He also claims that they banned the letter “N” kekw
how can anyone take these people seriously?
Did you know that most people living in the people’s republic of china go their entire life without being able to say “I disagree with the cpc”? That is because English isn’t their main language.
I straight up giggled
The word China is in fact banned in China
A simple Baidu search with Deepl shows you that mentions of Tiananmen square aren’t censored in China, it’s so stupid what libs believe.
These are the same people that unironically want to ban Z lol
Germany effectively did. German libs love to say that we have “freedom of opinion” here and not freedom of speech, but even that freedom of opinion is being eroded almost by the day.
Germany also officialy declared that the Holodomor was started intentionally by the Soviets to punish Ukraine.
It’s mental what this country is up to.
That one hurts in a particular kind of way, given how instrumental the Nazis were in originally spreading the myth of the Holodomor (and other anti-Soviet atrocity propaganda).
Yeah I know. Never again my ass.
I mean the thumbnail has a winnie pooh xi, only edgy kids and teens find that funny.
they claim that the word “disagree” is banned on Chinese social media.
How the fuck do people fall for this kind of shit when it’s so easily disproven?
Translation into Chinese from https://translate.alibaba.com/ – Disagree -> 不同意
I will now apparently commit thoughtcrime: https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=不同意
Will update if I get a knock on the door from the seeseepee overseas police that’s apparently already in Canada where I am, or if my family in China are threatened. Or if I suddenly stop posting, I guess I’m already in one of the Xinjiang camps by then.
One search on Baidu or Zhihu proves it wrong.
Checking that would require the viewer to have the intellectual curiosity to ask if what they’re being presented is true.
to these people, if the accusation is about China, its automatically true, and questioning it means you’re a tankie
This is literally the same strategy used by the west in the “anti Stalin paradigm” which is a term coined by Grover Furr. In his many years of research into the Soviet Unions and western propaganda he states that basically the west can make up anything they want, any accusation at all, and if you question it in any way you are now a sympathizer with the accused and their made up crimes. So if I said Stalin personally strangled 100 children for no reason, and you ask me for a source, the reaction would be me accusing you of approving of Stalins strangling of 1000 children.
As we see, this is a tactic they employ against any target they wish.
supposedly, the many banned terms were quickly unbanned, but further reading would require being able to read Chinese. which i can’t.
for comrades braver than me, here’s br*tmonkey’s source list for the video: https://pastebin.com/qNQbXyUE
and the source for “letter N was banned” (from the guardian, notorious source of Unbiased™ reporting about china): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/28/china-bans-the-letter-n-internet-xi-jinping-extends-power
People take it seriously because it is white noise. They could just have a person jumping up and down saying “Tinyman square” over and over again it would have exactly the same effect. It isn’t supposed to be informative, it’s supposed to affirm their previously held belief of “Chinabad.” It exists as a big list of things because each individual part of it doesn’t actually matter, the goal is to do a kind of “Gish Gallop” of information, to just list off a huge number of things all at once, when all each of these individual things is just another statement of “Chinabad” again and again. It’s almost like a mantra, being repeated so often as a form of meditation, to achieve true liberal enlightenment.
How can pointing out violent supression and the killing of peaceful demonstrators possibly not be informative?
It’s informative in the way a fantasy novel is informative.
Useful comment for a circlejerk but not really for someone who doesn’t hold your worldview.
If you’re interested in further investigation, this is a quick but quite comprehensive overview of the events, from a journalist with credibility in western circles.
https://www.fridayeveryday.com/how-psy-ops-warriors-fooled-me-about-tiananmen-square-a-warning/
How can pointing out violent supression and the killing of peaceful demonstrators possibly not be informative?
It’s not peaceful when PLAs were burnt/killed.
While I haven’t looked into the two others, on one of the people burnt, Liu Guogeng, it seems important details were excluded:
On the streets, a widely circulated alternative version of events was that Liu had shot four people with his AK47 and was lynched after he ran out of ammunition. In fact, the photos of him hanging from a bus had been framed in such a way as to exclude the slogans scrawled in the dirt on the side of the bus: “He killed four people! Murderer! The People Must Win! Pay Back the Blood Debt!”
From Louisa Lim - The People’s Republic of Amnesia, p. 17, just started reading this. It seems curious to me that the sources I have been given are really just repeating the justifications used by the state.
You also completely ignore how when troops were initially sent into stop the protests, the protestors blocked them for days, chatted with and fed, finally forcing the troops to return peacefully. It is the chinese state that began the violent supression of the protests afterwards.
And as I have commented elsewhere, random blogs and Reddit posts are useless sources to learn history from.
