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!

  • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    1 year ago

    If the disagreement is about framing then I don’t think there’s a disagreement. But if you’re insisting that tue Chinese government did no wrong, then we do have one. And that’s not about framing, that’s about covering for government murders.

    My understanding is based on the links you’ve sent and my cursory looking through them combined with a few other academic sources and a Taiwanese NGO that as created to address this very topic. To me, it appears there was internal dissent within the CCP, focused on general standard of life things (inflation, cost of goods, etc.), which was opposed to some of the more entrenched power structures of the CCP/PRC government. Of this organic movement, some parties were likely co-opted or encouraged over time by foreign actors to step up their dissent into civil disobedience.

    This dissent grew over some years into outright protests, which in turn grew into conflicts between the protest movement and the Chinese police and military, which turned to violence and the deaths of hundreds of protesters and at least several government agents. I didn’t watch any video of “the leader” of this opposition movement who expressly went there for violence, but I don’t doubt there were people who were preparing (and may have welcomed) violence.

    However, I am of the opinion that any government has the responsibility to de-escalate and to not attack protesters with tanks and machine guns.

    I hitch brings me to authoritarianism: you’re wrong, there’s plenty of space for nuance when discussing it. The term is not used to describe an ideology, it’s used to describe behavior. And there are plenty of places in the world where there are very unpopular views, harmful to society, where people aren’t murdered by the state for expressing them loudly.

    And when you have any government that censors its own people by making it next to impossible to access information, shoots at them, infringes on their rights to worship as they see fit or to live and work as and where they prefer, or doesn’t allow dissenting ideology, then it’s authoritarian. Doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, and there’s not any need for nuance.

    Finally: isn’t the whole communist experiment an expression of an idealism? Granted I’ve only read a few of the more foundational texts, but isn’t your logic against the entire goal of global emancipation from exploitation?

    I’m just advocating for a more gradualist approach, devoid as much as possible of repressive violence. And while imperfect, I would argue that there are many places where this is/has occurred to a certain degree already; I’m specifically thinking about the social democracies in Europe.

    As an aside, this is why I want to frequent lemmy.ml, and hate it when I’m simply dismissed as “a lib” when I am really just not quite as revolutionary as I used to be…

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 year ago

      If the disagreement is about framing then I don’t think there’s a disagreement. But if you’re insisting that tue Chinese government did no wrong, then we do have one. And that’s not about framing, that’s about covering for government murders.

      Given that alternative was what happened to USSR, Chinese government prevented millions of deaths and incalculable amount of suffering by stopping western sponsored counterrevolution. I personally got to live through what unfolded in the 90s in Russia, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

      To me, it appears there was internal dissent within the CCP, focused on general standard of life things (inflation, cost of goods, etc.), which was opposed to some of the more entrenched power structures of the CCP/PRC government. Of this organic movement, some parties were likely co-opted or encouraged over time by foreign actors to step up their dissent into civil disobedience.

      First of all, it’s spelled CPC, but that aside, this is again a similar pattern to what we saw in USSR where the west managed to leverage elements of dissent to run a counter revolution.

      However, I am of the opinion that any government has the responsibility to de-escalate and to not attack protesters with tanks and machine guns.

      And they did try doing precisely that. In fact, the army didn’t fight back initially as the protesters started to become violent.

      I hitch brings me to authoritarianism: you’re wrong, there’s plenty of space for nuance when discussing it. The term is not used to describe an ideology, it’s used to describe behavior. And there are plenty of places in the world where there are very unpopular views, harmful to society, where people aren’t murdered by the state for expressing them loudly.

      The term is used to describe forms of government different from western liberalism. Meanwhile, show me a place in the world where the governments don’t respond violently to people trying to overthrow them.

      And when you have any government that censors its own people by making it next to impossible to access information, shoots at them, infringes on their rights to worship as they see fit or to live and work as and where they prefer, or doesn’t allow dissenting ideology, then it’s authoritarian. Doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, and there’s not any need for nuance.

      So, basically any western government right now? For example, EU has banned all Russian media and regularly violently cracks down on protests . US is violently attacking people protesting a literal genocide that US is facilitating.

      Finally: isn’t the whole communist experiment an expression of an idealism? Granted I’ve only read a few of the more foundational texts, but isn’t your logic against the entire goal of global emancipation from exploitation?

      It’s not because communism is a materialist ideology focused on tangible results, which is what we see in China with the massive improvements in standard of living happening.

      I’m just advocating for a more gradualist approach, devoid as much as possible of repressive violence. And while imperfect, I would argue that there are many places where this is/has occurred to a certain degree already; I’m specifically thinking about the social democracies in Europe.

      Many books have been written explaining in detail why reformist approaches don’t work in practice. And lack of reformism achieving anything of value over the past century is a pretty strong indicator that this approach only serves to perpetuate the horrors of capitalism.