deleted by creator

Excuse me. Everyone, I have a brief announcement to make. Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the government is lying about 9/11. Thank you for your time and good night.

I won’t say more on the 4 June incident, I only have two watching suggestions. First is the Gate of heavenly Peace documentary part 1 part 2 which I suggest watching with care. The facts are there, but the narration is dissonant from them and has a lot of sinophobic crap. The second is Tovarisch Endymion’s video, which partially uses the aforementioned doku.

On the subject of chinese history and what license it gives us to say about the PRC, I’ll again caution you to be certain of what you have in mind. If you’re referring to some misdeeds in the CPC era, you should inform yourself on the specific fault you understand them to have. Afterwards we (being this sub, lemmygrad or wherever you choose) could discuss at greater detail.

Finally, the media. It’s completely true that all media has a bias and an agenda. But we ought to approach this scientifically, lest we fall into a liberal trap and accept or reject something we shouldn’t. For example, what is the agenda of Washington Post? This one’s simple, it’s owned by Bezos, so it’ll push whatever he wants. It’ll support rightist deregulation, anti-worker policies without associating much with outright fascists, who might rock the boat and cost mr Bezos a pretty penny. What about BBC? Well, it’s owned and operated by the UK govt, which in recent years has shown the stick vis a vis their funding. As such, they editorially support whatever the Tories do, imperialism and redbaiting anything to the left of Thatcher. Next, the MYT, whose owner I know fuckall about. What I do know is that they’ve been in favour of every single war, intervention and pro-US coup since WW2. This, alogside the fact that they really hate SocDems, not to say a word hpe they feel about actual leftists, should be sufficient. As for CCTV/CGTN, I’m taking the craven route and not saying shit, inviting you to determine for yourself. Read their articles, see what they focus on and what they don’t. Try to look into their editorial independence, and for bonus points, find out how often they contradict the CPC stance. I’m not promising you’ll be enlightened and agree with me on everything, but I expect you to be surprised eith what you find.

I hate formatting my comments like this, but in lieu of a theme I’m sort of forced.

who i think it’s fair to say have a history of being not the nicest

You think wrong. You’d have to establish why you believe that without resorting to tropes first.

I’m not sure if the claims of censorship regarding people talking about the Tiananmen square are true or not but I feel the evidence brought forward is quite compelling and should not be dismissed.

I’m quite curious what that evidence is. It’s true that the mention of the 4 June incident is suppressed on the anniversaries, but not on other days of the year and one glance at reddit or twitter should make why it’s suppressed abundantly clear. People gathering on social media to regurgitate what amounts to little more than hearsay.

Your approach makes me question what you actually know about the incident. Are you aware that the protests were going on for almost 2 months before it devolved, or that the army was sent without firearm long before 4 June? Did you read about what the “peaceful” protestors did before the fighting started? Mutilating people and setting them on fire isn’t associated with communist, whereas reactionaries have been known to do that in response to whatever perceived slight. Perhaps most importantly, are you aware that a bunch of the student leaders fled the country and are now living cushy lives in the US?

I think that’s the whole point of my argument here is that things are just not black and white. communists, as history has shown, can be horrible and manipulated by the draw of power as much as anyone. Don’t immediately take one route because it fits your personal narrative better,

This is also a trope. I hope you won’t be offended by my saying so but it’s your one of your last vestiges of liberalism trying to claw through by creating nuance where there isn’t much. Communist leaders are often accused of power hunger, how they sought to aggrandise themselves, empowered the party to their personal benefit and elevated their creatures disregarding the desires of the people or the party. The best remedy to this is to read their actions and their words.

I’d also like to reply to the norion that whatever we say here is said because it fits our narrative. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone here was once a liberal of whatever inclination. For a lot of us, learning that the USSR/PRC were anything less than hellholes or that Lenin/Kim/Stalin/Mao/Ho/Castro etc were decent people and good leaders. We were handed down all manner of liberal narratives and the facts we were provided with didn’t fit any of them. As such it would serve you best to do your investigation and bring whatever facts you believe folks aren’t informed of before making the implication that anyone follows the path of least ideological resistance.