Why are you so hung up on this? I didn’t come here to debate you. But fine I’ll take you seriously one more time. But I’m pretty sure all you’re gonna do is dismiss everything I say as myths (or just ignore it alltogether), and then pretend you gave convincing arguments because you mentioned whole process democracy, and call me a liberal. Feel free to prove me wrong. Here we go:
There is ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang in which China has piggy-backed on the US “war on terror” as an excuse to repress muslim populations. This is officially called “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism”. Do I really need to say more?
Taiwan has its own democracy and wants to be independent, yet China claims it as its own.
Yes there’s asterisks and details and questionable involvement from the West in all of this, but these aren’t “myths”.
Sinologists from various countries have stated that they or their colleagues have been barred from entry or held by authorities for weeks because of what they’ve said about China. For example I just heard Weigelin-Schwiedrzik say this on a marxist podcast.
The only reason I replied was to give context to this comment:
I’ve been called a racist, a homophobe (???) and worst of all a liberal and a fascist (same thing apparently /s) all because I insisted that China isn’t worth simping for.
That’s not what happened, I showed what actually happened. The homophobic comment was well-warented as well, claiming users are “sucking XYZ person off” is an insult historically directed at men on the basis of homosexual actions being “shameful” or “gross,” reinforcing that image of homosexuality. As a pansexual man, that certainly doesn’t feel good to see. You crafted an enemy to fight, and when people pointed out that the enemy you created in your head doesn’t actually exist, you projected that strawman onto others. Here’s an example:
If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I’m a donkey with a laser dick :P But I’m more anarchistically inclined so different perspective. I see your point though. What I’m saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
Despite multiple people providing nuanced responses with western sources backing them up, and only a few people calling you a liberal, you started calling others “tankies.” Even now, I never once called you a liberal, you had to lie about that to provide a “buffer” for yourself.
What I hate most about tankies is that they are the only true leftists and anybody who disagrees with them is just a poser and a liberal. Especially anarchists.
Many of the people disagreeing with you and calling you a liberal were Anarchists, actually. Anarchism isn’t a vibe, or a purity test, Anarchism must side with reality. Simply saying “every government bad, and the more people, the more bad it is” would only be applicable if there was already a mass Anarchist movement that served as a genuine alternative. In the absence of such a movement, you have to work with what’s there and build up alternatives in the meantime.
I’m not interested in “debating you.” I just saw you misrepresenting Marxists and Anarchists who disagreed with you as “tankies” who “simp” for the PRC despite giving well-sourced and nuanced responses. Not everyone was respectful, but numerous people were, and when people like @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml gave you careful and thoughtful responses to questions you yourself asked,, you ignored the majority of the comments because “you were busy,” rather than simply not responding. You couln’t even do the bare minimum of respect for all that effort, but you had to get in a quick jab in response.
All I’m saying is that you need to do some self-crit. What was your goal? To convert people to see things your way? That backfired spectacularly. Was it to learn more yourself? You evidently admitted to not reading the longer, higher effort comments, so that’s a wash too. If anything, it just seems like you wanted to argue and call people tankies. I don’t think your accusation that “tankies” call everyone else a “lib” is a coincidence given your tendency to call people who disagree with “tankie,” it’s projection.
It is very funny that they’re back here complaining about “the tankies” and rehashing the same talking points they couldn’t defend a few days ago. It’s like they are trying to embody the stereotype of the “Western leftist”.
Yep, I wasn’t even trying to start a debate, just point out that they were being dishonest on this thread and misrepresented the other thread entirely.
This is a great reply to my comment you really did a good job addressing any of the points and not making things up. Also nice job getting your buddy involved now they can start 10 different threads with essay-length comments again and then complain that I didn’t answer each of the 10 paragraphs in each of the 100 comments.
I already regret honoring any of your nonstop abuse as conversation. I’m blocking you.
