No kidding
BrainInABox
joined 1 year ago
Lol, or I just saw what they posted.
When they say "unhinged", they just mean that they didn't respond well to messages like this.
You are rather quick to assume I am one of the “pro-genocide people”.
Oh, I'm not assuming.
I try not to “both-sides”
"I try to not both-sides this, please ignore that I just did and am about to do so again.
I was trying (poorly) to show that the same standard was not being applied equally.
"Don't you mean all lives matter?"
pretty emotional topic.
It be an emotional topic usually makes people more sympathetic towards the victims of genocide, not more inclined to start going "but what about both sides!"
Anyway, good luck fighting against everyone until they agree with you.
Go back to reddit, you insufferable loser.
I'd prefer you remember that your double doesn't define objective "normal"
Unfortunately, they are.
How self absorbed do you have to be to announce that?
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
-Michael Parenti
"In people's minds" being the main place that plight exists
That's the reddit mindset: being as rude, condescending, and smug as humanly possible is fine, but a naughty word is just uncivil.
It’s OK to distrust more than one Government
Then you should try it, you hypocritical dipshit. You believe everything that comes out of the western propaganda machine without question, and then assume anyone who doesn't believe them are "believing the Chinese government"
If it were 2002 you would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq of having WMDs of "believing Saddam!"
Do you not remember Tianamen Square
So do you do this in the opposite direction? When people doubt a claim made by China, do you start randomly bringing up unrelated events from forty years ago. What exactly was the chain of reasoning that made you thought this was relevant? Oh right, there wasn't one: you've just been trained like a literal dog to compulsively blurt out "Tinyman Square!" every time you hear the word "China".
"I guess I'll block it now"
Proceeds to not block it