1043
submitted 1 year ago by Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago
[-] trafficnab@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My personal definition would be "authoritarian communist (or """communist""") regime supporters/apologists". I think a good litmus test is, if the topic of the Tiananmen Square massacre comes up, and their first input is "Ok, but, how many zeroes did the number of dead civilians really have", they're probably too far gone to bother engaging much with

Too many anarchist/commune types consider the authoritarians to be their allies because they also hate the capitalists, right up until the point they're next on the list of undesirables destined for the wall

[-] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

๐Ÿ‘ Then ๐Ÿ‘ read ๐Ÿ‘ the ๐Ÿ‘ Wiki ๐Ÿ‘ page ๐Ÿ‘

Because that will tell you the answer is 1. One zero. Because the number of dead civilians in the Tiananmen Square Massacre is zero. No civilian deaths there. Nada. Read the wiki page, it will tell you no deaths. This information brought to you by such Commies as:

  • the US Government,
  • the Washington Post correspondent (who was there all night),
  • the CBS correspondent (same),
  • and more!

Were there a limited number of deaths in protests elsewhere that wasn't Tiananmen? Yep, about 2-3 hundred across a few hundred cities. And that's bad! But is also pretty dang small relative to the protest size, and happens in all major protests in all countries everywhere.

[-] trafficnab@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry I forgot to add "Ok but, were they really inside the square, or just near it?"

Spending the first 7/8ths of your comment dancing around the main issue (at a minimum hundreds, thankfully you at least have to admit to that since those are the official Chinese numbers, potentially thousands, of civilian protestors being killed by the Chinese military), laser focusing on some minor detail like it's a great big gotcha, then brushing the whole thing off at the end with "Yep it's bad, but it happens shrug" is exactly what I'm talking about

I guess I should at least thank you for so deftly illustrating my point though

[-] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

A few hundred cities across the country is not "near it" Something like half of the dead were cops or military. You should do some reading about where the weapons that killed them came from. Interesting stuff!

[-] Egon@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

laser focusing on some minor detail.

Like you just did? Focusing in on location? Instead of taking in the larger argument? Your hypocrisy reeks

[-] trafficnab@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

point out the classic tactic of spending a lot of time picking apart minor details in an attempt to discredit the whole

no u

My impression was that you guys were supposed to be more eloquent than this

[-] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

eloquence is spent on those deserving it. Why engage civilly with you when it's obvious you're not interested in good faith discourse? horsepoo-theory

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
1043 points (81.0% liked)

Memes

45555 readers
1843 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS