Objection

Objection , 15 days ago

I’ve most recently seen a .ml praising the Taliban in an lgbtq+ community.

Do you have a link to that?

Objection , 15 days ago

The way I've heard "tankie" defined is blind defense of anyone waving a red flag, no matter what they do. I do think there might be a very limited use-case for that because you do occasionally get like edgy teens like that, but I'd argue that it doesn't apply even to all - or even most - Marxist-Leninists.

If the USSR was so perfect, then why did it collapse? How is it possible to reconcile blind defense of Stalin with blind defense of Kruschev, who hated Stalin? Or Deng who criticized Mao, or the whole Sino-Soviet split, and so on. Even if you tried to, you couldn't really blindly defend everyone calling themselves a communist because there have been too many disagreements and failures.

If would be pretty easy to trip someone up if they were really just blindly defending anyone who calls themselves a communist, but the people accusing people of being tankies never do. If anything, they seem to strongly resist any sort of nuanced discussion of the successes and failures of self-described socialist projects. I'm sure there's someone out there who would call you a tankie if for example you acknowledged that Cuba's literacy program was successful and a good thing, regardless of anything else you think about Cuba. It really seems like it's less about "blindly defending," and more about "not blindly condemning."

Objection , 16 days ago

McCain

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/9ee9817a-96ed-4fc7-a9f9-fdc82bfc9d8b.jpeg

Objection , 15 days ago

The New York Crimes is a garbage propaganda rag. They don't deserve a red cent from anyone after pushing their transphobic agenda, (and responding to widespread criticism by publishing an article defending JK Rowling) or after they blatantly lied and published a fake news story about Hamas conducting mass rape in an attempt to sway public opinion to be in favor of Israel's genocide. If you have a NYT subscription, you are paying people to lie to you.

Objection , 17 days ago

There’s a lot of talk about inflation and its causes. Is it corporate greed?

Yes

One clear base cause of inflation less talked about is having an inflationary currency supply. Any other inflation caused by supply chain issues, corporate greed, lack of market competition, etc is just added on top of that.

In the sense of you add a million to two, the "base" is two and the million is "just added on top of that," sure. Monopolization and price gouging are by far the larger factors.

How is that the case? Shouldn’t it cost less? Where is that “extra efficiency” going if not to lower prices? The answer:

Corporate pockets.

Poor people live hand to mouth, so their net wealth is not impacted much, but inflationary currency prevents them from saving and “moving up”.

Complete nonsense. And extra 2% interest is not the root cause of poverty. You actually missed the real way in which inflation can hurt the poor which is when corporations don't increase wages with inflation, which is effectively a pay cut. This is a form of class warfare which they are able to do because they are more powerful and better organized, as a class, than labor is.

Objection , 17 days ago

I agree with the article except for this part:

Joe Biden’s success in 2020 was due in no small part to his deliberate rejection of Clinton’s failed strategy. “Scranton Joe” courted both Sanders voters and blue-collar whites. He promised expanded infrastructure spending and tougher trade deals. Progressive young people might not have given Biden their votes in the primaries, but he campaigned as a candidate who saw them as part of his coalition and duly won their votes on Election Day.

I think the main reason Biden won in 2020 is because of COVID. That and correctly recognizing that people despise both him and Trump and realizing that if he simply stays out of the limelight people won't pay as much attention to how bad he is. Neither of these factors are working for him now, it's much harder to stay out of the limelight when you're the one in charge.

I suppose there may have been less open hostility towards the left compared to Clinton, but only because that's such a low bar.

Objection , 17 days ago

All close elections are won by winning over independents

Not true. It's also possible to win by increasing your side's turnout. And independents aren't all centrists.

Republicans already have a major party catering directly to their interests. Meanwhile a full third of the country doesn't vote. Obviously it's a better strategy to give non-voters a reason to be engaged rather than trying to win over people who hate you and everyone who looks like you.

