WhatWouldKarlDo @ WhatWouldKarlDo @lemmygrad.ml

| Pronouns | She/Her |

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

89

Joined

2 yr. ago

During the New York Draft Riots, the New York Times machine gunned protestors.

No need to speculate

And the only military casualty was friendly fire.

Yeah, this is definitely better than my reply. I'm tired after arguing with the liberals all damn day. I need some cigars and brandy.

They only have two political parties, and it can be hard to tell the difference between them a lot of the time. They're both still going to push for more military spending, treat social programs with extreme suspicion, and probably go out and attack another country. The Wikipedia definition of neoliberal is this:

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.

Which describes both parties pretty well. Americans have a bit of a twisted view of liberal Vs conservative. Both their parties are pretty right wing in comparison to most of the rest of the world, so they often come down to performative acts. For instance, I'm trans. Neither party really cares about me, but the republican base hates me. So they each put on a big show of doing something about me. But they are both primarily interested in the same overall goals in governance, which is in line with neoliberal ideology.

So we just call them all liberals (although I think the republican party is becoming fascist, which is arguably not the same thing). Regardless, an average liberal's ideology is more compatible with fascism than with us.

I'm about done discussing this with you, as you already seem to have a reasonable amount of facts.

But your insistence that China fired upon peaceful protests based on "China’s authoritarian and notoriously opaque government cannot be trusted to tell the truth " is absolutely insane and not at all fact based. There's zero evidence to support that. The PLA must really be bad at massacres if they allowed that many of their vehicles and personnel to be killed by unarmed civilians.

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.

I have done nothing of the sort. I've addressed every topic. I'm inquiring further about why this one particular event is of such importance in showing how evil China is, while things like this are just one of those things. The fact that this keeps popping up every single year and actual American massacres are barely mentioned should indicate to you that the people running the propaganda machine really want you to hate China.

They've shown themselves very willing to twist the truth, but you still insist that the core claim is true, no matter what. The clear use of this as propaganda should lead you to question it.

But I doubt that any further conversation will be productive. You have the basic facts correct, which is better than most. Many people did die that night. Many of them soldiers. The fighting happened in many separate locations away from the square. Those are the facts. If you extrapolate a massacre out of that, there's no facts I can draw upon to argue with you, other than repeating that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

We are an a communist instance. American liberals (which includes both of their major political parties) are very imperialist and love to push propaganda about their enemies. It's why public opinion for China took a nose dive in the last 10 years. Why Iran is so evil, but nobody thinks about Kuwait. Why Tiananmen square gets so much attention but the white terror receives none. China's the enemy, and "Taiwan" is an innocent friend that needs protecting.

Being communist, we are anti-imperialist, and hate the war mongering propaganda that the liberals seem to lap up. They see this as being conspiracy theorists or contrarian. Hence the conflict about things like this.

I'm really confused by this one. He admitted he lied, and so did many of his colleagues. But you believe that he's still telling the truth about the massacre?

Look, we don't know exactly what happened there that night. But it's clear that the west lied through their teeth about the entire thing, and the lies are self perpetuating at this point. China's story seems to check out. You HAVE to see that.

Furthermore, why is this event of a couple hundred casualties pushed so hard by the media as proof of China's evilness, when Mai Lai or the 228 incident are barely talked about? This is 100% pure propaganda, and it's mostly, perhaps entirely untrue.

This line cracked me up:

Asians have an incredible and perplexing capacity to absorb monstrous events and get on with life anyway

Yep. Even after being forced to admit that he made it up, he's still reporting about things he admits he never saw. Which I have to admit, is a pretty bold move.

That was my analysis as well. It's really hard to tell where his seething hatred for China (and really all of Asia) ends and the truth begins. There's very little actual substance.

Also, for reference, here are photos from a massacre that actually did happen.

I might suggest you read this then. It's by a reporter for the Washington Post, who was in the city reporting on it at the time.

My personal opinion on the matter isn't that much different from yours (the biggest reason being that the media blitz about the massacre seemed preplanned... It just didn't go according to plan). The problem is that I can't prove anything, so it's all conjecture. So I typically leave that out. It's already a sensitive enough subject.

Gold star for you! This is significantly better than the usual nonsense that's pushed. But after having claimed a massacre for so long, this still seems like damage control to me.

Do these photos look like the aftermath of a massacre to you? Or do you think that the CPC account of the situation might be closer to reality? They claim that after the protest was broken up, some violent instigators began attacking the military in the area around the square. And yes, hundreds died, and many of them were soldiers.

Again, fantastical claims. Where are these pictures?

Edit: I love that this is the second person to come in here who gives us shit for being conspiracy theorists, disregards first hand eyewitness accounts, and runs away when pressed for evidence. Murder trials in the US must work very differently than I've been led to believe.

extraordinary claim and therefore is going to require extraordinary evidence

All it takes to prove that the massacre did happen is evidence. Where is this extraordinary evidence?

Proving that something doesn't exist is much harder. There was a liberal in here earlier though that was also saying that we're a bunch of conspiracy theorists. I gave him links, you can see them below. First hand reports from people who were actually there say that there was no massacre. This includes a CBS reporter and a Latin American diplomat.

Nobody is denying bloodshed. There absolutely were violent protests outside the square. The claim in question is that the military gunned down thousands of peaceful protesters in the square, which so far as I know is a claim that's exclusively made by people who were not there.

They were referring to the last paragraph of that article.

How do you feel about COVID vaccines?