Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse

goferking (he/him)

In that specific case I was banned for words I didn't say

Expect we can see from the mod log the removed comment was for advocating collective punishment.

Same technique you are trying here, to ask me if legal attacks should be allowed and then changing the definition of legal.

Again not changing definition pointing out legal doesn't mean people won't get killed.

For the rest is your point you do lots of comments that get removed?

artyom

then why is doing it to the us "whataboutism"?

I don't know how to be any more clear this. Using whataboutism is using whataboutism. If I talk about China and you say "but what about US!", that's a whataboutism, because we're not talking about the US. And vise versa. It's a clear attempt to excuse and deflect blame away from the topic at hand and onto someone else.

it is very deflective to go both sides bad

I'm glad you finally understand.

realitista@lemmus.org

I really couldn't care less. If they want to mod someone for criticizing authoritarian regimes, there's no point in being there. You can't say I didn't try.

Maeve

All I see here is a temper tantrum

realitista@lemmus.org

Maeve:

☂️-

and you still don't seem to get that condemning "rampant ccp propaganda!" when we praise it's accomplishments is not honest, and that neither country is in a vacuum.

today's us colonial and fascist strategy is directly related to how they want to hurt china, and that also shows in the anti-chinese western narrative. and you don't really have the moral high ground to criticize them in light of this.

neatly wrapped in a single word to deflect us responsibility for the shitty state of the world.

i repeated that point a couple of times in different ways, so i'm just gonna wish you a nice day, and may your mind eventually be freed from that.

artyom

You can repeat the same nonsense all you want, it's still nonsense. I hope one day your "mind is freed" from comparing everything to the worst possible example as an excuse for bad behavior.

𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Protests were already widespread in the Union. Several member states had already declared nominal independence from Moscow. Gorbachev was doing damage control and trying his best to keep the Union from fracturing further. Elections in member republics saw huge rises in popularity for noncommunist parties.

The referendum was an attempt to gain the political momentum required for reform, in an ultimate effort to keep the Union together. It was essentially a kind of propaganda attempt to display large support for the reformed Union, made possible because dissolution was not on the ballot.

There was widespread civil discontent before the referendum. Elections saw noncommunists rise to power and several member states declared independence. Then I am somehow to believe that the population first swung all the way back to "actually the Soviet Union is great and we don't want to leave it" and back to "we should leave the Soviet Union" in a matter of mere months? That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, which you don't have. The truth is far simpler: at every point once the civil unrest started, the population voted in favour of less Soviet Union and for more independence, and not the other way around.

My point regarding the phrasing of post-Soviet polling is that the wording drastically changes the outcome. Sure, people aren't happy about how the 90s turned out and they feel they're not part of a superpower anymore. They're not happy with being screwed over by western nations. They say those things were better under the Soviet Union. But ask them if they would go back to such a Union, and suddenly support evaporates. And in several former member states even the first few questions don't find much Soviet sympathies (eg the Baltics). They want to live in a stronger nation, akin to the Soviet Union, but they do not want to go back to what once was. It isn't a simple case of "boy we sure had it good", that does a huge disservice to the diverse and complicated opinions of the Union.

☂️-

you guys are the ones coming up with chinese propaganda allegations then immediately deflecting when we point out you think like that because you are immersed in anticommunist propaganda yourselves.

i'm not gonna play the game of exchanging insults with you as i have nothing against you personally, i'm just hoping you free yourself from it eventually.

Cowbee [he/they]

Gorbachev had also implemented Perestroika, and his policy of Glasnost had weakened the soviet system. The seeds for radical change for the worse and instability were already there. My point isn't that there was 0 discontent and it flipped to 100% discontent, but that people, despite the various nationalist movements in some of the member-states, overall did support the socialist project up to the end. After the vote, there was the hardliner coup, dramatic sharpening of contradictions, and the internal, anti-democratic dissolution by Yeltsin claiming legitimacy from the rising nationalist movements.

You have no evidence supporting your claims other than the idea that there was some discontent, which I never denied, and that people ultimately lost faith in the stabilty of the soviet union right at the end itself. Further, support for returning to socialism doesn't simply "evaporate," and again, it depends highly on the political fuckery in the region, the purging of communists by westerners, and the sheer devastation these countries went through. Trying to chalk it all up to simple pride in a stronger nation instead of the actual material benefits is an extraordinary claim.

Russia and Belarus, for example, are seeing rising waves of socialist sympathy among the populace. The CPRF is rising rapidly, and people fundamentally feel that capitalism should not last any longer. This represents the large majority of the post-soviet population.

artyom

You didn't "point out" anything, you deflected to another country while ignoring the discussion at hand (AKA whataboutism) which is what tankies do every single time. It's almost like you have nothing else...

davel@lemmy.ml

Diva (she/her)

accusing people on .ml of brigading a .ml comm

you clearly didn't want to be there and were making it everyone else's problem so I don't see what's wrong with banning you

video link

I can't confirm, but the message makes me think it's because the community doesn't allow video links as posts

Elon Musk is a nazi, I don't think anyone disagrees, but it was because the post directly linked to a video rather than an article that it was likely removed.

My concern is about today’s political and security situation, not that of 200+ years ago

You were minimizing past genocides of indigenous people simply because those have already been completed. You deserved the ban, and it was temporary.

☂️-

we have all been pointing this out in this entire thread.

if you want to know what more we have, you can ask any of the many communists in the fediverse about it instead of referring to them with an anticommunist pejorative.

𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

CPRF support rising rapidly? You must live in a fantasy world. Their electoral results have rarely been worse, their 2024 presidential election candidate receiving a mere 4% of the vote (a record low for the party).

Cowbee [he/they]

And much more. At the end of the day, the Russian Federation is a bourgeois dictstorship, so it isn't going to just accept rising communist sympathies at a state level. The nationalists have a balancing act to play, trying to take advantage of rising soviet smpathies without legitimizing socialism.

goat@sh.itjust.works

in what way?

because by lemmy definitions thinking that israel can still exist as a sovereign state makes you a nazi lol

lofuw@sh.itjust.works

Really? I thought it was just the opposite.

Kind of weird how you're posting this from .ml, though; one of the most propagandized instances in existence.

𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Party membership is a bad indicator for national popularity, as evidenced by the historically bad election result that followed the first article you linked.

The second article does not have anything to do with the popularity of the party.

The third article contradicts the sentiment you express in your own paragraph; you suggest the Russian government is taking advantage of rising Soviet sympathies, as if it's "just happening". But as your article explains, those Soviet sympathies are being expressly fuelled and created by the Russian government, as part of their propaganda efforts to promote the great patriotic war (which Putin now claims they're in another one of course, fighting the west). It's artificial, not natural.

Cowbee [he/they]

A rise in party membership in the CPRF does indeed suggest that they are growing, and further establishing legitimacy. National election results in war-time aren't a major indicator of popularity of the CPRF. Further, no, the nationalists are not creating soviet sympathies, but trying to take advantage of them. Capitalism has been devestating for Russia, and people yearn for the old days when their needs were better taken care of. The nationalists are appealing to that and trying to turn it into Russian pride.

The idea that the nationalists are just beaming sympathies to the heads of the citizenry, rather than the citizenry longing for a working system after the devastation of cspitalism and the nationalists are trying to take advantage of that, is absurd. That's not how propaganda works, you have to identify actually felt beliefs and leverage them.

The Fedi Forum

Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse