963
submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, with government using increasingly sophisticated tools to censor its discussion

There is no official death toll but activists believe hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed by China’s People’s Liberation Army in the streets around Tiananmen Square, Beijing’s central plaza, on 4 June 1989.

The date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, and the Chinese government employs extensive and increasingly sophisticated resources to censor any discussion or acknowledgment of it inside China. Internet censors scrub even the most obscure references to the date from online spaces, and activists in China are often put under increased surveillance or sent on enforced “holidays” away from Beijing.

New research from human rights workers has found that the sensitive date also sees heightened transnational repression of Chinese government critics overseas by the government and its proxies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

My favorite thing to do is to watch liberals read the (very western biased) Wikipedia article on this event. The moment when they realize how many soldiers were killed before the crackdown is always radicalizing for those with even a modicum of intellectual curiosity.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

This sounds like how conservatives rationalize the Kent State massacre by claiming that the protesters were throwing feces.

You're not radicalized. You just switched which authoritarian you swear fealty to.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

It would be different if the protesters had lynched a dozen soldiers before they responded.

Of course given the context of the Vietnam war, the soldiers wouldn't have been justified even if the protesters killed some of them first; you don't get to claim self-defense when you yourself are only there to put down a protest against imperialism.

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 26 points 1 week ago

I guess the Chinese soldiers were minding their own business at home with their families, and not there to just put down protests against authoritarianism.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

See the big difference is the US was murdering countless Vietnamese to keep them under the boot of capitalism. The protesters in Tienanmen aren't as black and white. If the protesters were protesting China poisoning the food supply and massacring countless villages of country on the other side of the planet to keep a country's resources easy to exploit and their people's blood ready to be spent keeping other countries under the boot of capitalism, it would be that simple, but they weren't.

Also "against authoritarianism" lmao you are a literal child.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

Most rational people oppose authoritarianism.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Here, it'll take two minutes to read this. I'm not even going to get into the contexts "authoritarianism" is and isn't used today (hint: liberals use it and see no hypocrisy).

[-] livingheart@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

do you think this is convincing, compelling? it is not.

it totally equates the democratic delegation of agency to elected delegates for a specific term and purpose with permanent subservience.

it's an attack on strawmen, and you're a born bootlicker if you're this easily swayed into cheerleading for authoritarians.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

do you think this is convincing, compelling? it is not.

Always funny to hear people call folks in China brainwashed and then have this "I'll never deviate from the American Party line" when it comes to foreign affairs.

Brains like a steel trap. Nothing gets in.

[-] livingheart@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

lmao i've never been near the usa, swing and a miss, bootlicker.

can guarantee i've done more for working people as a union steward and negotiator than you ever will as a terminally online whiner.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Yeah Engels take on authoritarianism is dated and not really valid given that his ideologies do not result in anything other than authoritarian states IRL.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm always curious to compare how Americans view the Tianemen Square incident with Waco.

Like, if you ask an American to explain what happened at Waco, you'll get a bunch of blank stares. A few people with anti-government views will explain how a religious community was ruthlessly butchered by the Gestapo-like FBI. A few people with anti-religious views will insist this was a child sex cult that committed suicide while the FBI tried to help.

But for the most part, those Americans who remember it just see it as another normal police action against people who were probably committing all sorts of crimes.

You could also talk about the BLM protests from '14 to '18, and how the broad American view was that this was police acting to protect private property. And maybe some of the protesters didn't deserve such rough treatment, but hey they knew what they signed up for when they blocked traffic.

But the views on Tianemen are uniform. Chinese killed that nice man with their tank and then killed everyone else in the city and then covered it up in a way only people in China are unaware it happened.

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

"Chinese government killed their own people, it's fine! They are basically property"

[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Reminds me of Hillsborough and “some fans”.

[-] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 20 points 1 week ago

I only see wiki reference 10 soldiers having died - is this the number you're referring to?

Do you think that's alot? In my head that's disproportionately few compared to the [disputed] 100s of civilians that the Chinese government declared dead

[-] arcterus 24 points 1 week ago

According to the linked page with PLA/PAP casualties, there were 15 verifiable deaths (PRC official number is 23). Half of them weren't directly caused by the protesters, and the other half occurred after troops first opened fire. Truly, I feel quite radicalized.

[-] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago

Consider yourself both radicalised and owned liberal! /s

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Can you share that link? I'm curious how the 7 "non directly caused by protesters" died. They just had a random accident? Lovers quarrel? Food poisoning?

[-] arcterus 13 points 1 week ago

PLA/PAP Casualties

Summary is a truck flipped over, supposed friendly fire incident with a non-uniformed soldier, and a heart attack.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago

According to the official numbers there were ten civilians killed for every state agent of oppression.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Killing the villainous authoritarian ork creature CCP is always virtuous and good and needs to be celebrated.

Stopping a tank in front of an unarmed bicyclist until police pull him out of the way is unforgivable genocide.

[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I had to do it, these people don't even read their own fake sources.

[-] Subdivide6857@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago

Liberals are hardly better than the conservatives in the US. They all seem to be naive right wingers.

this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
963 points (100.0% liked)

World News

47442 readers
2495 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS