text
Removed Comment “Do you know why Holocaust denialism is considered so bad? It’s not because it’s inherently wrong to question any claim anyone makes that a genocide is happening. It’s because the Holocaust is extremely well documented with an overwhelming amount of evidence. To place it on the same level of extremely dubious claims that primarily rely on one single person, who is a religious nut with ties to the CIA, is bordering on actual Holocaust denialism. Claims of genocide do not get some special status where they get to circumvent the normal process of skepticism and critical examination. It’s the opposite, since it is such a major claim, they should be subject to even more skepticism. The Holocaust has very clearly passed the most skeptical evaluations, to the point that we can safely say that anyone denying it is acting in bad faith. But other claims of genocide that lack that kind of evidence, such as the “Uyghur genocide” or the “White genocide” or whatever else do not get the same treatment. You don’t get to exploit the Holocaust to bypass evidence for other claims.” by OBJECTION!
reason: Genocide denialism
Banned OBJECTION! from the community World News@lemmy.world
reason: Genocide denialism
Idk how they got it into their heads that claims of genocide get to bypass any and all scrutiny but the US sure knows how to exploit that idea.
They don’t ban anyone denying Palestinian genocide despite it having literally infinitely more evidence than Xinjiang where not even one single death is confirmable in a far larger land mass where nearly 100% of the population have smartphones.
The only thing you can take from that is that genocide denial is not the real reason this person was banned, but instead holding a position that is contrary to the lemmyworld worldnews modteam. They hold the position that Xinjiang’s ““genocide”” is real and you’re not allowed to deny it. They do not hold the position that Palestinian genocide is real, therefore denying it is 100% ok.
It’s a US supremacist way of moderating. Denying the genocides that the US has labelled as genocides (even though it’s officially backtracked on that) is not allowed. Denying the genocides that the US denies however is completely allowed. They probably aren’t even self-aware that this is the way they’re moderating, they just think it’s normal, it’s background american supremacism baked into their behaviour and normalised in their lifestyles. They probably haven’t even ever thought about the contradiction.
Ive tried asking the lib I know if he thinks it’s a bizarre coincidence his views correlate highly with the state department he claims he hates; he does actually think it’s a coincidence
taglineIn some case you can get called a tankie for having the exact same official positions the US State Department has.
Nationalism remains the #1 thing that must be fought against in the west. Unaddressed unconscious nationalism is at the root of all support for imperialism. The moment that people sweep away their nationalist brainworms and become an internationalist is the exact moment that they fully become one of us. Even when they are uneducated. Even when they know no Marx at all. Internationalism aligns anyone with us with no other feature necessary, absolutely every single thing we believe sprouts from the seed of internationalism.
The cognitive dissonance in these people must be intense, which genocide did that comment deny?
I mean, the gap between “Claims of genocide should be subject to the same scrutiny as other claims” and “The Uighur genocide isn’t real” is like 10 minutes of actual fact-checking.
Also worth noting that I didn’t even bring it up in that thread. It was about some completely different topic, I was playing nice, and then somebody recognized me and accused me of “supporting the Uighur genocide” and I got banned for defending myself, like I didn’t even say “it’s not happening,” I said, “I’ve yet to see evidence for it and I don’t believe claims without evidence.”
Then a mod did what libs do which is type it in google and copy-paste links they haven’t read, and I said, “before I examine those in detail, can you tell me how many times your sources cite Adrian Zenz and whether you think he should be considered a reliable source?” That’s when he banned me. I went through the sources afterward (more than he had done) and counted his name mentioned 18 times over 4 sources.
Like, you gotta know what you’re doing at that point. That one redsails article about how “brainwashing” is really just willfully accepting propaganda feels relevant.
The 10 minutes of research part is true; before I got radicalised I wanted to prove someone else that the genocide was “real” and couldn’t find a fucking source that didn’t cite zenz, zenz this, zenz that, fuck, how would a so called genocide have a single fucking journalist?
It was a radicalizing moment for me realizing that a lot of people WANT to be ignorant to preserve their shaky worldviews. Like they’re scared of changing their minds from the safe liberal concensus and somehow this us just how most burger bros operate.
The lib I know, and perhaps this info may be of some use, was willing to reconsider his views only after speaking with another lib he trusts intimately; the crazy thing is that apparently he knew what I was saying made sense but didn’t want to budge on his position until basically other libs he did trust were willing to confirm it
Basically he’s treating it like a team sport
The white genocide as @groKKK@hexbear.net can attest
Yes, that is absolutely true. Not only does the original post refer to white genocide in quotation marks, which often is used in a satirical way in internet comments, but this sentiment is confirmed by the fact that white genocide is defined as “Other claims of genocide which lack that kind of evidence.” This is despite the fact that there is considerable evidence behind claims of white genocide in South Africa, from mass graves to stories from victims… The original poster is deeply misguided by their unwillingness to recognise that the evidence of the holocaust does not always translate to other genocides.
Whenever I dare look at the .world (and co) modlog, I know there’s a decent chance I’ll see one of your removed comments there. But every time that’s the case, it’s always an excellent, sensible comment, the deletion of which always a testament to the vacuous dipshittery and hypocrisy of the liberal lemmy instances. It’s like always so clearly just that they can’t argue against it without blatantly abandoning the pretense that they’re any different than the maga conservatives or outright fascists they love to claim they oppose.
