Here's the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.
You being anticommunist is what I thought you meant. Those aren’t unrelated.
So you think that what I meant by "I’m more worried about [some people who] make other communists look bad" was that I'm an anti-communist? That seems highly unlikely. If I were anti-communist, surely I'd love those people precisely because they make communists look bad?
I have been acting in good-faith
Literally your first response to me in this entire thread was uncivil condescension.
Communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. Anyone that actually defends AES and doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.
Yeah that's not what I mean by Tankies, and it's not what most people mean by tankies. Not all marxist-leninists are tankies, for example. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say most aren't. But those who try to sweep under the rug the bad things that nominally-communist states have done are tankies, and they give other communists, other marxists, other marxist-leninists, and indeed all other leftists a bad name. (As an aside, most of the time those things were done by state-capitalist governments, not communist ones.)
doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.
I'm actually from the Global South. I can promise you the US state department is full of shit. As are most Americans who speak about it, including most American leftists.
Are you saying there's nobody who defends all three and claims to be a leftist? Because that I'd say I've never seen. But I've certainly seen various accounts claiming to be leftists and defending one or two of them.
Are you saying there aren't people who defend aggressive actions by far-right politicians? That there aren't people who defend Netanyahu, Putin and Trump?
Honestly I'm more worried about those who claim to be communists but do things that both go against the tenets of communism and make other communists look bad. Tankies are a subset of that.
"Birds fly south for the winter" was the second example I remember of my classmates having only learned things with northern hemisphere bias after moving to the northern hemisphere.
The first was my classmates not grasping that while it was spring here, it was autumn back home.
Condescension was such a weird way to respond to my comment in the first place, and I'm sorry I fell for it and responded in the same vein. I should instead have taken the opportunity to point out that in addition to Kipling mentioning pawpaw in the novel, it's quite possible that Terry Gilkyson had never heard of the American pawpaw either and that the fruit shown in the cartoon movie more closely resembles a papaya than an American pawpaw.
The pawpaw in the Jungle Book is what's known in the US as papaya. It's been cultivated in India since at least the 18th century. Likewise prickly pears have been brought all over the world. By the time Kipling wrote The Jungle Book, both fruits were well established in India, just as many old world fruits have made it to the Americas.
Here's the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.