Objection , 17 days ago

The data [from Pew] suggests that the progressive vision of winning a presidential election simply by mobilizing strong support from Democratic constituencies simply did not materialize for Mr. Biden.

Wtf did I just read? The idea is to mobilize strong support from Democratic constituencies by running a progressive candidate who supports progressive causes. Obviously, if you run a right-winger like Biden, he'll draw more support from the right and fail to mobilize the left. Are they trying to pretend that Biden was a progressive or something? What an incredible take.

Objection , 17 days ago

For that evidence they’d need to look to Congressional downballot races which are more fluid and open to experimentation. The evidence of progressive voter mobilization doesn’t show up there either.

I disagree. This is from the 2020 election:

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/e478a1ea-5560-4184-a257-3371bf33e553.png

Funny enough, the two Florida democrats who lost in blue districts also specifically distanced themselves from a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage on the basis that it was too progressive - both they and Biden lost in Florida while the ballot measure passed.

Progressive policies are broadly popular. Running on things that are popular tend to get you more votes. People like it when you do stuff for them.

The only evidence I've seen to the contrary is a NYT opinion piece that cites centrist think tanks and random people's opinions. I didn't see anything in there that looked reliable or compelling.

Objection , 16 days ago

Thank you for filtering out the irrelevant information and editorializing in the opinion piece.

I'll concede that there is some evidence to support your position, but I would still argue against it. Much of the data used in these studies comes from a different political landscape than what we're dealing with today. There are many studies that show increasing political polarization over time, and I would argue that that reduces the fluidity of voter choices. Republican voters now are less likely to vote for a Democrat now than they were in the 90's, when, for example, Bill Clinton won Louisiana and Tennessee. I would also point out that this conventional wisdom failed to account for Trump's 2016 victory and the fact that the Republican party remains strong despite becoming increasingly extremist.

I don't have time to read through all of your studies but I did read through the first. Something I found notable, which I expected, was that while the study found that extremism was correlated with general election losses in both parties, the effect was significantly more pronounced in the Republican party. This makes the successful rise of right-wing extremism even less coherent with your point of view. But from my perspective, it makes perfect sense - in the current polarized environment, mobilizing one's own base is more effective than appealing to the center, so much so that even if you're promoting broadly unpopular policies, it can still win against someone who has failed to adapt.

Objection , 17 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

People will really jump on any random thing to bash China. I'll give kudos to British state media that this constant deluge of insignificant nonsense makes it really hard to have any discussion about China that's based on like, broad trends in history or economics.

Parks do water management. At Niagra Falls, for example, much of the water is used for power generation at night, but during the day more of it goes over the falls for the benefit of tourists. You've probably never heard about it, because it doesn't matter. At all.

But make it about another tribe, about the outgroup, and suddenly it's the most important thing in the world and proves everything we always suspected and blah blah blah. Go volunteer at your local park.

Objection , 16 days ago

Yes I include China

Are you a Maoist, then?

Objection , 16 days ago

Being a tankie is when you don't care about water management at a park on the opposite side of the world, even though your state hates their state.

Objection , 16 days ago

Where did I claim they were? I believe what I said is "Parks do water management." And beauty and tourism are concerns that they take into account. This is a non-story.

Objection , 16 days ago

Xi Jinping reading about this story like

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c3080c1c-51b4-4696-a7c7-764399466f97.jpeg

Objection , 16 days ago

You say "thousands" as if that's a lot. If some Chinese people want to talk about a park's water management, I don't mind. But when Westerners take some random trivial thing like this and use it to fuel a narrative that "China is a country full of lies," or whatever, that's an entirely different animal. This is a local issue, not an excuse for chauvanists to be chauvanist.

Objection , 16 days ago

Are you a Maoist, then?

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

Really? Because what I'm seeing is an article from the British Broadcasting Channel and a thread full of people using this story to make sweeping generalizations about China, in English. I suppose it's possible, but I gotta say I find it a little hard to believe that this thread is full of Chinese nationals, as you're claiming.