I told you outright that I’m not trying to start a debate here, just point out dishonesty. I doubt TheOubliette is going to start anything here either, people have more important things to do than try to convince someone who is unwilling to listen to begin with.
There is ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang in which China has piggy-backed on the US “war on terror” as an excuse to repress muslim population.
There is not. There are no hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing nor evidence for one. The think tank propagandists behind these claims - they are all in the same funding networks connected to the NED/USAID - spent ages just trying to shoehorn what was actually happening into a wishy washy definition of “cultural genocide”, which is to say, there is no mass death, no mass expulsions, no attempt to eradicate the population in any way.
Re: “cultural genocide”, even with a wishy washy definition, that is also specious, as Uyghur culture has not been disrupted or banned. The exact opposite is the case, it is lifted up culturally, promoted materially. What is oppressed is anything in the neighborhood of salafism, which has never been part of Uyghur culture, but in their infinite (islamophobic) wisdom, the western pro-think tank critics have conflated it with Uyghur culture simply because they are largely muslims.
And you have, yet again, uncritically accepted the liberal propaganda narrative against the designated enemies of the US state. Are you noticing the pattern? It seems you are more interested in living in a fantastical liberal bubble than ever acknowledging that “the tankies” actually can defend their ideas while you cannot.
This is officially called “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism”. Do I really need to say more?
Yes, you do. You can of course understand almost nothing about this from that title. I would challenge you to tell me what you think it means and what is going on in your thought process.
Taiwan has its own democracy and wants to be independent, yet China claims it as its own.
A few days ago I broke this down for you and you ignored it entirely. If you deigned to read what others told you, you might understand the basics of the detente with Taiwan.
Yes there’s asterisks and details and questionable involvement from the West in all of this, but these aren’t “myths”.
The content of both claims are, in fact, mythological. In the first case it is very literally the propaganda outfits of CIA cutouts and the promotion of some expat grifters working together in an absurdly lazy information war. In the latter case it is a false pretense of having no idea or way of knowing what the tension is over Taiwan and opting to present it in an intentionally vague way to put it in a worse light while also using a liberal framing re: praising it as democratoc, whereas any anarchist will not uncritically celebrate bourgeois electoralism, and certainly not in defense of an ethnocentric state. Taiwan did actually do an ethnic cleansing, which is ironic for your case.
Sinologists from various countries have stated that they or their colleagues have been barred from entry or held by authorities for weeks because of what they’ve said about China. For example I just heard Weigelin-Schwiedrzik say this on a marxist podcast.
Why are you so hung up on this? I didn’t come here to debate you. But fine I’ll take you seriously one more time. But I’m pretty sure all you’re gonna do is dismiss everything I say as myths (or just ignore it alltogether), and then pretend you gave convincing arguments because you mentioned whole process democracy, and call me a liberal. Feel free to prove me wrong. Here we go:
There is ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang in which China has piggy-backed on the US “war on terror” as an excuse to repress muslim populations. This is officially called “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism”. Do I really need to say more?
Taiwan has its own democracy and wants to be independent, yet China claims it as its own.
Yes there’s asterisks and details and questionable involvement from the West in all of this, but these aren’t “myths”.
Sinologists from various countries have stated that they or their colleagues have been barred from entry or held by authorities for weeks because of what they’ve said about China. For example I just heard Weigelin-Schwiedrzik say this on a marxist podcast.
The only reason I replied was to give context to this comment:
That’s not what happened, I showed what actually happened. The homophobic comment was well-warented as well, claiming users are “sucking XYZ person off” is an insult historically directed at men on the basis of homosexual actions being “shameful” or “gross,” reinforcing that image of homosexuality. As a pansexual man, that certainly doesn’t feel good to see. You crafted an enemy to fight, and when people pointed out that the enemy you created in your head doesn’t actually exist, you projected that strawman onto others. Here’s an example:
Despite multiple people providing nuanced responses with western sources backing them up, and only a few people calling you a liberal, you started calling others “tankies.” Even now, I never once called you a liberal, you had to lie about that to provide a “buffer” for yourself.
