There's a difference between quickly suppressing a color revolt that is killing soldiers vs. invasions and coups that kill and displace millions of people. If Tiananmen revolt had spread or succeeded then a LOT more people would have died, and China would now be a western puppet instead of a sovereign nation.

[+] tetraodon@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They killed dozens of unarmed soldiers, hanging them by their necks and immolating their corpses. Many of the deaths were done by the mob and they started the lethal violence. They had hundreds of guns out of nowhere, likely supplied by the CIA. Good riddance to these fascist, west-collaborating "students" and the dupes who followed them.

Liberals always handwring at their enemies suppressing internal problems with unsophisticated violence, but that's often the only tool these nations have to sustain their own existence. They don't have sophisticated surveillance deep states with media narrative control, just simple brute force. It's why Liberals were aghast at "Assad using barrel-bombs on his own population" - the preferred method is to destroy street movements via a complex suite of spying, targeted media narratives, sheepdogging, hidden plain-clothes operatives, targeted assassinations of leadership like how Ferguson and the 2020 riots were handled. Assad had one button to have his nation continue to exist, and it was "drop the barrel bombs on the jihadists hiding in apartment complexes" so he pressed it. That makes him a giant villain to Liberals, despite their own funding of jihadists being the very reason he had to push that button.

China at the time of Tiananmen was an unsophisticated state in its suppression capabilities. It had one button to deal with the revolt and continue to exist. I don't believe it was a mistake for them to push it. You can contrast this to how the Hong Kong colonialist petty bourgie revolt was squashed, with 0 deaths. China would obviously prefer 0 deaths, they just didn't have the capabilities at the time.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

This isn't accurate at all. The fighting happened when would-be insurgents ambushed pla troops. The pla had unarmed soldiers in the square for a long time. And i mean really unarmed. No helmets, no shields, no batons, no tear gas. When things finally touched off with the cia-backed "pro democracy) faction that was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people involved the pla ordered everyone out of the square and everyone left. That was it. When the cia backed wannabe insurgents started attacking the pla everyone was ordered to leave and they left. They didn't do any brutal state repression. The cpc was in an extremely awkward position bc the vast majority of people involved in the June 4th incident were protesting against Dengist market liberalization, asking for a return to a more socialist economy. Others were protesting the restrictive social norms of contemporary China, arguing that the restrictive social norms were anti-communsit and that people should have more freedom to do simple stuff like publicly date and be publicly affectionate.

Ultimately a big part of the reason there was little reprisal is bc the cpc couldn't crack down on pro-socialist protestors, and because in the end the whole thing ended mostly peacefully. The narrative around it is so utterly twisted and distorted. And if you ask people in China about it they don't understand why westerners think it's important. It's just a minor incident in history from a long time ago.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let us look at a specific example. A claim like “There’s cultural genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang” is simply unreal to most Westerners, close to pure gibberish. The words really refer to existing entities and geographies, but Westerners aren’t familiar with them. The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough — there’s no reason to expect them to study China, and retrospectively I think to some extent it was a mistake to personally have spent so much time trying to teach them. It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.

What is this social purpose? Westerners want to believe that other places are worse off, exactly how Americans and Canadians perennially flatter themselves by attacking each others’ decaying health-care systems, or how a divorcee might fantasize that their ex-lover’s blooming love-life is secretly miserable. This kind of “crab mentality” is actually a sophisticated coping mechanism suitable for an environment in which no other course of action seems viable. Cognitive dissonance, the kind that eventually spurs one into becoming intolerant of the status quo and into action, is initially unpleasant and scary for everybody. In this way, we can begin to understand the benefit that “victims” of propaganda derive from carelessly “spreading awareness.” Their efforts feed an ambient propaganda haze of controversy and scandal and wariness that suffocates any painful optimism (or jealousy) and ensuing sense of duty one might otherwise feel from a casual glance at the amazing things happening elsewhere. People aren’t “falling” for atrocity propaganda; they’re eagerly seeking it out, like a soothing balm.

https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

[–] Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

A whole lot of words to say very little. No, people believe evidence. Evidence shows that the Chinese government is in fact committing a cultural genocide. From satellite imagery, to official CCP documents to thousands of victim testimonies (which all align btw) to pictures and videos of the camps, of cultural sites being demolished or converted to showing the CCP's forces intimidating people. It's indisputable. The only people who cry, lie, and deny that the CCP's actions are brain dead tankies like you and the CCP itself. There's a reason why the CCP refused to allow the UN to conduct an independent investigation. There's a reason why the CCP bans foreign journalists from visiting Xinjiang. There's a reason why they are pumping so much fake propaganda to try and deny it. They know it's happening, everybody knows it's happen.

You're a brain damaged tankie. I know you don't care about facts and I know you're too willfully ignorant to accept any evidence. My point is just to demonstrate that the propaganda you speak of is being chugged by the likes of you, not the people you accuse.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's almost like

Standard issue Reddit format opener is already a bad start.

every government commits atrocities at some point or another

What is the point of such a claim? Is the implication that all governments are equally bad? That is both lazy and absurd. Is this some veiled libertarian pitch in favor of ostensibly less government, except still a government and less accountable?

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reading comprehension. Learn it. You've read a basic statement and put a meaning to it so you can fight someone on the internet. Never said anything about how equal the atrocities were.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Reading comprehension. Learn it.

Is it even possible for you to reply without coming across as smug and condescending? smuglord

Never said anything about how equal the atrocities were.

Of course you didn't. You used the wormy Reddit plausible-deniability format where you imply your position without actually committing to it.

[–] Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

No, it's an acknowledgement that pointing out random countries and saying that they committed atrocities with implication of exclusivity is both false and meaningless. For example, countries that had Marxism stain their histories, have seen some of the worst atrocities ever. Marxist regimes are some of the most murderous, extreme, and destructive in human history. It is fair and valid to acknowledge, spread awareness, and learn about these atrocities as well criticize the individuals and regimes responsible, but at the same time time it is stupid and wrong to try and claim that the people of these nations are responsible for the atrocities of their countrymen, past or present, or that their country is in a lesser tier on the morality scale because of the Marxist regimes.