Here’s the more formal source
https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/tiananmenreadinglist
Some more context:
Footage from a documentary titled The Gate of Heavenly Peace shows an interview between Chai Ling (student leader in the Tianamen Square Incident) and reporter Philip Cunningham a week prior to the protest.
In the footage, Chai makes the following statements:
-
Chai Ling: All along I’ve kept it to myself, because being Chinese I felt I shouldn’t bad-mouth the Chinese. But I can’t help thinking sometimes – and I might as well say it – you, the Chinese, you are not worth my struggle! You are not worth my sacrifice! What we (the protestors) actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people.
-
Cunningham: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?
-
Chai Ling: “No.”
-
Cunningham: “Why?”
-
Chai Ling: "Because my situation is different. I want to live. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. I don’t know if people will say I’m selfish. I believe that people have to continue the work I have started. A democracy movement can’t succeed with only one person. I hope you don’t report what I’ve just said for the time being, okay?"
The footage has been verified by third-party media specialists as genuine, and is readily available online.
Chai Ling, or the biggest hypocritical scumbag ever.
- The movie was paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation.
-
Ah yes a ‘widely circulated alternate version of events’, because everyone knows ccp bad xinnie the pooh subhuman orcs media always lies to us and le wholesome reddit gold award ‘rumors’ are the word of god.
Great points, we should disregard all eyewitness that don’t conform to our views. And how do you respond to the photographs? Accidental discrepancy, with the writings on why he was killed being lies by the protestors? I can share a book which contains the photographs.
give pictures. Can you read chinese?
No I don’t know chinese. I have only screenshotted the text because gore. It is from Michael Berry - A history of pain p.302, it’s on library genesis.
“people’s republic of amnesia”. Another tired screed by some diaspora shitlib with no real primary sources. Tell me, do you think an AK47 only holds 4 bullets?
There’s multiple pictures showing people with makeshift firearms in anti-CCP sites showing pictures from the incident.
Here’s a fun quote from wikipedia:
“Meanwhile, protesters used student loudspeakers in various university campuses in Beijing to call for students and citizens to arm themselves and assemble at intersections and the Square.[68]”
Real peaceful.
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
Its not true she had no primary sources. If you’d tried looking at the book you’d see it combines interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources. Eyewitnesses like a soldier who was at Tiananmen (who gives inconvenient details like protestors throwing bricks, glass bottles and injuring soldiers. And recounting how many were injured after clearing the square), general wu qinxian who refused to have his troops forcefully stop the protests, etc.
I still haven’t looked into the students during when force began to be used, will later.
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
I guess the topic Chinese people being killed is such an unserious matter to you that you think “:P” is an appropriate thing to use. Going mask off a little too early huh?
interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources.
Translation: “anonymous” sources that totally aren’t made up and more bullshit with no real sources. The only named source you have is some guy who was in a hospital the whole time.
No the “:P” was for how I found your conclusion to be silly. Isnt it silly you didnt consider warning shots, missed shots, people shot non-lethally, not to mention people being shot multiple times? So dont get ahead of yourself.
I dont know how to express my frustration of you just making stuff up about the source and leaving it to me to correct things. If you really want to criticize the book, takes a minute to download it and verify things.
No they arent anonymous, and those are two of many. The first person was just a random soldier-turned-artist whos name I excluded because I couldnt remember. I havent read the chapter on the general, but why assume he was interviewed on the events at Tianamen and not to have him recount events of before he was removed from his post?
https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt-2/
Because that never happened.
While I think a blog post by a political party is pretty much useless as a source, I’ve stumbled on other reliable stuff while trying to verify it and they go against what I believed, so thanks for that. It seems the violence wasn’t in the square itself but towards it and nearby.
I find it difficult to claim something as utterly useless as a source whenever it is well-sourced itself.
I appreciate you reading it, regardless.
I said that because I can question if for some of the argumentsnts its building, if it is presenting the whole picture with the sources it has chosen.
Understood.
deleted by creator
You can’t say the N word if there is no letter N😈 -Xi Jinping
Xi Jipig
I thought he looked a lot grainier
Just saw the vid suggested to me like an hour before checking this post, salute 🫡, I didn’t have the strength to trudge through that garbage
It also seems most commenters didn’t watch the video either. The claim isn’t that those words were permanently banned, it’s that they were temporarily removed (blocked) from search results untill people calmed down, when they were allowed again.
A simple Google search returns multiple articles with the claim, all linking back to this post from the China Digital Times.
I haven’t found claims of the site sharing missinformation.
US based media site that’s run by the vice chairman of the World Movement for Democracy (founded by the NED)
