this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
141 points (100.0% liked)

videos

2 readers
1 users here now

Breadtube if it didn't suck.

Post videos you genuinely enjoy and want to share, duh. Celebrate the diversity of interests shared by chapochatters by posting a deep dive into Venetian kelp farming, I dunno. Also media criticism, bite-sized versions of left-wing theory, all the stuff you expected. But I am curious about that kelp farming thing now that you mentioned it.

Low effort / spam videos might be removed, especially weeb content.

There is a cytube that you can paste videos into and watch with whoever happens to be around. It's open submission unless there's something important to commandeer it with at the time.

A weekly watch party happens every Saturday (Sunday down under), with video nominations Saturday-Monday, voting Monday-Thursday. See the pin for whatever stage it's currently in.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Additional reading:

The Myth of Tiananmen published by the Graduate School of Journalism at the Ivy League Columbia University

BBC Reporters, CBS News, and New York Times reporter who were actually in the city the day it happened who report mainstream news got it all wrong. BBC Source | CBS Source | NYTimes Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (29 children)

My view on this is evolving but it still doesn't sit right with me.

Let's say nobody died, it wasn't a massacre. Those are all flattened bicycles and scared people on the ground. This is still the state sending the military to put down a protest. Those are tanks from the national government designed for defense against state level enemies, directed at unarmed young adults from the same country right?

What would've happened had people not dispersed? Were the tanks and guns just to scare people? What would you think of Biden or Trump calling our military to put down protests like what happened in summer of 2020 in the U.S.?

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Of course the sending of tanks is a threat of violence, but the threat was enough that most walked away. There were discussions with protest leaders and necessary changes were all considered. The ones which the party determined to be valid were taken and others rejected. It was a largely liberal and student-oriented protest, though, with many feelings which were opposed to working class interests, and those were dismissed. Then, after weeks, one of the busiest areas in the world had to be cleared for the resuming of life there as it was for the people living there. This is already fine, to me, because the debates occurred and the interests/benefits were considered in a democratic way. Also, note, this ignores that many unarmed army were murdered and therefore the threat of force had to be much more direct (not just an soldier who will be defended by more/new ones with guns, but actually just sending the guns so those soldiers could defend against their own lynching)

load more comments (28 replies)