Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense. That's the thing.
Until suddenly you start seeing people who call themselves leftists denying genocide. Which is something we usually think of as being a quality of the far-right.
(The obvious solution here, of course, is that these people who call themselves leftists...aren't. Because if leftism is about equality, there's nothing equal about subjecting a people and preventing the continuance of their culture.)
99% of the time, calling someone a genocide denier is just burden shifting. Genocide is a crime; you have to prove it happened, you can't simply assert it did and then smear anyone who asks for evidence.
We have spy satellites that can read a license plates and genocides, by their very nature, leave a lot of evidence. If there were a genocide in Xinjiang we'd have what we see in Palestine: tons of documentation in a wide variety of news outlets about crimes against civilians and actions like UN officials resigning in protest.
Where are leftists denying genocide? I've never heard a leftist deny a genocide, ever.
The reason horseshoe theory only makes sense if you don't think about it is because it is entirely and completely surface level. A good recent example is that both the far left and the far right want to end the country of Isreal. So if you hear someone on the far left say "I don't think Isreal should exist" and someone on the far right say "I don't think Isreal should exist", if you don't think about it, you would conclude "wow they want the same thing! HORSESHOOOOEEE!!!"
When the reality is that the right doesn't want Isreal to exist because they hate Jews and don't want Jews to exist, and the left doesn't want Isreal to exist because Isreal is a genocidal apartheid settler colonial state. The left's viewpoints have nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people who live in Isreal, and the right's viewpoints have nothing to do with the actions of the country of Isreal. Therefore any actions taken by the right or the left towards their statement of "I don't think Isreal should exist" would be entirely and completely different. Although they're saying the same thing on the surface, literally 1 second of thought is all it takes to realize "oh those are actually entirely different things."
So if you think a leftist is denying a genocide somewhere and you start crying "MUH HORSESHOE THEORY" it just means you haven't spent any time thinking about it. I bet if you did think about it you'd learn something.
The same people and organizations that talk about that genocide claim that communism and wokeness are causing a white genocide worldwide. Do you believe that too? It's fine if you do, I'm just curious if you pick and choose what you believe based on literally nothing, or if you're at least consistent with the propaganda you consume.
I'm just trying to understand your level of acceptable evidence for what genocide is. If it's "literally anytime anyone says the word genocide, it is a genocide no questions asked" then that's fine. If that's the case then lots of people call lots of things genocide all the time for nonsensical reasons, and by your measure almost everyone is a genocide denier. If it's "I listen to right wing propaganda when it makes me feel good and confirms my racial biases and ignore it when it doesn't" that's fine too and would be a good thing to know about yourself.
the only thing 'astroturfy' is how liberals will roll up acting like they're 'the most leftist' and then try to draw a line where America's state enemies are categorically evil, rather than just fucking organizing against the real evils happening where we all live.
But of course, if you define "genocide" as "thing that I'm willing to politically accept is a genocide", it's very easy to pretend someone isn't a genocide denialist.
Aren't you just doing the opposite [insert whatever logical fallacy]? The Holocaust is established historical fact with strong consensus among historians. Most of the other relevant alleged genocides that alleged tankies are allegedly denying have a much different degree of geopolitical contention and consensus.
What is the purpose of denying the Holocaust? Outside of the middle-east, it's almost always a white supremacist or antisemitic agenda.
What is the purpose of denying the Uyghur genocide? There's no equivalent incentive. Nobody is denying the Uyghur genocide on the basis of race ideology. The narrative of the Uyghur genocide is purely a construct of NATO Imperialist/Colonialist rhetoric to the tankies. They absolutely do not deny the genocide for the purpose of advancing a genocidal agenda.
Yeah I wanted to see something like this. Every supposed genocide committed by communists, outside of maybe Cambodia, is very contentious among historians at best. The supposed Xinjiang genocide is not regarded as a factual occurrence by half of the world, and the fiercest proponents of an existing genocide are what ...the CIA? NATO leadership? The same countries that endorsed the Iraq War? That right there should be enough to raise eyebrows. The lack of meaningful eyewitness testimony or you know, photographs or records should be something else. In 30 seconds I can watch footage of Israeli soldiers commiting war crimes and the only Chinese equivalent videos 've seen look like fairly routine prisoner transfers. Which is not great, don't get me wrong, but having prisoners or treating prisoners unfairly or with cruelty is not genocide, nor is it some unique quality for a socialist country to have, or countries in general.
Horseshoe theory only makes sense if you don't think about it for even one second.
