'Historical nihilism': China deletes two million online posts insulting communist heroes

[ideologyhunter]

Minutes, mere minutes prevented that mob from wringing Pelosi's neck, beating Pence to death, and going after more of their "Deep State" enemies. Criminals who were inspired by their criminal hero.
Does anyone who posts here really think Pelosi, Pence, and many others would have survived being taken by Trump's terrorists?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's what happened Metaphor. Read it and dispel your ignorance.

Inside the Capitol Riot

There is video of ALL of it. Trump incited, not only by his own words but also by the words of the others he recruited to help rile up the crowd. The rioters themselves proudly announced that Trump had "invited" them, and that it was their right to invade the Capitol to halt the proceedings that would finally unseat him.
No, this was not a friendly group of tourists and if it happened in China they would all be dead, along with anyone who mourned their loss.

Well, the very least that you can say about the protesters is that they went there to intimidate and stop the constitutionally mandated counting of the votes. They wanted to overturn the constitution. That's a fact. Hard to understand how any conservative could support this.

 

[Metaphor]

Here's what happened Metaphor. Read it and dispel your ignorance.

Inside the Capitol Riot

There is video of ALL of it. Trump incited, not only by his own words but also by the words of the others he recruited to help rile up the crowd. The rioters themselves proudly announced that Trump had "invited" them, and that it was their right to invade the Capitol to halt the proceedings that would finally unseat him.
No, this was not a friendly group of tourists and if it happened in China they would all be dead, along with anyone who mourned their loss.

Well, the very least that you can say about the protesters is that they went there to intimidate and stop the constitutionally mandated counting of the votes. They wanted to overturn the constitution. That's a fact. Hard to understand how any conservative could support this.

It's hard to believe (except it isn't) that someone would equate "I do not believe that Trump incited people" to "I approve of the attempted insurrection".

 

[laughing dog]

Getting back to the OP, it is not news that Communist China is trying to erase history. It has been doing so since the Communists took over.

 

[funinspace]

I'm glad China is learning some Western values, like the State censorship of harmful speech.

Maybe you are just trying for humor or sarcasm...if not, I'd say China is by far well ahead of the US, other than maybe in state security massive IT data centers. And even then, much of the US state security is still pointed more at the outside world.

It was indeed meant to be humour, but the impulse to censor speech and justify the censoring by calling the speech 'harmful' is something that is on the rise in the West.

So you aren't for the free choices of private companies, I am surprised...

 

[Metaphor]

It was indeed meant to be humour, but the impulse to censor speech and justify the censoring by calling the speech 'harmful' is something that is on the rise in the West.

So you aren't for the free choices of private companies, I am surprised...

How you go from "the impulse to censor speech called harmful is on the rise" to "companies should not have free choices" is, frankly speaking, quite baffling. Can you step me through your logic?

 

[Swammerdami]

The idea that Trump incited an insurrection is cloud cuckoo land crazy, and can only be entertained in the minds of people deranged and delirious on four years of unalloyed hysteria and hate.

How unsurprisingly sad, another person falls victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I'm very curious. How can Metaphor support such an opinion when he has obviously not reviewed the words and actions of DJT on the 6th of January?

 

[Patooka]

I'm very curious. How can Metaphor support such an opinion when he has obviously not reviewed the words and actions of DJT on the 6th of January?

You kinda answered your own question. I believe they call it McConnelling

 

[Metaphor]

The idea that Trump incited an insurrection is cloud cuckoo land crazy, and can only be entertained in the minds of people deranged and delirious on four years of unalloyed hysteria and hate.

How unsurprisingly sad, another person falls victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I'm very curious. How can Metaphor support such an opinion when he has obviously not reviewed the words and actions of DJT on the 6th of January?

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm very curious. How can Metaphor support such an opinion when he has obviously not reviewed the words and actions of DJT on the 6th of January?

You kinda answered your own question. I believe they call it McConnelling

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

 

[Patooka]

I'm very curious. How can Metaphor support such an opinion when he has obviously not reviewed the words and actions of DJT on the 6th of January?

You kinda answered your own question. I believe they call it McConnelling

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

That's a start. You might want to have a quick squiz at some of his speeches and tweets prior to Jan 6. Then there is his blatant refusal to release the National Guard, the phone call he and Kevin McCarthy aren't talking about, Christopher Miller's recollection of that days event and quite a few other things to take into consideration.

 

[Metaphor]

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

That's a start. You might want to have a quick squiz at some of his speeches and tweets prior to Jan 6. Then there is his blatant refusal to release the National Guard, the phone call he and Kevin McCarthy aren't talking about, Christopher Miller's recollection of that days event and quite a few other things to take into consideration.

There may be, but I'm still at square one. As in: Trump's speech. There is nothing--literally no thing--in it that incites violence. It is a speech he or any political candidate could have made on any day and nobody would bat an eyelid. You have to be reading against the text to get "violent insurrection" from it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So who did interpret Trump's speech as an incitement to walk down to the Capitol and disrupt the vote certification? The audience. The criminals. They said so. They told the Capitol police that Trump had sent them. They're saying it in their court pleadings. They were there at Trump's bidding. Trump didn't have to say "Go and riot." He's at least that cunning. The criminals read him loud and clear. He held forth for an hour, repeating his nasty lie that the election was stolen, and that you'll never have a country unless you fight for it, that too many Republican pols weren't doing their part to stop the steal, that Pence had switched sides (he mentioned Pence half a dozen times.) To get their blood boiling, he implied that he would walk down with them -- I think he actually said "I'll be there with you." The words had the effect he wanted -- he absolutely wanted a disruption of the certification, and he got it. Back at the WH, when all hell broke loose on Capitol Hill, he was said to be in a manic state, waiting to see how far things would go. There is no account of his behavior that states that he immediately and decisively called in sufficient backup to beat the rioters back. The exact opposite -- when he finally did go on the air to ask them to stop, hours had passed -- and he told them they were special and "we love you."
What do you think Trump wanted his people to do, when he sent them off on their mission to Congress? Light candles and chant?

