This isn’t bitching so much as a curiosity. Here in Lemmy.ml, would it be considered abusive for an admin to actively participate in a discussion, then get upset and delete the same comments they themselves have been replying to?
I’d just like to clarify the administration posture of this instance. There are lots of accusations of unfairness here. I don’t know if that’s an individualistic thing or a matter of policy.
Mainly asking so I can more easily identify what discussions are not safe to participate in.
Cheers!
So your assertion is that Tiananmen square didn’t happen, and the OP was banned for saying that it did happen?
Edit: does anybody else find it suspicious that this comment is this account’s only one?
It’s highly suspicious yes, lol
Also not what I posted
I also wasn’t banned so… idk.
get back to reddit glowie
I don’t know what a “glowie” is.
I don’t much care for Reddit, thanks.
Edit: you almost got my with your misdirection and muddying of the waters. Fair play.
But seriously, do I understand the original post I replied to correctly? They’re saying that the OP was banned for asserting that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square, and then presents evidence that it didn’t actually happen?
The OP was correctly banned for spreading misinformation.
The OP was supposedly banned for spreading information that supports that an event happened (The Tiananmen Square massacre), which is something that one of the most repressive media regimes that exists in the world (China) is trying to deny.
That sounds like the use of moderation powers in support of another government’s propaganda.
I just wish .ml would be more open about whose government propaganda is allowed, I guess, which echoes OP’s question.
Is it all of .ml where only Chinese propaganda is allowed, but US is not? Russian disinformation is ok, but not English? What are the lines, assuming I am interested in taking part in discourse on .ml?
Except that the event didn’t happen, there was no massacre in the Tiananmen Square. And the event that did happen in actuality is wildly different from the propaganda you’re regurgitating. Also, have no idea why you feel the need to sealion into discussions on .ml when it’s clearly that you fundamentally disagree with the views majority of people here hold.
Things did happen there. It’s very well documented, even in the sources the other person posted. There was conflict and there were deaths, of both protesters and of Chinese military/police personnel.
I’m not regurgitating any propaganda, except perhaps implicitly in my use of the word “massacre” that is quite loaded. Aside from this brief exchange I have not said anything about Tiananmen Square anywhere.
I wish to participate on .ml because I have a deep seated interest in politics, political theory, and policy. I like having my views challenged from the left of me, and accessing alternative media.
What I don’t enjoy is being constantly attacked using various logical and argumentative fallacies, and I don’t appreciate authoritarianism or the silencing of oppositional views.
Edit: and the overarching reason is that I detest echo chambers, and because of how .ml mods and admins act, I’m finding it almost impossible to break out of my own. I’m learning that it’s because .ml seems to be another echo chamber where dissenting opinions are simply silenced rather than addressed, which really sucks.
What happened was that the west tried to run a color revolution in China that failed. In fact, the organizer, who fled to US after, is on video admitting that her goal was to incite violence. Framing this as a massacre is in fact regurgitating propaganda.
https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/
Also, nobody is using any logical fallacies to attack you. What you’re being actually told is that people are tired of having to address the same talking points over and over.
Finally, the whole notion of authoritarianism is deeply infantile. Every government holds authority by virtue of having the monopoly on legal violence. The only actual question is whose interest this authority is exercised in. Is it being used in the interests of the working majority the way it is in China, or in the interests of the oligarchy the way it is in US.
I am not an expert in what actually happened at Tiananmen, however at least we can both acknowledge that there were protesters, and that there was violence. Why is it so hard to consider that the US did have a hand in stirring the pot politically and supporting different dissenting groups in order to destabilize what it views/viewed as an ideological threat (which the US has plenty history of doing), but also that the Chinese government grossly overreacted and killed a bunch of protesting students? Both of these things can be true at the same time.
I also acknowledged that my use of the word was incendiary.
I’m sorry, I can’t trust the word of that site. I looked into Chris Kanthan and can’t find any evidence that he knows what he’s writing about (his bios use the fact that he’s written books to justify his expertise and continuing to write books, but it seems like he’s actually a computer programmer in San Francisco?), and there’s a clear bias towards the Chinese political elite, which I, personally, disagree with.
People are using logical fallacies. You have already done it to me, in your comment about that was removed in this thread and in others where we have met.
I don’t know what to say about authoritarianism being infantile. It’s crazy to me that somebody would be ok with repression anywhere, regardless of where imaginary lines are drawn on maps.
Every stable country technically holds or tries to hold the monopoly on violence, by some definitions, but why is it bad for me to question this assumption, no matter the perpetrator?
Speaking to your last point: I reject your absolute definition of for whom these different establishments work. I happen to believe that both political and civil rights and social, economic, and cultural rights can be protected, and I believe that repression is the counter to obtaining these. I don’t think either of these countries does enough to guarantee them, since they seem to be too entrenched in discourse of conflict and their own flawed and harmful ideologies.
Dude just read the resources and watch the videos. This isn’t a debate.
You injected discussions about Tiananmen Square into this debate. It came out of nowhere.
And I simply don’t accept the official Chinese picture of what happened. There is plenty of evidence of what happened.
What I do accept is the nuance. But you’d have to read the rest of my responses to understand that.
Huh? The point is not to accept a single source as authorative. If you watched the videos you’d realize the western account is a complete fabrication. You obvious didn’t look at them at all.
Examine ALL evidence from the event. Testimony from the Chilean embassador who was nearby at the time. All videos, photo, WikiLeaks diplomatic cables.
I don’t think you’re here on good faith as you seem to have no intellectual curiosity. I was SHOCKED when I saw the full tank man video and the footage of moloktov cocktails being thrown.