• SootySootySoot [any]
    hexbear
    13
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    👏 Then 👏 read 👏 the 👏 Wiki 👏 page 👏

    Because that will tell you the answer is 1. One zero. Because the number of dead civilians in the Tiananmen Square Massacre is zero. No civilian deaths there. Nada. Read the wiki page, it will tell you no deaths. This information brought to you by such Commies as:

    • the US Government,
    • the Washington Post correspondent (who was there all night),
    • the CBS correspondent (same),
    • and more!

    Were there a limited number of deaths in protests elsewhere that wasn't Tiananmen? Yep, about 2-3 hundred across a few hundred cities. And that's bad! But is also pretty dang small relative to the protest size, and happens in all major protests in all countries everywhere.

    • @LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
      hexbear
      2
      9 months ago

      This is and has always been a red herring. It's irrelevant if people were killed in the square or in the streets around the square. People were killed in Beijing by the Chinese military in order to suppress the protests. End of story.

      • Finger [he/him]
        hexbear
        6
        9 months ago

        Well, A massive, purposeful, misinformation campaign by the western governments and news sites that had claimed that there were no deaths in the square in the past and then changed their narrative all of a sudden, would, to me, suggest that these entities might also be misreprenting or lying about the other events. The story obviously does not end there.

        • @LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
          hexbear
          2
          9 months ago

          Yes, Western media can definitely not be trusted. Better to get the real story from the secretive, authoritarian government that heavily suppresses speech and directly controls its major media outlets.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
            hexbear
            5
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Dang I hate secretive governments, can you direct me to a western government that exposes all of its internal communications and doesn't have a huge amount of "former" state agents in major media publications?

            edit: folks, I have had my weekend water on a Monday

            • @LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
              hexbear
              1
              9 months ago

              You're right, there isn't a single Western country that has a freer press than China. In fact, China may be the world's last bastion of open information and free speech.

              • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
                hexbear
                5
                9 months ago

                Except China doesn't squeal about how free their press is all the time- that's America and the west at large, all of whose media is owned by wealthy people. thinking-about-it

                • @LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
                  hexbear
                  1
                  9 months ago

                  There were some Western news outlets that lied about the events and propagated false information, and there were some that that did not.

                  The fact that Western media outlets cannot be blindly trusted does not mean that the Chinese state controlled media can. The Chinese state has a lot more incentive to lie about the events than independent news orgs do.

              • Egon [they/them]
                hexbear
                3
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Well if western media were trustworthy it would probably be very easy for you to back up your claims with actual sources that haven't been debunked.

                • @LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
                  hexbear
                  1
                  9 months ago

                  Sources from around the world say China behaved badly; Chinese state media says China did not behave badly. Sources debunked!

                  • Egon [they/them]
                    hexbear
                    3
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Post the non-debunked sources then, it shouldn't be difficult.
                    Edit: Yet again I ask a lib for sources and they disappear. It's incredible. I responded within a minute, and they have nothing lmao. It's always like this

    • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
      hexbear
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Sorry I forgot to add "Ok but, were they really inside the square, or just near it?"

      Spending the first 7/8ths of your comment dancing around the main issue (at a minimum hundreds, thankfully you at least have to admit to that since those are the official Chinese numbers, potentially thousands, of civilian protestors being killed by the Chinese military), laser focusing on some minor detail like it's a great big gotcha, then brushing the whole thing off at the end with "Yep it's bad, but it happens shrug" is exactly what I'm talking about

      I guess I should at least thank you for so deftly illustrating my point though

      • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
        hexbear
        9
        9 months ago

        A few hundred cities across the country is not "near it" Something like half of the dead were cops or military. You should do some reading about where the weapons that killed them came from. Interesting stuff!

      • Egon [they/them]
        hexbear
        6
        9 months ago

        laser focusing on some minor detail.

        Like you just did? Focusing in on location? Instead of taking in the larger argument? Your hypocrisy reeks

        • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
          hexbear
          1
          9 months ago

          point out the classic tactic of spending a lot of time picking apart minor details in an attempt to discredit the whole

          no u

          My impression was that you guys were supposed to be more eloquent than this

          • Egon [they/them]
            hexbear
            1
            9 months ago

            eloquence is spent on those deserving it. Why engage civilly with you when it's obvious you're not interested in good faith discourse? horsepoo-theory