this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
169 points (99.4% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15917 readers
9 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don't understand what's being asserted.
QuietCupcake is affirming the casualties you're pointing to in your pullquotes, but is arguing that because most did not occur in the square itself as described in the westernized accounting of the event and because the violent response started when protestors assaulted and killed several officers, the label of a 'massacre' is an intentionally misleading description that ignores what actually happened. There being a couple hundred casualties doesn't make the event a 'massacre' and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven't defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it's an indefensible description.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
'I'm just trying to get answers so I can understand.' Bullshit. You're farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
So why weren't those linked? Why do I need to read 5 articles that say there was a massacre, just around the square and not in it, written by or about people who were actually there, just to get to a blog post that links those same articles and selectively pulls quotes to try and convince me that there wasn't a massacre?
If January 6th ended with the federal government sending in tanks and hundreds dead, but everything else about it stayed about the same, I would still call it a massacre, or at the very least understand why others would.
And you ignored the second point I made, that we really can't know too many details about what happened. And yet everyone's so certain they know the full story, and it just so happens to align with what the government is[n't] saying.
After having read the articles, I'm more convinced now that a massacre did happen, it just wasn't in the square and mostly didn't involve students. Yet everyone here seems to want to say that there was no massacre at all, it was a government declaring martial law and putting down a violent rebellion with overwhelming force. I'm not sure that's much better, but whatever.
Thank you for conceding.
It's so funny that this person has kept going at this for nearly two days now while I've just been vibing at the karaoke bar the last two nights.