I know a few people living in them and similar odds and ends. Lots of trips into the house for amenities, some pissing into a jug because the walk is too long for regular bathroom trips
Debit card. Some of my clients pay in cash, which slowly gets used up as I remember it. Sometimes random homeless people end up with $20 because I don't have change.
I am a boring "functional" drunk that can type and speak clearly while blackout, but won't remember anything and will occasionally say a completely off-the-wall thing haha
In Australia, at least, our "Liberal" party is OG Liberal, but in the US Liberal has come to mean a sort of coastal consensus. Just throwing darts at the board, it's a cagey alliance of progressives, Hollywood, Seattle, and New York, with varying opinions on "property rights" and capital.
Based on my fairly cursory reading, this split in the usage of the word "liberal" comes from the influence of liberal scholars in the US like Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill, who didn't have the same clout in Europe or the UK. Their emancipatory theory, accept it or not, was whether minorities (e.g. Black people, women, indigenous people) could potentially have access to Capital, assuming it was accessible at all. You can still see echoes of this today in the "Margaret Thatcher girlboss" meme. If you want a short primer of "Liberals vs Conservatives" in the US context, you could say its a competition between current capital owners and potential capital owners, though obviously there's a lot of cultural signifiers, political inertia, and alliances that in the short term go against that.
Leftist is an even more nebulous term. A lot of libs (in the US sense) consider themselves on the left, earnestly so. It could be defined as anti-capitalist in the modern context, but that would be the speaker declaring such a thing to their audience more than any cultural definition with any power. Obviously, the original reference to the French parliament, where more or less aristocratic parties were arranged from right to left, no longer has much relevance. Liberalism has subsumed aristocracy; the only aristocrats with much power do so within the context of Liberalism. It's hard to say if vanguardism vs direct worker democracy is more or less left, I think the dichotomy breaks down at some point, partly motivated by the equivocation of "left" meaning "more good".
I think its worthwhile to consciously avoid getting caught up in these games, especially at the behest of a bunch of online nerds. Take stock of yourself and the needs of your (real life) communities, advocate for their interests but also help them to improve. What else can one truly do?
(I am rather drunk right now, not in a fighty mood)
Yeah, you can. Except... 10k people, there's actually only a couple of primary sources for that number who claim to be there. I realise that every lib expat from China will claim that they had a family member in the protests who died, but very few are willing to go on the record even with Western protection.
The thing is, the vast vast vast majority of people who believe "10k dead" haven't engaged with primary sources (people that actually saw what was going on at Tiananmen Square). The western journalists who were present don't believe the 10k number, even though they aren't CPC shills.
Why am I even responding to this? I literally have been in those spaces and asked, all without sucking Xi's dick, let alone Deng's or whatever.
I did a deep-ish dive on primary and secondary evidence for the time. Still have it in a google doc that could turn out an article.
I think the tl;dr is that the popular narrative (especially in Australia, where I live) is that the CPC bulldozed 10,000 protesters at Tiananmen Square with tanks in 1989 because they were protesting against the communist party. Guts squishing out of treads. The narrative obviously paints Australia's largest export partner as hideously evil (and by association every socialist project. Whether or not you accept this, a lot of Australians do).
My own research (sorry, I hate this term, conspiracy theorists ruined it) has uncovered a few things that are publicly available that throw shade on this narrative:
Most of the journalists that were actually present (I focused on Australian ones, because that's where I live) agree that no massacre happened at the square that night. They claim to have been amongst the last to leave after the order to disperse.
The source for 10,000 comes from two places: A journalist at a nearby hospital who estimates that 10k people could have been rushed in as casualties. More significantly, the main source for the 10k figure was an intelligence asset at the Australian Embassy IIRC who said that an internal member of the CPC had told them the 10k figure. Notably, this happened quite early in the night. This was then repeated by the Prime Minister the next day (totally to the surprise of the intelligence asset and the embassy).
The source for tanks grinding up protesters bodies into paste come from one place, a person that the above journalists say was not present at Tiananmen Square and was in a position to flee the country a couple of hours later. Not impossible, but strains credibility. The source's claims later influenced people's memories of "Tank Man", a video of a person interacting with a column of tanks for a bit before leaving. Ballsy, for sure, but he was not being ground up into paste and neither did the tank crews seem willing to do that.
There were separate protests going on on the highway leading up to the Square. China is a big place with a lot of people, and at the time Deng was introducing market reforms. A significant number of protesters were in both events were protesting against the market reforms that Deng was introducing (allowing more free flow of Capital to the rest of China). The majority of the deaths (that did happen, I wouldn't claim otherwise) happened on this approach. For this reason, the most senior journalist of the Australian cohort at the time regrets calling it the Tiananman square massacre as he feels it gives the CPC ammunition to discredit everything about it. He's still alive, I have an email I need to send him, or go bother him in person next time I'm in Melbourne.
The massacre (the references to the event that did happen) was more like a roving street battle. The first casualties were Chinese soldiers, some of which were burned alive while chained to buses and APCs. There were also many protester casualties. The CPC claims a little under 300 fatalities of the entire event, including their own troops. I find this largely plausible, or at least that it's lower than the commonly believed 10k figure in my country by at least an order of magnitude.
The biggest promoters of the various claims are people closely associated with the NED's office in Beijing. I don't know what that means to you.
Anyway, after doing this "research" I kinda figured that most people in my social circles don't want to hear it, even though the information is very publicly available. So why bother bringing it up in normal conversation? The best you're doing is probably excluding yourself from any conversation.
I still have the names of the journos, parties etc. in question if you want, as well as various links. I am just a little drunk and haven't opened up the document.
I am approaching this in as good faith as possible.
Yes, I am the butterfly