You'd think that after a few decades someone would have done that homework and posted it online somewhere. But I guess it's everyone's responsibility to become an amateur historian to figure it out themselves.
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don't understand what's being asserted.
QuietCupcake is affirming the casualties you're pointing to in your pullquotes, but is arguing that because most did not occur in the square itself as described in the westernized accounting of the event and because the violent response started when protestors assaulted and killed several officers, the label of a 'massacre' is an intentionally misleading description that ignores what actually happened. There being a couple hundred casualties doesn't make the event a 'massacre' and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven't defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it's an indefensible description.
Right now the biggest discrancy[sic] I'm seeing is that most of the people here want to tell me that almost half of the people killed were state employees, but that red sails articlesays the official number is closer to 10%.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
As for your other "gotcha," there are discrepancies in the exact number of deaths, which no one here has denied and again, I addressed in my last comment where I said: "In the few instances where there may be contradictory first hand accounts (and mostly, the accounts are not contradictory but rather corroborate each other) there may be some ambiguity." It's funny how you seemed to have latched onto trying to find those ambiguities, but totally ignored the whole reason I said that.
'I'm just trying to get answers so I can understand.' Bullshit. You're farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don’t understand what’s being asserted.
So why weren't those linked? Why do I need to read 5 articles that say there was a massacre, just around the square and not in it, written by or about people who were actually there, just to get to a blog post that links those same articles and selectively pulls quotes to try and convince me that there wasn't a massacre?
There being a couple hundred casualties doesn’t make the event a ‘massacre’ and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven’t defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it’s an indefensible description.
If January 6th ended with the federal government sending in tanks and hundreds dead, but everything else about it stayed about the same, I would still call it a massacre, or at the very least understand why others would.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
That, and the fact that there really is no official number because China doesn’t talk about it and doesn’t want anyone else to either.
And you ignored the second point I made, that we really can't know too many details about what happened. And yet everyone's so certain they know the full story, and it just so happens to align with what the government is[n't] saying.
‘I’m just trying to get answers so I can understand.’ Bullshit. You’re farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
After having read the articles, I'm more convinced now that a massacre did happen, it just wasn't in the square and mostly didn't involve students. Yet everyone here seems to want to say that there was no massacre at all, it was a government declaring martial law and putting down a violent rebellion with overwhelming force. I'm not sure that's much better, but whatever.
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don't understand what's being asserted.
QuietCupcake is affirming the casualties you're pointing to in your pullquotes, but is arguing that because most did not occur in the square itself as described in the westernized accounting of the event and because the violent response started when protestors assaulted and killed several officers, the label of a 'massacre' is an intentionally misleading description that ignores what actually happened. There being a couple hundred casualties doesn't make the event a 'massacre' and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven't defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it's an indefensible description.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
'I'm just trying to get answers so I can understand.' Bullshit. You're farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
So why weren't those linked? Why do I need to read 5 articles that say there was a massacre, just around the square and not in it, written by or about people who were actually there, just to get to a blog post that links those same articles and selectively pulls quotes to try and convince me that there wasn't a massacre?
If January 6th ended with the federal government sending in tanks and hundreds dead, but everything else about it stayed about the same, I would still call it a massacre, or at the very least understand why others would.
And you ignored the second point I made, that we really can't know too many details about what happened. And yet everyone's so certain they know the full story, and it just so happens to align with what the government is[n't] saying.
After having read the articles, I'm more convinced now that a massacre did happen, it just wasn't in the square and mostly didn't involve students. Yet everyone here seems to want to say that there was no massacre at all, it was a government declaring martial law and putting down a violent rebellion with overwhelming force. I'm not sure that's much better, but whatever.
Thank you for conceding.
It's so funny that this person has kept going at this for nearly two days now while I've just been vibing at the karaoke bar the last two nights.