Refugees and activists tell the BBC intimidation tactics are tearing apart Uyghur communities overseas.
  • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
    11·
    1 year ago

    A big part of my gripe here is precisely the idea that one can engage in critical analysis of statecraft, while hand waving away inconvenient statecraft. Or worse - supporting broad censorship of inconvenient statecraft.

    I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

    My gripe here is that nobody can have an informed opinion on foreign policy if they do not acknowledge the tons of pro US propaganda that surround them on EVERY issue in this category and dominate most of it.

    It is important to call you out on your power-serving statements.

    You tried to push critical thought out of the overton window when you painted it a kind of sacrilege (“make folk heroes out of tyrants”) and everyone engaging in it someone that needs to be shunned by society (a “tankie”).

    Mind you all without addressing, let alone contesting, the facts.

    With all due respect: As long as your actions are indistinguishable from those of a US intelligence social media asset, don’t expect any good will engagement.

    Have an open mind and start to reflect a little more

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      11·
      1 year ago

      But I am fine criticizing the US and acknowledging US propaganda. I do it all the time. You are the one dismissing anything which doesn’t align with a very narrow ML head-cannon as indicative of being a US intelligence asset. And you are telling me to have an open mind?

      Buddy, there is an entire world of socialist thought and literature which diverges from and challenges ML dogma. Either you are unaware of this, or you are so narrow minded that you see anything outside of that script as some monolithic enemy.

      • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
        11·
        1 year ago

        Call me buddy all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you are not good at making sense

        You were and are the jumping to conclusions.

        Case in point that complete second half is you responding to conclusions you’ve drawn up in your head. Re-read this threat nowhere is it ever about ML, or socialism. Why do you think its accurate to call me a ML?

        This thread is about US propaganda on reddit, which I characterized by posting a fact that is affected by it with the goal of facricating consent for military action against another country.

        You are the one dismissing anything which doesn’t align with a very narrow ML head-cannon as indicative of being a US intelligence asset

        An obviously completly untruthful rendition of my statement. I phrased it carefully so do me the favor and try harder to understand it before you respond to it