4 ms·

One was a traitor trying to keep his slaves, the other was fighting for Rights in China.

by jmclnx 5y ago

pphysch 5y ago
I wasn't aware Robert E Lee ever traveled to China.
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
While that is true that fails to mention IMO a key difference. The civil war is not censored in the US, Tienanmen square is. Removing a statue is very different than shutting down all discussion around an event and locking up those that want to talk about it.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Expressions of white supremacism (N word, etc) & separatism (Jan 6, etc) are heavily suppressed in USA.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Not the same kind of suppression, not by a long stretch. You're still legally entitled to stand on a street corner in the US and shout racial slurs, if that's your thing. You're also legally entitled to assemble and protest there. None of the undertakings that are equivalent to those actions are permitted in China, and will immediately subject you to violence.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Of course USA does not have hate speech laws. But there is considerable extralegal hate speech regulation. Your face will be plastered all over social media and you will get "cancelled" and lose your career, and no "free speech" laws will protect you from that.
      - giantrobot 5y ago
        > and no "free speech" laws will protect you from that You have a right to speak freely without the government stopping you. You have no right to have people listen to you. In fact the same guarantee that you have for speech also enshrines free assembly. So everyone who disagrees with your bullshit is free to ignore you and convince others to ignore you. They're also free to boot you off or out of their property.
        sneak 5y ago
        Important distinction: the government is allowed to do violence to people legally (during law enforcement). Private people generally are not. This means that if you have free speech, you can't immediately suffer legal violence for saying things. You may, of course, suffer other things, but it won't be legal violence.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > But there is considerable extralegal hate speech regulation. Your face will be plastered all over social media and you will get "cancelled" and lose your career That's a pretty convoluted way to say "people in the US don't tolerate assholes".
  - DixieDev 5y ago
    Yeah, I don't know how America can be considered a so-called "free country" when the people living there will get angry at me for using slurs and being generally discriminative. I'm sure it's just a matter of time until they create some kind of unethical legal punishment too, as they did with expressions of anger (assault, murder, etc.).
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      I hope you forgot the /s.
joshuaissac 5y ago
Tiananmen Square protests were not separatist, either.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Foreign-backed regime change operations are rather separatist in my humble opinion
  - tg180 5y ago
    The growing unrest amongst students, people and the political elite was caused by divisions within the party. Deng Xiaoping believed in the need of absolute authority. The death of general secretary Hu Yaobang (a reformist) fueled anxieties about the future of the country. Foreign-backed regime change??
    - pphysch 5y ago
      There were many different facets to the political turmoil including those you mention, but the actual violence was encouraged by minority groups with suspicious ties to the US regime change apparatus. Student leader Chai Ling infamously quipped that "we are hoping for bloodshed" [1] yet abandoned the protests and was whisked out of China and landed in the USA with a full-ride to Princeton. She now runs what appears to be a business cult. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#Documentary_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#Documentary_controve...
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      Deng was actually in the middle between the hardliners and reformists, from accounts I've read. He wasn't officially head of the party anymore, and there was stalemate for a few days about how to handle the protests before Deng finally weighed in with 'enough is enough'.

One was a traitor trying to keep his slaves, the other was fighting for Rights in China.

by jmclnx 5y ago

One was a traitor trying to keep his slaves, the other was fighting for Rights in China.

pphysch 5y ago

I wasn't aware Robert E Lee ever traveled to China.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago

While that is true that fails to mention IMO a key difference. The civil war is not censored in the US, Tienanmen square is. Removing a statue is very different than shutting down all discussion around an event and locking up those that want to talk about it.

pphysch 5y ago
Expressions of white supremacism (N word, etc) & separatism (Jan 6, etc) are heavily suppressed in USA.
- sneak 5y ago
  Not the same kind of suppression, not by a long stretch. You're still legally entitled to stand on a street corner in the US and shout racial slurs, if that's your thing. You're also legally entitled to assemble and protest there. None of the undertakings that are equivalent to those actions are permitted in China, and will immediately subject you to violence.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    Of course USA does not have hate speech laws. But there is considerable extralegal hate speech regulation. Your face will be plastered all over social media and you will get "cancelled" and lose your career, and no "free speech" laws will protect you from that.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      > and no "free speech" laws will protect you from that You have a right to speak freely without the government stopping you. You have no right to have people listen to you. In fact the same guarantee that you have for speech also enshrines free assembly. So everyone who disagrees with your bullshit is free to ignore you and convince others to ignore you. They're also free to boot you off or out of their property.
      - sneak 5y ago
        Important distinction: the government is allowed to do violence to people legally (during law enforcement). Private people generally are not. This means that if you have free speech, you can't immediately suffer legal violence for saying things. You may, of course, suffer other things, but it won't be legal violence.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > But there is considerable extralegal hate speech regulation. Your face will be plastered all over social media and you will get "cancelled" and lose your career That's a pretty convoluted way to say "people in the US don't tolerate assholes".
- DixieDev 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't know how America can be considered a so-called "free country" when the people living there will get angry at me for using slurs and being generally discriminative. I'm sure it's just a matter of time until they create some kind of unethical legal punishment too, as they did with expressions of anger (assault, murder, etc.).
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    I hope you forgot the /s.

joshuaissac 5y ago

Tiananmen Square protests were not separatist, either.

pphysch 5y ago
Foreign-backed regime change operations are rather separatist in my humble opinion
- tg180 5y ago
  The growing unrest amongst students, people and the political elite was caused by divisions within the party. Deng Xiaoping believed in the need of absolute authority. The death of general secretary Hu Yaobang (a reformist) fueled anxieties about the future of the country. Foreign-backed regime change??
  - pphysch 5y ago
    There were many different facets to the political turmoil including those you mention, but the actual violence was encouraged by minority groups with suspicious ties to the US regime change apparatus. Student leader Chai Ling infamously quipped that "we are hoping for bloodshed" [1] yet abandoned the protests and was whisked out of China and landed in the USA with a full-ride to Princeton. She now runs what appears to be a business cult. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#Documentary_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#Documentary_controve...
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Deng was actually in the middle between the hardliners and reformists, from accounts I've read. He wasn't officially head of the party anymore, and there was stalemate for a few days about how to handle the protests before Deng finally weighed in with 'enough is enough'.