WorkingClassCorpse [comrade/them, any]

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 13 days ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2024

help-circle













  • 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.




  • Ya know though, I've seen him do site bans like that for reactionary pro-israel comments before, so I suppose I shouldn't be completely surprised.

    I'm assuming this comment didn't take place on a midwest.social comm, right?

    edit: he does hit the mark on occasion, for instance about a day ago he banned someone for being a landlord which is waow-based