Remembering to look for and ignore folks with that telltale indicator has made the fediverse so much more enjoyable.
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
My .ml experience:
from the modlog it looked like you got a 4 day ban for citing a work of fiction as fact and crashing out in the replies when challenged on it
I had asked for a source that the book is fiction and got no answer except a quote from his ex-wife.
Another user definitely pointed out evidence for why the gulag archipelago is fiction you just seemed to not want to engage with it. I had that exact conversation with an ex-friend of mine and I had to tell him why Solzhenitsyn is a piece of shit and unreliable for the truth. This video sums him and that book up perfectly.
Here's what you say is "no answer except a quote from his ex-wife:"
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was an anti-semitic Nazi sympathizer, and was arrested as such. His fiction is based on the folklore of the gulag system, and archival evidence and historical texts paint a much clearer picture of the soviet prison system. He's essentially Yeonmi Park but for the USSR.
Here's a real quote:
>The German army could have liberated the Soviet Union from Communism but Hit1er was stupid and did not use this weapon.
From an excellent thread going over his many ideological failings:
200 Years together is a completely different book and an ex-wife as a single source is not enough for me.
Okay, let's assume his storys in the Gulag books are fictipn. What is your general opinion on gulags under Stalin?
The point of 200 years together being listed is that we know that he's a liar and a conspiracy theorizing anti-semitic Nazi, so trusting his word alone on socialism makes no sense. We have every reason not to trust him and no reason to trust him, especially when he contradicts archival evidence on how prisons in the GULAG administration functioned.
As for soviet prisons, they varied quite a lot depending on severity of the crime and location, with many being pretty progressive for the time. Visitation, open air prisons, and a focus on rehabilitation was common. I already linked Russian Justice, but you should absolutely read it.
This sounds a little different.
Yep, Wikipedia is written largely by westerners using western consensus, even if such consensus has inaccuracies or better information is available post-opening of the soviet archives. You can even see it uses the Gulag Archipelago as a source, despite it being a work of fiction.
We will not be able to agree. But you can believe what you want. I do too.
I suppose to a certain degree that's true, I just don't trust the personal account of a Nazi that has been known to lie and that contradicts archival evidence.
But you'll believe USSR reports? To me, viewing your claims in this comment thread, you seem to dismiss anything that doesnt fit your narrative as baised or uninformed.
Yes, I trust official documentation historians use these days after the opening of the soviet archives over the personal account of a known liar, conspiracy theorizing Nazi whose own wife said he was lying.
The .world experience:
"evidence"
A 150 page conspiracy theory ain't a prove. Also defending Israels crimes against humanity is not the same as advocating for a reasonable solution.
"Conspiracy theory" for libs is anything that deviates from western state propaganda.
To paraphrase Michael Parenti: teachers and farmers, when they unionize they meet in rooms, and discuss their interests, goals, their plans and their actions to reach these goals, what propaganda they need to create, this is obvious to everyone. But when I suggest that the rich and powerful do the same, they call me a conspiracy theorist.
Lol tankies will take everything from Putin and xi and eat it up like it is the eternal truth.
If you can't admit that, then you are not better than the consumers of said "western state propoganda". At least they get to think for themselves.
"Michael Parenti = le evil Asiatic country!!!"
I dunno that dude.
My problem is not with "evil asian countries"
Tankies love the russian and Chinese governments and take everything they say at face value. (.ml instance owner is pro-russia iirc). They are not socialist or communist, but authoritarians. Support for them is what irks me, not the socialist ideals.
Ok, I'll try and explain the way I see it using an example.
We, in the west, live in a bubble of western propaganda, the same way people in Russia live in a bubble lf Russian propaganda and people in China live in a bubble of Chinese propaganda. Let's even disregard for a moment the fact that the USA, through arts, films and music, being the largest economic and therefore cultural hegemon of the past century up to today, has influence over everyone else.
When Russia started the war against Ukraine, the Russian propaganda gave as a casus belli to its population the "information" that Ukraine was genociding Russians in Eastern Ukraine. These affirmations stem from the Ukrainian civil war happening since 2014, in which the government and some pro-Russian rebels were fighting in eastern Ukraine, so the Russian government leveraged this and the fact that Russian as a language was removed from the studying plans in Eastern Ukraine, and made big claims of genocide of Russians, propagated all over Russian media. To many Russians within this bubble, all the reputable news sources, journalists, institutions and human right organizations, were giving this information, so they naturally believed it, and if people contradict this, they're genocide deniers!
