This shit has seriously gone on too long. People who continue to cling to the “10,000 dead crushed by tanks hosed i to the gutter” bs are cranks. It’s jews control the banks, chemtrails, the earth is flat, the moon isn’t real level of crank shit and unless you’re feeling very indulgent and someone is asking in good faith it can be dismissed as equally serious to that kind of crank shit.

      • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        19·
        6 months ago

        There was a “guide” on how to debate tankies on the neoliberal sub. Basically, a tankie will likely cite some author or newspaper article or academic or etc., but if you can’t find any information about that from the Wikipedia article of the related topic, then it’s best to assume the tankie is lying and wasting your time.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        8·
        6 months ago

        Actually, the massacre wasn’t happening on Tiananmen Square, but next to it.

        I’ve seen this used as a gotcha – most notably by the Columbia Journalism Review (lmao). Though correct, it’s an extremely weak argument.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Even then they’re still calling it a massacre. Like i am 100% certain some number of uninvolved civilians were deliberately shot and killed by pla troops who believed them to be insurgents, but as you drill down and drill down and drill down there’s no moment where the pla fired en masse and indiscriminately on people

          Like, pure armchair general math, but from the pictures it looks like if the 280 number is accurate then probable 5-10% of the people killed were pla soldiers and cops. Which, like; i don’t think that has happened in the us. I don’t think there’s ever been an incident in the us where 10% of the people killed during a protest were soldiers or cops. Like, idk, maybe yes? But that would be in a case where 1-3 cops where killed, idfk.

          Like, this isn’t just a small amount of violence relative to the scope of the movement, it’s a kind of violence that doesn’t have clear parallels in the us. Right wing protestors attacked and killed an army troop convoy and then the military fought them and stopped the. This isn’t kent state, where the army deliberately rolled up and killed a bunch of students, the armed pla troops came in specifically to stop the insurgents.

          • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            3·
            6 months ago

            Beijing Municipality has checked and double-checked all the figures from the Martial Law Command, the Public Security Ministry, the Chinese Red Cross, all institutions of higher education, and all major hospitals. These show that 241 people died. They included 23 officers and soldiers from the martial law troops and 218 civilians. The 23 military deaths included 10 from the PLA and 13 from the People’s Armed Police. The 218 civilians (Beijing residents, people from elsewhere, students, and rioters) included 36 students from Beijing universities and 15 people from outside Beijing. [29] [30]

            https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/#fn29

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            This isn’t kent state, where the army deliberately rolled up and killed a bunch of students, the armed pla troops came in specifically to stop the insurgents.

            I think this way of framing it to libs – a focus on the facts themselves, and how deadly violence by the protesters led to a deadly response – is better than focusing on what is or isn’t a “massacre.” It’s easy to get bogged down in semantics and hypotheticals when talking about if certain facts fit a definition. The facts themselves should take center stage, and keeping the discussion focused on them leads people to question whether “massacre” is fitting on their own.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
              6·
              6 months ago

              I specifically use “insurgents” because that’s what they were - cia backed insurgents trying to escalate who attacked unarmed soldiers and bured them alive. They weren’t part of the protest movement, they were parasites trying to hijack it. The protest movement was mostly Maoist, like there were all kinds of issues being raised, but it was primarily a Maoist movement protesting Dengist market liberalization. The Insurgents weren’ty part of that.

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                5·
                6 months ago

                That’s a good point, too, though maybe something like “instigators” or “hijackers” would be even better. I’m trying to put on my lib hat to see what would cause unproductive debates over language, and “come on, there wasn’t an insurgency” seems like an easy one to avoid.

                The George Floyd protests were also recent enough and popular enough to provide some good examples of how many protests don’t involve everyone acting in lockstep, and their very nature invites all sorts of people to try and steer the crowd to their preferred ends.

    • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      39·
      6 months ago

      Oh god this entire thread is full of gems

      These people are not socialists. It’s all just right wing agitprop. It’s extremely obvious.

      I assume hexbear is just the russian troll factory.

      I can read Russian and I sometimes read Russian media and it uses almost exactly the same topics for their people. There is a new one that they started to repeat recently and it’s that Zelensky is an illegitimate president, because his term has ened.

      It’s weird that those forums are in English, reading the insane takes and rhetoric. I also noticed many of the accounts are just prolific posters, making the community seem small to me. Also saw an account with a trans flag, which is surprising they would accommodate such a person or such a person would have those weird views on lemmygrad.

      The utility is that they use hexbear and .ml as intro exercises before they promote the trolls to Facebook or reddit.

      Last part is true and even more insane/sad because these people are all terminally online gossip mongers that Pol Pot would have immediately executed.

      You own a computer? You don’t work in the fields? You wear glasses?

      Yep, literally executed.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        45·
        6 months ago

        Zelensky is an illegitimate president, because his term has ened.

        Isn’t that like… The basics of how a democratic mandate works?

        Not that I’ve ever seen it as a topic here but still. If Rishi Sunak continues as president PM beyond his term time I’m calling him illegitimate. In fact I’m calling him illegitimate now and forever because we literally never got to vote for the fuck. He has/had no mandate.

        EDIT: Fuck me libs jump to the dumbest conclusions over the smallest shit.

      • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        36·
        6 months ago

        There is a new one that they started to repeat recently and it’s that Zelensky is an illegitimate president, because his term has ened.

        Help me out what’s it called when an elected official doesn’t give up power after their term ends

        • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          7·
          6 months ago

          The scary concept is the idea that either Facebook or Reddit is a promotion!

          Xi please don’t promote me just leave me as a lowly Hexbear-only peon xi-god-emperor

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        25·
        6 months ago

        If anyone still remembered the Brady Bunch I’d make a joke comparing the “Marsha Marsha Marsha!” line to “Russia russia russia!”

        Obsession with a plot!

      • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        13·
        6 months ago

        There is a new one that they started to repeat recently and it’s that Zelensky is an illegitimate president, because his term has ened.

        Never seen this on here lol. But you’d think these dweebs would be hand wringing about term limits.

        Last part is true and even more insane/sad because these people are all terminally online gossip mongers that Pol Pot would have immediately executed.

        I love this because they somehow concluded we support Pol Pot and not that he was a US/China backed psychopath. They always talk about Pol Pot but they never talk about who kicked his ass and ended his genocide. It just stopped out of magic.