You injected discussions about Tiananmen Square into this debate. It came out of nowhere.

And I simply don’t accept the official Chinese picture of what happened. There is plenty of evidence of what happened.

What I do accept is the nuance. But you’d have to read the rest of my responses to understand that.

If the disagreement is about framing then I don’t think there’s a disagreement. But if you’re insisting that tue Chinese government did no wrong, then we do have one. And that’s not about framing, that’s about covering for government murders.

My understanding is based on the links you’ve sent and my cursory looking through them combined with a few other academic sources and a Taiwanese NGO that as created to address this very topic. To me, it appears there was internal dissent within the CCP, focused on general standard of life things (inflation, cost of goods, etc.), which was opposed to some of the more entrenched power structures of the CCP/PRC government. Of this organic movement, some parties were likely co-opted or encouraged over time by foreign actors to step up their dissent into civil disobedience.

This dissent grew over some years into outright protests, which in turn grew into conflicts between the protest movement and the Chinese police and military, which turned to violence and the deaths of hundreds of protesters and at least several government agents. I didn’t watch any video of “the leader” of this opposition movement who expressly went there for violence, but I don’t doubt there were people who were preparing (and may have welcomed) violence.

However, I am of the opinion that any government has the responsibility to de-escalate and to not attack protesters with tanks and machine guns.

I hitch brings me to authoritarianism: you’re wrong, there’s plenty of space for nuance when discussing it. The term is not used to describe an ideology, it’s used to describe behavior. And there are plenty of places in the world where there are very unpopular views, harmful to society, where people aren’t murdered by the state for expressing them loudly.

And when you have any government that censors its own people by making it next to impossible to access information, shoots at them, infringes on their rights to worship as they see fit or to live and work as and where they prefer, or doesn’t allow dissenting ideology, then it’s authoritarian. Doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, and there’s not any need for nuance.

Finally: isn’t the whole communist experiment an expression of an idealism? Granted I’ve only read a few of the more foundational texts, but isn’t your logic against the entire goal of global emancipation from exploitation?

I’m just advocating for a more gradualist approach, devoid as much as possible of repressive violence. And while imperfect, I would argue that there are many places where this is/has occurred to a certain degree already; I’m specifically thinking about the social democracies in Europe.

As an aside, this is why I want to frequent lemmy.ml, and hate it when I’m simply dismissed as “a lib” when I am really just not quite as revolutionary as I used to be…

Cite the people who already quoted the source (The internet, as cited in Lemmy, 2024).

I am not an expert in what actually happened at Tiananmen, however at least we can both acknowledge that there were protesters, and that there was violence. Why is it so hard to consider that the US did have a hand in stirring the pot politically and supporting different dissenting groups in order to destabilize what it views/viewed as an ideological threat (which the US has plenty history of doing), but also that the Chinese government grossly overreacted and killed a bunch of protesting students? Both of these things can be true at the same time.

I also acknowledged that my use of the word was incendiary.

I’m sorry, I can’t trust the word of that site. I looked into Chris Kanthan and can’t find any evidence that he knows what he’s writing about (his bios use the fact that he’s written books to justify his expertise and continuing to write books, but it seems like he’s actually a computer programmer in San Francisco?), and there’s a clear bias towards the Chinese political elite, which I, personally, disagree with.

People are using logical fallacies. You have already done it to me, in your comment about that was removed in this thread and in others where we have met.

I don’t know what to say about authoritarianism being infantile. It’s crazy to me that somebody would be ok with repression anywhere, regardless of where imaginary lines are drawn on maps.

Every stable country technically holds or tries to hold the monopoly on violence, by some definitions, but why is it bad for me to question this assumption, no matter the perpetrator?

Speaking to your last point: I reject your absolute definition of for whom these different establishments work. I happen to believe that both political and civil rights and social, economic, and cultural rights can be protected, and I believe that repression is the counter to obtaining these. I don’t think either of these countries does enough to guarantee them, since they seem to be too entrenched in discourse of conflict and their own flawed and harmful ideologies.

Things did happen there. It’s very well documented, even in the sources the other person posted. There was conflict and there were deaths, of both protesters and of Chinese military/police personnel.

I’m not regurgitating any propaganda, except perhaps implicitly in my use of the word “massacre” that is quite loaded. Aside from this brief exchange I have not said anything about Tiananmen Square anywhere.