As a westerner: what should I do? Take the genocide claims at face value because otherwise I'm a genocide denier? No. I should look at the situation, look, importantly, at independent journalistic work and material evidence coming from the region, and reach a conclusion based on evidence and not on "claims". There are plenty of Russian testimonies in Russian TV of how they were tortured in Ukraine, how they weren't allowed to speak their language, how they were bombed for years by Ukraine... But those are just that, testimonies without material evidence. So, do I believe the claims? No, I don't, I don't believe Russians were being genocided in eastern Ukraine. I believe that Ukraine, much like my own country of Spain in Catalonia, was violating the right to self determination of people in Eastern Ukraine, and Russia amplified these claims by a factor of 10 and called it a genocide. I've seen with my own eyes with the information, independent journalistic work, and video and photographic evidence, what genocide looks like as is being carried out In Palestine, and nothing like that has been proven for Russians In Eastern Ukraine.
I can now repeat this analysis for the western claims of genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang by the Chinese government, and reach the same conclusion that nothing remotely like in Palestine is happening, so there is no Uyghur genocide. Is this "taking Chinese propaganda at face value"?
Well... no, not exactly.
Your approach to helping to see truth through the miasma of the narrative is, as you present it, reasonable if unavoidably inherently biased - independent journalists are largely going to be presenting the western Ukranian perspective, just by dint of volume (nobody puts them in prison just for being critical of the Ukrainan commanders (the nuances of that are a different discussion that is also important).
Side note about russian independent journalists
I can name many independent russian journalists, but that's because their names stand out; there just aren't that many allowed to exist, and their jobs are incredibly dangerous and memorable. Many of them are unironic proletariarian heroes. (Favorskaya and Kreiger, both of Sotavision, are the two that spring most readily to mind, both having been recently sentenced). They stick in the memory because of their rarity and how messy their fates tend to be.
(I am also (and I want to be clear not in a dismissive way I am just genuinely unclear what you are referring to) very curious as to what you mean by material evidence - things like photographs or 1st party accounts?)
I have done a similar thing, where I have based my opinion on careful research of my own interactions with Ukranians and the work of academics familiar with the situation as well as:
And that's I suspect what you have done too.
But... when I do the same thing for the claims of genocide in China, I arrive at the conclusion it's very much occurring. There's overwhelming documentation from many many sources on the topic, and much as with the Ukranian conflict, the majority are going to be western aligned simply because (despite the fascist push for control of western media) independent and critical media is not suppressed in the west, but it very much is in china (to any comparable degree) (the list of independent Chinese journalists is longer than in Russia, which tracks it's a much larger country, but their lives are often no less fraught). In different ways than in Russia, but nontheless the narrative is extremely strictly controlled.
Why then do you treat the mountain of inherently biased evidence for Russia being wrong as acceptable and reasonable, but when many of the same organizations you will have used to dismiss Russia's claims say there is a genocide in china, they are dismissable?
Setting aside that a genocide does not have to look like whats happening in palestine (ask me about native american genocides I can go on for a while), it's internally inconsistent reasoning.
My dismissal of the supposed "genocide of Russians in eastern Ukraine" doesn't come from sources denying it, it comes from the sources claiming it not providing compelling enough evidence that it's happening. To me, individual testimonies aren't enough to determine there's a genocide, and that's really all the evidence available in the case of Xinjiang pointing towards genocide.
The Uyghur minority was, firstly, excluded from the single child policy precisely because they were a minority, and in this period acquired the majority status in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region. A wave of ISIS related terrorist attacks stroke China in the 2000s and early 2010s, and the government reacted to it by doing a big reeducation campaign in the Xinjiang province which, with its significant Muslim population, was the region where most attackers came from.
This reeducation, mostly consisting of vocational training (also linked to the Belt and Road initiative going through Xinjiang, and the development of the region), was compulsory for many. In the west this looks morally abhorrent, but to Chinese people, it's not so strange a concept. Many Chinese people spend their teenage years in boarding schools in which they study from 9 to 9 and in which they sleep, so living in an education center isn't that big of a deal in many Chinese people's opinion.
