate president.
Rishi Sunak is not my president!
Help me out what's it called when an elected official doesn't give up power after their term ends
Oh yeah, near the bottom some dumbass claims people here think the same of Mao, Pol Pot, and Putin!!
The 5 heads of communism
Marx, Mao, Pol Pot, Putin, Obama
We're mainly just fans of leaders who wore a hat at least once
I don't make the rules.
You guys are getting promoted to Facebook and reddit?
The scary concept is the idea that either Facebook or Reddit is a promotion!
Xi please don't promote me just leave me as a lowly Hexbear-only peon
If anyone still remembered the Brady Bunch I'd make a joke comparing the "Marsha Marsha Marsha!" line to "Russia russia russia!"
Obsession with a plot!
Never seen this on here lol. But you’d think these dweebs would be hand wringing about term limits.
I love this because they somehow concluded we support Pol Pot and not that he was a US/China backed psychopath. They always talk about Pol Pot but they never talk about who kicked his ass and ended his genocide. It just stopped out of magic.
It’s called Peking in German
racists, imperialists, and hoi4 players