I wish to participate on .ml because I have a deep seated interest in politics, political theory, and policy. I like having my views challenged from the left of me, and accessing alternative media.

What I don’t enjoy is being constantly attacked using various logical and argumentative fallacies, and I don’t appreciate authoritarianism or the silencing of oppositional views.

Edit: and the overarching reason is that I detest echo chambers, and because of how .ml mods and admins act, I’m finding it almost impossible to break out of my own. I’m learning that it’s because .ml seems to be another echo chamber where dissenting opinions are simply silenced rather than addressed, which really sucks.

The OP was supposedly banned for spreading information that supports that an event happened (The Tiananmen Square massacre), which is something that one of the most repressive media regimes that exists in the world (China) is trying to deny.

That sounds like the use of moderation powers in support of another government’s propaganda.

I just wish .ml would be more open about whose government propaganda is allowed, I guess, which echoes OP’s question.

Is it all of .ml where only Chinese propaganda is allowed, but US is not? Russian disinformation is ok, but not English? What are the lines, assuming I am interested in taking part in discourse on .ml?

I don’t know what a “glowie” is.

I don’t much care for Reddit, thanks.

Edit: you almost got my with your misdirection and muddying of the waters. Fair play.

But seriously, do I understand the original post I replied to correctly? They’re saying that the OP was banned for asserting that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square, and then presents evidence that it didn’t actually happen?

So your assertion is that Tiananmen square didn’t happen, and the OP was banned for saying that it did happen?

Edit: does anybody else find it suspicious that this comment is this account’s only one?

Mouthful of Diamonds - Phantogram

sigh ok. I’ll keep talking to you. But my responses will get progressively more disconnected from the thread. As I said: technical difficulties.

This is the first time in my life I’ve been the recipient of this quote. Where have I shown antisemitism? Or even a bias towards antisemitism?

What now? What would make it so that you actually believed I was arguing in good faith, and how can I press upon you the utility of polite discourse, at least most of the time?

I mean, you haven’t from the start. That’s the whole point I’m making here, and why I suggested you ease up on your intensity.

But since my lemmy app apparently doesn’t like loading long threads of conversation, I don’t think I can continue this conversation. You win.

It would be in the mod log at worldnews, about four weeks ago. Since I couldn’t participate there I blocked the sub (before understood how lemmy worked), so I unfortunately cannot screenshot the exact comments. But it shouldn’t take a lot of effort if you’re actually interested.

I can’t load the comment that you’ve responded to right now, so I can’t contextualize your response, and I’m not sure how I’ve feigned illiteracy?

lol. This is a text based exchange. How can I be illiterate?

I did take it up with the mod. You have used a quote from the very conversation I had with the moderator, here, during this very exchange. I explicitly complained, without reporting your comments, about unequal moderation. The mod told me to report the comments I found insulting, so I eventually did.

As I said: you were the first one to bring the moderation team into it at all. I was happy to keep calling you stupid when you said stupid shit.

I have people disagree with me all the time. I don’t mind, usually, as long as they are somewhat decent in their communication and allow for debate. Again: I didn’t involve the mod team, you did.

I complained when moderation seemed to target me, not you. It’s not a double standard to expect fair moderation.

And I don’t mind either of us being assholes. As I said: sometimes having views and opinions vehemently challenged is fine, and sometimes it’s enlightening how little pushback some assholes can take.

I just don’t understand how or why I would “frame” you. Seems a little… irrational.

What is the double standard you’re talking about?

Frame you? Like a criminal conspiracy?

I haven’t seen you respond to a single thing in good faith.

And I can think you’re insufferable while also hoping you say something that isn’t insulting, and work to better understanding you, and work to convey my own point.

I like political discourse. I also like being an asshole to assholes. We agree on more than you think we do.

I promise, it’s ok to ease your tone and acknowledge your own missteps. Nobody on the internet will think less of you.

What? You reported me. I tried to allow us to continue engaging with one another to the mod, or insisted on equal moderation. When that wasn’t forthcoming, I responded in-kind.

I was perfectly happy to keep calling you stupid every time you said something stupid, but the mods didn’t like that, and I don’t appreciate unequal moderation.

Did you expect me to stand by and watch you be an asshole after you reported my comments for being an asshole to you? Why would I silence myself like that?

I don’t mind you reporting me. I don’t like it when you use the report button as a weapon to silence dissent, though. Which is what you did.