Objection , 16 days ago

Right here?

And it’s still the Chinese people making a big deal about this.

I'm talking about what people in this thread are saying, and in response they said it's Chinese people making a big deal about it, so naturally that would imply that this thread is full of primarily Chinese people.

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

And I'm fine with that. What I'm less fine with are people in this thread, about a BBC article, exploiting a local issue about water management to paint an entire country as being full of liars. If Chinese people want to make a big deal out of it, that's their business.

Nobody in this thread cares about it for the story itself. They care about it because it gives them an excuse to push their agenda.

Objection , 16 days ago

I guess I'm just confused then. When China enacted economic reforms in the 80's, there were people who opposed them and felt that these reforms entailed a right-wing deviation from communism. Those people were/are known as Maoist hardliners. You can see where I thought you might be one.

If you're not that, then does that mean you do approve of those economic reforms? Perhaps I misunderstood, when you said China abandoned communism, did you mean it as a good thing, and you support China's direction from a pro-capitalist standpoint?

If that's not it, I give up. I'm afraid I'm at a loss what your ideology is or what you think about Chinese history or the country's economic reforms. If you could explain it to me, I'd be quite grateful, I see a lot of people around here who appear to me to be Maoists, but when I ask if they are, they don't answer or elaborate. It's very confusing to me.

Objection , 16 days ago

Contrary to popular belief, there's actually nothing wrong with calling out bad arguments and illegitimate or irrelevant criticism of anything or anyone, regardless of what you think about the thing or person. I'll apologize for whoever I please, in other words.

Objection , 16 days ago

I never said that he did.

I don't see how this point matters. Yes, Chinese people shared the story, because they cared about it. I still think it's a non-issue personally, but people care about all sorts of things, and I'm sure I could find some celebrity gossip with a wider spread. Perfectly fine with all of that.

Then the BBC reports on it internationally, and people on here use it to spread a narrative that China is a nation full of liars. Am I repeating myself? I think I said that part already. That's the only thing I've taken issue with. I fail to see how what you're saying, that Chinese people originally shared the story, has anything to do with that.

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

Because I'm trying to understand their perspective. I consider China to be communist in the sense that the people in charge are communists, the same sense that it was communist under Mao. They call themselves communists, they explain their reasons for doing things from the perspective of communist ideology, they teach Marxism in schools, etc.

To say that they are specifically no longer communist, when they claim to be, seems to be weighing in on what communism is and isn't. Specifically, it seems to be taking the perspective that Mao's leadership constituted "real" communism while Deng's leadership constituted "fake" communism. As I am not a Maoist, I disagree with that perspective.

It's strange to me that you think understanding someone's stance on China's economic reforms, the point in history where they allegedly abandoned communism, would be irrelevant to understanding the standard by which they consider China to have abandoned communism. What could be more relevant?

Objection , 16 days ago

I guess I don't really operate on vibes too much when looking at geopolitics.

Objection , 16 days ago

I said that to make the point that what they said was irrelevant to what I said, unless this thread was full of Chinese people.

Objection , 16 days ago

That doesn't seem to describe me very well. Seems like a strange take. I would think that studying history and basing beliefs on evidence would lead one to arrive at a more nuanced understanding than going, "idk seems bad."

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

“beliefs” are based on “faith” and “evidence” is up for “interpretation.”

No, they are not. I believe more of the earth's surface is water than land. Is that belief based on faith? Is that evidence up for interpretation?

Some beliefs are based on faith and some evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a rational, evidence-based belief.

A room full of people can read a story and all take something different from it, if we could all just study history and decide what the best course of action is, that’d be cool.

Yes, people disagree on things, but when they are grounded on evidence and reason, they can discuss them rationally and present reason or evidence that the other person might not be aware of, and possibly resolve the disagreement. If you just go off vibes, and someone else senses different vibes from you, then there's nothing you can appeal to to convince them of your perspective.

Objection , 16 days ago

Thank you, yes. It's pure chauvanism and falls apart easily under examination, which seems to be why they always disappear so quickly.