As of 2022, the reeducation campaign finished, the camps were closed, and life returned to normal in Xinjiang. Even western state sources like BBC confirmed the closure of the camps, of course with their rhetorical "but at what cost / what's next".
The "evidence" of genocide, as per the International Amnesty inform (the most trustworthy source in my opinion), again consists of "anonymous interviews". I don't doubt there have been cases of police abuse (ACAB after all), but extending that to the definition of genocide is hurtful to people suffering actual, demonstrable genocide such as Palestinians.
Lastly, I'll respond to this:
Essentially information that can be falsified in nature. Pictures can be proven to have been taken at a location and time and to be unedited. Data (such as that of the Ministry of Health of Gaza) including names and identification of actually demonstrably existing people. What I don't consider material evidence are things that aren't falsifiable, such as testimonies (especially anonymous ones), reports of the type "it seems/it has been seen"...
I feel like this is why we need to stick with primary sources whenever we are debating with liberals . Liberals don't trust any news source coming from Russia, China etc (which I'd actually say is a rational fear considering there education) but western news sources time and time again have been proven to lie and not base any of there arguments on the truth.
If we want to actually argue points to liberals or other people we need to use primary sources that can't be disbuted by saying "that's Chinese communist propaganda". Although that does represent another problem in that primary sources are usually harder to read, or are very long and most people probably aren't willing to read through it to verify it's authenticity themselves, which does create a vector for misinformation. Although I still think it's better than secondary sources that liberals will just deny.
I do trust some news coming from China, but for russia it's just too difficult to give them any credence given my own experience with news outlets that are just government mouthpieces.
Yet, it's not a complete blackout state like North korea. Telegram has a lot of credible sources or so I've heard. They don't shy away from Russian losses for eg.
Also my issue is with the authoritarian governments and their tightly held control over their media. Recently I've felt that western news sources have also very biased and I can't take anything coming from that completely straight. I've even switched sources from legacy media outlets to individual reporters and small boutique media outlets. (YouTubers) They have less ties with the establishment and while they are still biased, they have far more of an objective overview of the situations at hand.
This is different from China and Russia because they control a lot of their social media as well.The great fire wall being infamous. Also the language barrier definitely makes it more difficult to find people organically.
So no, it isn't about being liberal (which I am not).
The issue is that a decent amount of people on lemmy take wesern as gospel while giving any media from the global south no credit at all. Of course Im not acusing you, or anyone, specifically. Im just making a general observation.
My issue is with the authoritarian governments and their tightly held control over their media. Recently I've felt that western news sources have also been very biased and I can't take anything coming from them completely straight. I've even switched sources from legacy media outlets to individual reporters and small boutique media outlets. (YouTubers) They have less ties with the establishment and while they are still biased, they have far more of an objective overview of the situations at hand.
This is different from China and Russia because they control a lot of their social media as well.The great fire wall being infamous. Also the language barrier definitely makes it more difficult to find people organically.
I am also less likely to believe stuff I hear from a country like russia which heavily suppresses freedom of speech and jails protestors as compared to France which doesn't do the same (or at least to that level).
Plus Putin and xi ping openly flaunt being dictators. There's too much smoke to be oblivious to something like this.
Also if you believe these men really care about genocide of their people in any terms other than how it affects their status and power, then you are quite mistaken. Because I can say this with a straight face, that no democratically elected leader/politician cares about such issues without worrying about the same, much less so authoritarian dictators.
You're not categorizing genocides properly
The Uyghurs don't have their own news agencies, and they're not being splattered over the streets like Palestinians
It's a cultural genocide, it was more like what the US did to the natives. Forced education, over surveillance and policing, forced marriages...
They've backed off on it, and it's better than killing people... But it definitely isn't good
That's the western claim, but Xinjiang is a special province of China called "autonomous region", with more powers to local politics than most others. Uyghur people can study Uyghur language at school (unlike for exmaple Occitanian people in France) and their culture is preserved. You wanna see a cultural genocide in real time? Look up the population of Occitanian speakers over the past 100 years and the French policy towards Occitanian.
Yes, they have largely stopped doing it, which is good.
