China using families as 'hostages' to quash Uyghur dissent abroad
www.bbc.co.uk
Refugees and activists tell the BBC intimidation tactics are tearing apart Uyghur communities overseas.
  • socsa@lemmy.ml
    55·
    1 year ago

    There are literally pictures of bloodshed.

    I legitimately don’t understand why Leninists are so keen on making folk heroes out of tyrants. Why exert the energy to defend this shit instead of learning from it and building a better class of socialist??

    • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
      83·
      1 year ago

      I’ll listen to western leftists when we actually take power and have to learn to use it to defend ourselves, currently we have a big fat 0 in the wins department

    • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
      21·
      1 year ago

      I legitimately don’t understand why Leninists are so keen on making folk heroes out of tyrants.

      What a sentence! You’re jumping to conclusions all over the place!

      You’re conflating information with a desire to “make folk heroes out of tyrants”, trying to denormalise a desire to understand what was actually happening.

      There was bloodshed but not on the Tienanmen square and the conditions are less clear than you believe

      It is obvious that most peoples idea of what happened is heavily influenced by propaganda, I know mine was.

      If you could stop sabotaging efforts to cut through the disinformation that would be great thanks

      Also: “They are tyrants” thanks I’ll defer judgement as long as the evidence you present us with turns out to be propaganda, there are other “tyrannical governments” much more in reach

      • socsa@lemmy.ml
        12·
        1 year ago

        A big part of my gripe here is precisely the idea that one can engage in critical analysis of statecraft, while hand waving away inconvenient statecraft. Or worse - supporting broad censorship of inconvenient statecraft.

        • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
          11·
          1 year ago

          A big part of my gripe here is precisely the idea that one can engage in critical analysis of statecraft, while hand waving away inconvenient statecraft. Or worse - supporting broad censorship of inconvenient statecraft.

          I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

          My gripe here is that nobody can have an informed opinion on foreign policy if they do not acknowledge the tons of pro US propaganda that surround them on EVERY issue in this category and dominate most of it.

          It is important to call you out on your power-serving statements.

          You tried to push critical thought out of the overton window when you painted it a kind of sacrilege (“make folk heroes out of tyrants”) and everyone engaging in it someone that needs to be shunned by society (a “tankie”).

          Mind you all without addressing, let alone contesting, the facts.

          With all due respect: As long as your actions are indistinguishable from those of an imperialist social media asset, don’t expect any good will engagement.

          Have an open mind and start to reflect a little more

          • socsa@lemmy.ml
            1·
            1 year ago

            But I am fine criticizing the US and acknowledging US propaganda. I do it all the time. You are the one dismissing anything which doesn’t align with a very narrow ML head-cannon as indicative of being a US intelligence asset. And you are telling me to have an open mind?

            Buddy, there is an entire world of socialist thought and literature which diverges from and challenges ML dogma. Either you are unaware of this, or you are so narrow minded that you see anything outside of that script as some monolithic enemy.

            • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
              11·
              1 year ago

              Call me buddy all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you are not good at making sense

              You were and are the jumping to conclusions.

              Case in point that complete second half is you responding to conclusions you’ve drawn up in your head. Re-read this threat nowhere is it ever about ML, or socialism. Why do you think its accurate to call me a ML?

              This thread is about US propaganda on reddit, which I characterized by posting a fact that is affected by it with the goal of facricating consent for military action against another country.

              You are the one dismissing anything which doesn’t align with a very narrow ML head-cannon as indicative of being a US intelligence asset

              An obviously completly untruthful rendition of my statement. I phrased it carefully so if you’d do me the favor and try harder to understand it before you respond to it in ignorance I’d appreciate it