1.4 billion people live in China and I'd venture to say that a large chunk of them consider themselves to be communist and the party to be communist. That is easily the majority view of self-indentifying communists worldwide. But surely, they think, as a Westerner, I'm the authority on what communism is and not these backwards Chinese.

Objection , 16 days ago

Communism can mean a classless, stateless society, or it can mean a country where communists are in charge. Marxist-Leninists do not believe that a stateless communist society can be established overnight, especially in countries without industrial development.

Objection , 17 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.

Telling a religious person in their face that THEY are stupid and believe in nonsense. - facism

Does an individual telling someone they think their beliefs are stupid infringe on their ability to exercise harmless freedom?

Your real definition seems to be just, "fascism is anything I personally dislike" which deprives the word of any real meaning.

Objection , 17 days ago

Being rude to someone is not fascism. Criticizing someone's beliefs is not fascism. You are wrong and being ridiculous.

Objection , 17 days ago

No, I'm not taking your definition literally on pure face value. The definition you provided isn't your actual definition, your actual definition is whatever you happen to feel like at any given moment. Which is incorrect and ridiculous. On a fundamental level, that is not how words work.

Objection , 17 days ago

Language is collaborative. It's true that the meaning of words can change over time, but if you just redefine words however you want, then the ability to communicate breaks down. The words "dog" and "cat" may have fluid meanings but if I just decide to start calling cats dogs and dogs cats, then it's going to result in a lot of pointless confusion.

Let's say I was going to completely accept your definition of fascism. That would mean that going forward, any time I wanted to determine if something was fascism or not, I would have to DM you specifically to find out. Because your definition is both nonstandard and does not follow any kind of consistent, coherent rules. It would be impossible for me to really agree with you about what is and isn't fascism, because you haven't given me any sort of coherent way to distinguish between what you think is fascist and what you don't think is fascist.

Different people do define fascism in different ways, which does create confusion, but at least with most people they can give me a standard by which I can evaluate things. Even if that standard is wrong, like, "Fascism is whenever the government does anything," it is at least possible to evaluate whether something counts as fascism by that definition, without having to ask the person every single time.

Objection , 17 days ago

Fascism is a specific political ideology that emerged in 20th century Italy, developed by Mussolini. What you're describing, not recognizing other people as individuals, is something that has existed for as long as there have been humans.

When prehistoric tribes were killing each other, they weren't respecting each other as individuals, but that wasn't fascism. There wasn't even a state, political ideology did not exist.

When feudal lords worked their serfs to death, they weren't respecting them as individuals, but that was not fascism, it was feudalism.

Fascism is not the correct word for the thing you're describing. It doesn't seem possible to reason with you, so this is probably my last attempt.

Objection , 17 days ago

I apologize for being overly harsh. I think we were just on different wavelengths.

I think the word you're looking for is "dehumanization." Dehumanization is something that is utilized by fascism, but it's also used in lots of other contexts. To dehumanize someone is to view or treat someone as less than human. An experience where one's beliefs or values are not respected may feel dehumanizing. A person might find their job dehumanizing, or dealing with beuraucracy dehumanizing, and so on.

Fascism implies a mass political movement, and takes dehumanization to an extreme that is necessary to lay the groundwork for the extermination of minorities.

Some degree of dehumanization is normal, especially when interacting with rude or insensitive people, or with uncaring systems. But that's not enough to constitute fascism on its own.

Objection , 17 days ago

More and more companies are replacing workers with independent contractors who are running their own businessness where they are in complete control.

Lol. In many cases, that's just a tax dodge. I worked as an "independent contractor" for a cleaning company once, they supplied the equipment and told me where to go and when and what to do, same with all the other workers. The only formal employees were management and the only difference for us was fewer benefits.

Objection , 16 days ago

YES

My understanding is that a tankie is defined as someone who seeks to promote global peace, understanding, and equality, with nuanced views that incorporate marginalized and international perspectives, grounded in historical evidence.