No, it's not good that it's happening somewhere else. I haven't heard about that at all. Maybe we should make it an issue so they stop too???
This is not a zero sum game. I don't care what France is doing when I'm talking about China or vice versa, I just want less bad things in the world
That's the entire point of why tankies like me bring up such topics. When Europeans insist in the "superiority and democratic rule" of Europe vs. say China, it's because we remain oblivious to the sins of our own countries while we're constantly bombarded with propaganda against socialist projects. You can get started with the Wikipedia article on Occitan Language if you're interested.
Thats the entire point. There is immense propaganda about China while we literally don't know what happens in the neighboring country. If there were an equal amount of contributions in .world about repression of Occitan as there is about China, I would make it less of a point to bring it up constantly. It's not deviating, it's not letting anti-China discourse dominate in the platform
It seems rather dishonest to conflate the attention given to the oppression of current minority groups with that given to the oppression of minority groups that hit it's peak around a hundred years ago (and arguably started in the 16th centry).
There's been decades of effort to preserve the culture already, improve the cultural situation for Occitan speakers and there are active efforts to improve the treatment of minority languages and culture in general in France:
I don't think a single person isn't aware that France was staggeringly racist in the early 1900s - for good or ill, nobody is going to argue it wasnt. They've made huge strides on this specific topic, however, and while they can do better, the reason people are unaware is that it's lost in the miasma of horror that was French Colonialism in the era that suppression of Occitan and related minority languages was at its it's height - it's rather restrained for that time period, if we're being honest.
You've done some wonderful cherrypicking. That section of the article links to the Vergonha article:
Compare that with Uyghur:
Back to France:
Regarding the segment where you quote "bilingual education" the article on said schools numbers:
Tell me again how much worse Uyghur language is being treated than Occitan. For reference, there are about 13 million native speakers of Uyghur and there are 12 million ethnic Uyghur in China, meaning literally almost all of them speak it. There has clearly been a prolonged effort to maintain the language.
Well people who make the same excuses as fascists and make excuses for crimes against humanity deserve to be banned, regardless if they are Marxist-Leninist or nazi.
I'll agree when you fight for the abolition of all western countries for their crimes against humanity.
Why abolition? There are some countries that need reappraisal of their past and need to compensate for it, however it is much more necessary for China, Russia, DPRK and the US. UK also to an extent. EU less so.
All you ever do is defend psychotic dictators and criticize the West when stuff aint as black and white as you pretend it is.
I at least am able to criticize the West just as much as any other country, because yes, western countries could do better. But China, Russia and DPRK aren't better. I want socialism without the ML bullshit. I want socialism with a human face.
Laugh my fucking ass out. You libs are so oblivious to the countless sins committed by the west. As late as 1960 France was butchering some million Algerians for the unforgivable sin of wanting independence, but sure, China, the country which carried out the greatest industrial revolution and elimination of poverty the world has yet seen, is so much worse.
Last time I checked, there were still not few people living in abject poverty in China and a shitload of people being worked for less than a living wage. Also whats with the rooftop safety nets at Chinese factories. Also China has like the second most billionaires in the world. What kind of "socialist" state is fine with having billionaires?
How long ago was that?
That wasn’t a common thing, it’s not a thing now, and it was the result of Foxconn’s illegal labor practices which the “authoritarian” state has since put the kibosh on.
On the off-chance that your question isn’t rhetorical, previously.
I'm pretty sure I'm banned from .ml.
Badge of honour.
"Different opinion" lol complete bullshit as usual
i’d insert
Actual .ml experience (from a guy who has different opinions):
Also like come on, I've seen you around on .ml and all you want is to stir things up and ignore the evidence that other people provide, or say it's just wrong without providing any alternative sources.
I have found that ML's tend to refuse to accept alternative views when supported by similar sources. Almost as if they are not interested in political philosophy or discussion but rather have just memorised doga and get worked up when you push passed their talking points.
Most of the time when this happens it is because you are using western media as evidence. Western media often has tons of mis/disinformation so it's best to stick to primary sources or sources that reference primary sources.
If I'm wrong I'm happy for you to provide an example, I'm sure there are some because not all .ml people are reasonable, just like not everyone on any instance.
All i got was a quote of his ex-wife and an evaluation of another book. So please stick to the facts.