this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
123 points (72.4% liked)
Memes
54155 readers
437 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think it's pathetic to combat misinformation that you're spreading, without even having the decency to provide evidence backing your claims up. You have a knee-jerk reaction to deny anything that disagrees with your internal narrative.
Claim A: 10,000 people were killed in Tian'anmen Square on June 4th, 1989
Claim B, Part 1: No, nobody died in Tian'anmen Square on June 4th, 1989.
Claim B, Part 2: Hundreds of people died around Beijing on June 4th, 1989, including dozens of PLA officers lynched and firebombed, as well as hundreds of rioters.
Both parts of Claim B are intrinsically tied together, but you read it as distinct claims made by different people to justify your absurd claims.
You're deflecting by focusing on the square and not the pile of mutilated corpses because you cannot defend that.
Nope, incorrect. You're claiming communists that dispel myths about June 4th are practicing "historical denialism" by doing so, and are now moving the goalposts because you know I'm correct about what happened. You're inventing a motive to suit what you already feel about communists, and don't even have the decency to make a consistent and clear claim with evidence, just vague posturing and libel.
Incorrect. I like communists. I like communism. I don't like denialism.
I would like to be more involved but I cannot in good conscience join any group that participates in denialism and revisionism.
The only one in this thread practicing denialism and revisionism is yourself, though, for the purposes of discrediting communists and communism in general.
Which of these claims do you think is closest to the truth, and which do you think communists are positing?
Claim A: 10,000 people were killed in Tian'anmen Square on June 4th, 1989
Claim B, Part 1: No, nobody died in Tian'anmen Square on June 4th, 1989.
Claim B, Part 2: Hundreds of people died around Beijing on June 4th, 1989, including dozens of PLA officers lynched and firebombed, as well as hundreds of rioters.
Keep in mind that in my view, as someone that speaks with communists all the time, I have only ever seen communists make Claim B, either in seperate comments or (usually) together.
Anybody know a forum for actual leftist?
Lemmygrad.ml, Hexbear.net
I genuinely don't know what you're trying to achieve, here, are you trying to convince me or others? I clearly have done the research on this topic, and others can see that and the sources I've provided. All you've done is gesture, so I don't see who that serves or to what end other than legitimizing me.
I'm not trying to achieve anything other than having a discussion with you. Apparently that's an unusual concept to you?
You're the one who engaged me. You can't complain about a conversation you started and continued.
I feel like you're more talking at me than to me, though. My goal is either to persuade you to see the communist stance on June 4th, 1989 as I see it, or to provide evidence for any onlookers that may initially agree with you but instead see the evidence I provide and reconsider.
This isn't really a two-way conversation, though, you've dodged all attempts at me asking for evidence or even for concrete claims, while you've insulted me, slandered me, and more. I can only assume that that's what you want, to belittle and undermine rather than have a constructive discussion.
You've refused to stay on topic and deflected at every turn with irrelevant information. That's not a "constructive conversation" either.
I do get passionate when it comes to these things. It's alarming and disheartening to see people's lives just shrugged off and disrespected.
I do apologize for getting feisty at you.
I've stayed on topic the entire time, though. Where have I deflected? What information is "irrelevant?" If it appears that I've done so, I can only answer that it's a symptom of me trying to respond to what you insist on remaining vague about.
I don't see anyone doing that, though. You keep asserting that we are, such as using the fact that Tank Man lived as a distraction from the hundreds that did die, but when given evidence to the contrary, such as how it's intrinsically connected to the actual character of the events, including the hundreds that did die, you resort to insult rather than answering me honestly.
Accepted, thank you.
Good night. Going to bed now.
G'night.
Lol show me this pile