Many of the people disagreeing with you and calling you a liberal were Anarchists, actually. Anarchism isn’t a vibe, or a purity test, Anarchism must side with reality. Simply saying “every government bad, and the more people, the more bad it is” would only be applicable if there was already a mass Anarchist movement that served as a genuine alternative. In the absence of such a movement, you have to work with what’s there and build up alternatives in the meantime.
I’m not interested in “debating you.” I just saw you misrepresenting Marxists and Anarchists who disagreed with you as “tankies” who “simp” for the PRC despite giving well-sourced and nuanced responses. Not everyone was respectful, but numerous people were, and when people like @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml gave you careful and thoughtful responses to questions you yourself asked,, you ignored the majority of the comments because “you were busy,” rather than simply not responding. You couln’t even do the bare minimum of respect for all that effort, but you had to get in a quick jab in response.
All I’m saying is that you need to do some self-crit. What was your goal? To convert people to see things your way? That backfired spectacularly. Was it to learn more yourself? You evidently admitted to not reading the longer, higher effort comments, so that’s a wash too. If anything, it just seems like you wanted to argue and call people tankies. I don’t think your accusation that “tankies” call everyone else a “lib” is a coincidence given your tendency to call people who disagree with “tankie,” it’s projection.
It is very funny that they’re back here complaining about “the tankies” and rehashing the same talking points they couldn’t defend a few days ago. It’s like they are trying to embody the stereotype of the “Western leftist”.
Yep, I wasn’t even trying to start a debate, just point out that they were being dishonest on this thread and misrepresented the other thread entirely.
This is a great reply to my comment you really did a good job addressing any of the points and not making things up. Also nice job getting your buddy involved now they can start 10 different threads with essay-length comments again and then complain that I didn’t answer each of the 10 paragraphs in each of the 100 comments.
I already regret honoring any of your nonstop abuse as conversation. I’m blocking you.
I told you outright that I’m not trying to start a debate here, just point out dishonesty. I doubt TheOubliette is going to start anything here either, people have more important things to do than try to convince someone who is unwilling to listen to begin with.
There is not. There are no hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing nor evidence for one. The think tank propagandists behind these claims - they are all in the same funding networks connected to the NED/USAID - spent ages just trying to shoehorn what was actually happening into a wishy washy definition of “cultural genocide”, which is to say, there is no mass death, no mass expulsions, no attempt to eradicate the population in any way.
Re: “cultural genocide”, even with a wishy washy definition, that is also specious, as Uyghur culture has not been disrupted or banned. The exact opposite is the case, it is lifted up culturally, promoted materially. What is oppressed is anything in the neighborhood of salafism, which has never been part of Uyghur culture, but in their infinite (islamophobic) wisdom, the western pro-think tank critics have conflated it with Uyghur culture simply because they are largely muslims.
And you have, yet again, uncritically accepted the liberal propaganda narrative against the designated enemies of the US state. Are you noticing the pattern? It seems you are more interested in living in a fantastical liberal bubble than ever acknowledging that “the tankies” actually can defend their ideas while you cannot.
Yes, you do. You can of course understand almost nothing about this from that title. I would challenge you to tell me what you think it means and what is going on in your thought process.
A few days ago I broke this down for you and you ignored it entirely. If you deigned to read what others told you, you might understand the basics of the detente with Taiwan.
The content of both claims are, in fact, mythological. In the first case it is very literally the propaganda outfits of CIA cutouts and the promotion of some expat grifters working together in an absurdly lazy information war. In the latter case it is a false pretense of having no idea or way of knowing what the tension is over Taiwan and opting to present it in an intentionally vague way to put it in a worse light while also using a liberal framing re: praising it as democratoc, whereas any anarchist will not uncritically celebrate bourgeois electoralism, and certainly not in defense of an ethnocentric state. Taiwan did actually do an ethnic cleansing, which is ironic for your case.
Literally who cares.