So, not surprised it makes total sense to you
Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense. That's the thing.
Until suddenly you start seeing people who call themselves leftists denying genocide. Which is something we usually think of as being a quality of the far-right.
(The obvious solution here, of course, is that these people who call themselves leftists...aren't. Because if leftism is about equality, there's nothing equal about subjecting a people and preventing the continuance of their culture.)
99% of the time, calling someone a genocide denier is just burden shifting. Genocide is a crime; you have to prove it happened, you can't simply assert it did and then smear anyone who asks for evidence.
We have spy satellites that can read a license plates and genocides, by their very nature, leave a lot of evidence. If there were a genocide in Xinjiang we'd have what we see in Palestine: tons of documentation in a wide variety of news outlets about crimes against civilians and actions like UN officials resigning in protest.
Where are leftists denying genocide? I've never heard a leftist deny a genocide, ever.
The reason horseshoe theory only makes sense if you don't think about it is because it is entirely and completely surface level. A good recent example is that both the far left and the far right want to end the country of Isreal. So if you hear someone on the far left say "I don't think Isreal should exist" and someone on the far right say "I don't think Isreal should exist", if you don't think about it, you would conclude "wow they want the same thing! HORSESHOOOOEEE!!!"
When the reality is that the right doesn't want Isreal to exist because they hate Jews and don't want Jews to exist, and the left doesn't want Isreal to exist because Isreal is a genocidal apartheid settler colonial state. The left's viewpoints have nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people who live in Isreal, and the right's viewpoints have nothing to do with the actions of the country of Isreal. Therefore any actions taken by the right or the left towards their statement of "I don't think Isreal should exist" would be entirely and completely different. Although they're saying the same thing on the surface, literally 1 second of thought is all it takes to realize "oh those are actually entirely different things."
So if you think a leftist is denying a genocide somewhere and you start crying "MUH HORSESHOE THEORY" it just means you haven't spent any time thinking about it. I bet if you did think about it you'd learn something.
Removed by mod
The same people and organizations that talk about that genocide claim that communism and wokeness are causing a white genocide worldwide. Do you believe that too? It's fine if you do, I'm just curious if you pick and choose what you believe based on literally nothing, or if you're at least consistent with the propaganda you consume.
Removed by mod
I'm just trying to understand your level of acceptable evidence for what genocide is. If it's "literally anytime anyone says the word genocide, it is a genocide no questions asked" then that's fine. If that's the case then lots of people call lots of things genocide all the time for nonsensical reasons, and by your measure almost everyone is a genocide denier. If it's "I listen to right wing propaganda when it makes me feel good and confirms my racial biases and ignore it when it doesn't" that's fine too and would be a good thing to know about yourself.
the only thing 'astroturfy' is how liberals will roll up acting like they're 'the most leftist' and then try to draw a line where America's state enemies are categorically evil, rather than just fucking organizing against the real evils happening where we all live.
Aren't you just doing the opposite [insert whatever logical fallacy]? The Holocaust is established historical fact with strong consensus among historians. Most of the other relevant alleged genocides that alleged tankies are allegedly denying have a much different degree of geopolitical contention and consensus.
What is the purpose of denying the Holocaust? Outside of the middle-east, it's almost always a white supremacist or antisemitic agenda.
What is the purpose of denying the Uyghur genocide? There's no equivalent incentive. Nobody is denying the Uyghur genocide on the basis of race ideology. The narrative of the Uyghur genocide is purely a construct of NATO Imperialist/Colonialist rhetoric to the tankies. They absolutely do not deny the genocide for the purpose of advancing a genocidal agenda.
Horseshoe theory does not apply.
Yeah I wanted to see something like this. Every supposed genocide committed by communists, outside of maybe Cambodia, is very contentious among historians at best. The supposed Xinjiang genocide is not regarded as a factual occurrence by half of the world, and the fiercest proponents of an existing genocide are what ...the CIA? NATO leadership? The same countries that endorsed the Iraq War? That right there should be enough to raise eyebrows. The lack of meaningful eyewitness testimony or you know, photographs or records should be something else. In 30 seconds I can watch footage of Israeli soldiers commiting war crimes and the only Chinese equivalent videos 've seen look like fairly routine prisoner transfers. Which is not great, don't get me wrong, but having prisoners or treating prisoners unfairly or with cruelty is not genocide, nor is it some unique quality for a socialist country to have, or countries in general.
maybe if it doesn't make sense you should fucking find out about it instead of retreating into ignorance