So anyway, your name and pfp are very appropriate. Thank you for your service of frequently wading through those brainworm-infested waters and spraying some dewormer around. It may seem like a drop in the bucket but I’m sure some of it gets through here and there.
Something that keeps showing that Marxist analysis is actually the proper understanding of the world, at least to me, is the fact that people can’t argue against it, all they can do is attack the position by censoring them and claiming they believe things they clearly don’t.
claiming they believe things they clearly don’t.
This drives me up the wall more than it should. I know libs are acting in bad faith, so I shouldn’t be surprised when they do things like this.
“Commies will say ‘not real communism’ every time!”
“Actually, the USSR was real communism and it was based. It was in the process of transitioning to a classless, stateless, moneyless society but for a variety of reasons, ultimately failed and collapsed.”
“SEE! HE SAID ‘NOT REAL COMMUNISM!’”
“No, I didn’t. I said the opposite, while acknowledging the reality the Soviet experiment failed.”
“Wow authoritarian 1984 Voldemort!”
“Kind of a meaningless term, since all governments are authoritarian. No government in history has ever allowed ideological enemies to organize a seperate government within the same state. Except when the US does it, it gets labeled “freedom and liberty,” but when China does it, it gets the ‘authoritarian’ label.”
“WHATABOUTISM!”
…is usually how those conversations go. Often, you can type out the lib response before them. Outright reactionaries are even easier to predict.
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
I appreciate it! I chose the name and avatar, at first because I wanted to do a bit and be in character, but the bit got old fast. I still pull it out every once in a while when people are being super unreasonable and disregarding actual facts and evidence. I really wish it was possible to have a higher level of discussion but nobody wants to actually think or read, they just parrot memes. I mean it’s possible on Hexbear but then we don’t have a lot to argue about.
but then we don’t have a lot to argue about
5e DnD sucks
The first mover advantage in TTRPGs going to Gygax and WotC have been a disaster for the space.
I’ve been saying it for years, it’s a terrible system
It would be worth mentioning in this argument that Holocaust denialism reflects having an agenda of rehabilitating the image of the Nazis, just like frivolously asserting the presence of a genocide (which white supremacists frequently do, as you allude to with the South Africa example) serves its own agenda, frequently an exterminationist one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror
I don’t think the Xinjiang genocide myth is being used for such a plainly exterminationist purpose like, for example, Israeli or Afrikaner claims about genocide are, but it still serves as an inflammatory causus belli against an other.
communists: right “too early”
libs: wrong for too longDuring the Second Red Scare which occurred in the United States in the years that immediately followed the end of World War II, the term “premature anti-fascist” came into currency and it was used to describe Americans who had strongly agitated or worked against fascism, such as Americans who had fought for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, before fascism was seen as a proximate and existential threat to the United States (which only occurred generally after the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and only occurred universally after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The implication was that such persons were either Communists or Communist sympathizers whose loyalty to the United States was suspect.
And in 1938, they sold down the river for a ludicrous illusion of Peace in Our Time the only strong, democratic state in Eastern Europe that might have been a deterrent to Hitler’s plans for expansion, the Czecho-Slovak Republic.
if in 50 years
What a fuckin loser
They could find out TODAY, there are tons of reports, videos, they could contact people who live there RIGHT NOW
But nah, Imma wait 50 years instead so that I can be wrong about this ‘critical issue for me’ for longer
Being right doesnt make you right
Sometimes that’s right when you come to the right answer through the wrong conclusion, such as Candace Owen’s and MTG opposing Israel based mostly in antisemitism and nationalism, but that generally doesn’t describe communists.
math teacher-ass take
Math teachers want you to show your work. These guys are the opposite, the more work you show to prove your position the more wrong your being right actually is.
“Even if your skepticism was warranted the fact you didn’t have blind faith is heresy! Kill the apostate! Slay the infidel! Purge the non-believer!”
This was more or less how people framed the discussion of weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Yep. Libs never learn.
“In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests propagated anti communism amping the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War the anti communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If 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 guard. By opposing arms limitations they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armaments 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 ment 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 it was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated failure of the economic system; and improvement in consumer goods only meant that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communist in the US played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African Americans, women, and others this was only a their guileful way of gathering support among disenfranchised groups and aging power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is an unfalsefiable orthodoxy so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the political spectrum.”
Stays evergreen
Seeing Vaush by their username is all I need to know that this person is a dumbass
v*ush
Where there’s your problem
“it’s not true until the state officially declares it true”
“And even then, it could hypothetically, maybe, possibly have potentially have happened, so we should hate the evil enemy with all our hearts anyway.”
The fact that I believed it says a lot about society
“To the believer, no proof is necessary” and so on and so on
Heads, I’m right, tails, you’re wrong
bruh
I’m curious how it changes their analysis that the liberal consensus as of like a year or two ago became that the “genocide” accusation was always bullshit.
It doesn’t. Much like “Everyone was against the invasion of Iraq”.
I would say it’s specifically like the “Ok, Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but he was still a bad guy and the US needed to take him out anyway.” viewpoint on the Iraq war.
Found it cited on reddit. Apparently it’s from at least 4 years ago. Wonder how that person is feeling now
