• Sleepless One@lemmy.mlEnglish
        193·
        5 months ago

        The usual narrative here in burgerland is that the CCP suppresses information about the incident entirely. The fact that their state media made a whole documentary about it, conflict of interest or not, is already enough to debunk the common western narrative about the event.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
            101·
            5 months ago

            parenti-hands https://redsails.org/anticommunism-and-wonderland/#left-anticommunism

            In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

          • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
            91·
            5 months ago

            does ur brain even work u are commenting in a fucking post where someone as brainrotted as u, said people in China cant talk about it so he provided prove that the Chinese government is wiling to talk about it.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    3342·
    6 months ago

    People in China and Hong Kong can, actually. Presumably your understanding of the Tiananmen riots is about as garbage as almost every other Westerner’s.

    BTW, there isn’t a ban on Winnie-the-Pooh, either.

    • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
      113·
      5 months ago

      I’m so glad you posted this. I’ve been looking for some of the photos of soldiers getting attacked for a long time. I commend your efforts in trying to educate people even though they won’t listen.

        • Kusimulkku
          412·
          5 months ago

          What’s the line for acceptable amount of people arrested?

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          515·
          5 months ago

          Arrested for commemorating the thing that everyone in China knows about and is definitely allowed to talk about.

      • Spooty@lemmy.ml
        193·
        5 months ago

        Have you done the most basic thing and read the wikipedia article? Is that “denial” too?

    • devbo@lemmy.world
      923·
      5 months ago

      the websites you reference make me think your into conspiracies, and probably hate america. seem like cult websites.

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          122·
          5 months ago

          ok, but serious question and I’m not trying to cause conflict but an actual conversation. How do you decide what is reliable and what is not when faced with two opposing sides? I agree that just calling anything conspiracy theory is negative and not helpful. But am I to just decide that “imperial core” is bad and all other media is the “truth”?

          I’ve gone through the links before that you’ve posted in the past. All I know is fucked up shit went down just like any protest of which the ruling class doesn’t like. Am I just to believe your links? The “wiki” page you linked states,

          The 1989 Tian’anmen Square riots (天安门事件) were a CIA-backed[1][2] attempt at a color revolution against the People’s Republic of China in 1989

          it just completely dismisses any complaint that was happening during the time as Carl Zha’s video explains the lead up to it. It doesn’t help that his reflection is from when he was 12 and living in another area. He even states at 24:70, “One of the deal(s) they made with the Chinese people is ok, you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t challenge the government.” He goes on to state that the reason the protests needed to stop was because of the economic collapse in the soviet union and fear of it happening in China, not because it wasn’t a worthy cause or change didn’t need to happen on a governmental level.

          Does western media blow protests out of proportion? Absolutely, just look at the Gaza protest coverage. Seems like the state media was doing the same thing with “snipers” being the reason to shoot into occupied residential buildings and a “malfunctioning vehicle” killing 11 by running them over at the square itself. Whether it’s been skewed or not, all of this just seems like brushing everything under a rug with some “normie” and America insults thrown in.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
            137·
            5 months ago

            How do you decide what is reliable and what is not when faced with two opposing sides?

            It ain’t easy; there’s no silver bullet.

            But am I to just decide that “imperial core” is bad and all other media is the “truth”?

            Of course not.

            I think you’re further along in answering your own questions than the vast majority of Westerners, who take just about everything the media says about international goings-on at face value.

            The only reason so many normie Americans know about the Tiananmen protests/riots in the first place is because the American propaganda machine has made them known, to be understood in the way the Council on Foreign Relations wants them to be understood.

            • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
              8·
              5 months ago

              ok, I already got and agreed with the sentiment that propaganda media is the norm for America. My question is, how are you determining what is or isn’t propaganda being put forth by the media companies and articles you are presenting? Anyone can just say it’s the truth because they agree with it (look at qanon and general right wing media). What makes the reporting valid to you besides it’s apparent point of country origin?

              Personally, I just have no clue. I know tragedies occurred and every side will skew the truth for their own perspective (this isn’t even malicious sometimes, just seeing a situation play out differently i.e. police forcefully but respectfully removed citizens vs police brutalized and forced citizens to flee the area). I wasn’t there, so I wont argue any specific events but I don’t just inherently trust one news source over another.

              • Sleepless One@lemmy.mlEnglish
                10·
                5 months ago

                My question is, how are you determining what is or isn’t propaganda being put forth by the media companies and articles you are presenting?

                It’s all propaganda. The term itself means pushing an agenda by propagating information. Separating fact from fiction requires following the sources any given outlet uses to support their claims. Part of the reason so many communists distrust western mainstream media so much is due to shady sourcing. A recurring issue, for example, is relying on anonymous (i.e. unverifiable) sources.

                Another thing to consider when looking at this stuff is cui bono: who benefits? While a source pushing an agenda isn’t necessarily presenting false information, they are inclined to frame facts in a way that fits their narrative. Which facts do they include and which do they leave out? Which facts do they emphasize and which do they minimize?

              • steal_your_face@lemmy.mlEnglish
                43·
                5 months ago

                Depends whether or not they agree with it. Unfortunately I think most people are like this :(

    • Spooty@lemmy.ml
      204·
      5 months ago

      I read the website. I notice it doesn’t actually… say anything about the event at all? It’s just a list of a few logical fallacies that exist.

      Go read the wikipedia article on the protests and see if you disagree with the ‘trolls’ after all.

        • Spooty@lemmy.ml
          12·
          5 months ago

          Where I come from doesn’t matter, the content of my arguments do. At least that’s what your website would vaguely imply.