That's how I see it used anyway.

Objection , 17 days ago

They're used to emphasize the dubiousness of the thing quoted. You can search for """ on whatever instance and see various examples.

Objection , 18 days ago

Dessalines himself posted this video

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/6b724c9b-931c-4b42-afca-a334edadd01a.jpeg

Objection , 17 days ago

That's a common tool of propaganda. If you lie outright, you can get caught, and the audience may not believe you in the first place. The real trick is to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination, and if you're doing it skillfully, they'll end up not only believing what you want them to, but also thinking it was their idea all along. I've even seen the video cut to show the tank moving in the man's direction, and then cut away before it stops, creating the impression that the full video would show him getting run over and is not included because it would be too graphic - for example, 3:14 in this bizarre psyop recruitment ad.

Objection , 15 days ago

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone imply that he’s important because he’s a martyr

Why did you read my comment but not the one I was replying to?

The psyops propaganda you posted is definitely cringe af but it seems to clearly show the tank turning in the clip

Right, because the tank did turn, so they can't show a clip of it driving straight at him because that clip doesn't exist. But given that it's on screen for about one second, I would venture to guess that some people might not be examining that too closely, and would just see that the tank is moving.

calling it a clear example of misleading people into thinking he was killed is a pretty big stretch imo

It's not about directly misleading people, as I said. It's about leaving ambiguity and subtly hinting at what that ambiguity might be, while leaving yourself plausible deniability. To simply lie directly is a crass and obvious form of propaganda, to be used sparingly. If you're looking for propaganda in the mindset of looking for a "smoking gun" that would hold up in court, you don't understand the nature of it. It's an art. It's advertising. I couldn't prove to a jury what Shakespeare wanted the audience to take away from Hamlet, but that doesn't mean I can't analyze it and make educated guesses.

Obviously, anyone who's seen the full video or knows the story won't be fooled, but that's not the point. If some number of people come away thinking what you want them to think, and the origin of that thought can't be traced back to you in an incriminating way, then you did your job.

Objection , 19 days ago

What's the historical significance of Tiananmen Square? People sure seem to like talking about it, but personally I don't really see why it warrants so much attention, in the grand scheme of things.

Objection , 18 days ago

Comparing an incident where 11 million people were killed to one where hundreds of people were killed is a form of Holocaust denialism.

Objection , 18 days ago

China has official death estimates so I don't believe that they deny that anything at all happened.

Now, it’s considered patriotic to protest poor government decisions.

Is it now? Would you say the student protests over Gaza are considered "patriotic" in mainstream American culture?

Objection , 18 days ago

All too familiar with #9. When I say that my government should persue peaceful, diplomatic approaches and stop spending as much as the next 9 countries combined on the military, people call me a Russian agent. Of course, before when I criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the line was "terrorist sympathizer," you know, "with us or against us."

Not to say that the people saying that fulfill all the points of fascism by this definition, but they certainly fulfill that one. Peace only ever seems to be popular in hindsight.

Objection , 18 days ago

Who says this?

Objection , 18 days ago (edited 18 days ago)

China is bad about LGBT rights.

There has been some progress, but it's mostly driven (as it has been in other countries) from the bottom up, from grassroots changes in attitude, and not from the central government. While China doesn't have the tradition of conservative Christian beliefs that fuel hatred in the US, there's other beliefs that fuel prejudice and discrimination, especially among older generations.

Many Western sources do try to leverage LGBT issues for geopolitical agendas, as they do with Palestine, for example. But that doesn't mean that what they say is false. I believe cross-referencing between Western sources and pro-LGBT Chinese sources such as Sixth Tone gives the most accurate picture of the state of things on the ground. Personally, I found Naomi Wu's perspective to be an invaluable case study, before she unfortunately ran afoul of censors on a different issue.

Hopefully the situation improves for queer people in China, but I fear that increasing global tensions will only slow down progress on that front.