 

[Elixir]

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

That's a start. You might want to have a quick squiz at some of his speeches and tweets prior to Jan 6. Then there is his blatant refusal to release the National Guard, the phone call he and Kevin McCarthy aren't talking about, Christopher Miller's recollection of that days event and quite a few other things to take into consideration.

There may be, but I'm still at square one. As in: Trump's speech. There is nothing--literally no thing--in it that incites violence.

Then you better stop right there at "square one" because by the time you actually learn what happens, there will be no denying that Trump deliberately incited a murderous insurrection in a desperate attempt to retain power after losing a free and fair election in a landslide. The Big Lie began months before the election, when he repeatedly drummed it into the heads of his following morons that if he lost it would be due to fraud. To this day, despite Republican, Trump-appointed judges dismissing hundreds of court cases with not one shred of evidence and not one single witness testifying to the existence of ANY fraud, despite Republican (and other) election officials unanimously declaring that it was the most secure election in history, despite the fact that the few cases of fraud that have since been discovered have ALL been Trump voters cheating to get Trump elected, the Orange Judas still insists that he "won".

Ideology hunter asks you "What do you think Trump wanted his people to do, when he sent them off on their mission to Congress? Light candles and chant?".
The answer to that question is right there in the transcript you say you read, Metaphor. He told them to "fight like hell, or you won't have a Country any more".

(That's from memory, but is either verbatim or very close to it)

I too, and wondering what you think Trump wanted his people to do to stop Mike Pence. Say "pretty please"?

 

[TomC]

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's speech, as I made clear in posts earlier.

That's a start. You might want to have a quick squiz at some of his speeches and tweets prior to Jan 6. Then there is his blatant refusal to release the National Guard, the phone call he and Kevin McCarthy aren't talking about, Christopher Miller's recollection of that days event and quite a few other things to take into consideration.

There may be, but I'm still at square one. As in: Trump's speech. There is nothing--literally no thing--in it that incites violence. It is a speech he or any political candidate could have made on any day and nobody would bat an eyelid. You have to be reading against the text to get "violent insurrection" from it.

I can sorta understand why someone who isn't particularly familiar with USA culture and current events wouldn't see the incitement.
But a great many Americans did, and headed off to the Capitol Building to stop the election and capture or kill whoever Trump told them to, like Pelosi and Vice-president Pence.
You don't understand the nuances of USA culture. I don't understand Australia all that well. The difference is that I don't opine about Australian affairs much. Because I don't claim to know.
Tom

 

[funinspace]

It was indeed meant to be humour, but the impulse to censor speech and justify the censoring by calling the speech 'harmful' is something that is on the rise in the West.

So you aren't for the free choices of private companies, I am surprised...

How you go from "the impulse to censor speech called harmful is on the rise" to "companies should not have free choices" is, frankly speaking, quite baffling. Can you step me through your logic?

So are ok with companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube legally choosing to censor certain types of speech?

 

[Metaphor]

So who did interpret Trump's speech as an incitement to walk down to the Capitol and disrupt the vote certification? The audience. The criminals. They said so. They told the Capitol police that Trump had sent them. They're saying it in their court pleadings. They were there at Trump's bidding. Trump didn't have to say "Go and riot." He's at least that cunning. The criminals read him loud and clear. He held forth for an hour, repeating his nasty lie that the election was stolen, and that you'll never have a country unless you fight for it, that too many Republican pols weren't doing their part to stop the steal, that Pence had switched sides (he mentioned Pence half a dozen times.) To get their blood boiling, he implied that he would walk down with them -- I think he actually said "I'll be there with you." The words had the effect he wanted -- he absolutely wanted a disruption of the certification, and he got it. Back at the WH, when all hell broke loose on Capitol Hill, he was said to be in a manic state, waiting to see how far things would go. There is no account of his behavior that states that he immediately and decisively called in sufficient backup to beat the rioters back. The exact opposite -- when he finally did go on the air to ask them to stop, hours had passed -- and he told them they were special and "we love you."
What do you think Trump wanted his people to do, when he sent them off on their mission to Congress? Light candles and chant?

I think the text of Trump's speech in no way supports the charge of incitement, and the people who think it does fall into two camps:
* The ones who were going to riot anyway,
* The people who were deranged by Trump hatred and can hear dog whistles that even dogs can't hear.

 

[Metaphor]

How you go from "the impulse to censor speech called harmful is on the rise" to "companies should not have free choices" is, frankly speaking, quite baffling. Can you step me through your logic?

So are ok with companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube legally choosing to censor certain types of speech?

When you say "okay with", what do you mean? I don't think the government should force them to allow things, but I also do not think their behaviour is somehow above criticism.

Twitter bans people for misgendering. YouTube puts a strike against creators but refuses to tell them how their video violated guidelines. Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, was awarded the ‘Free Expression Award’ in a ceremony sponsored by her own company . The hypocrisy and irony of these companies is astounding and deeply worthy of criticism.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm glad China is learning some Western values, like the State censorship of harmful speech.

 

[funinspace]

Getting back to the OP, it is not news that Communist China is trying to erase history. It has been doing so since the Communists took over.

Yep, though they are hardly what we used to call communists. And most authoritarian governments will act this way to a much larger degree than democracies.