Students can be as violent as anyone else, given the opportunity.
Once you start flinging molotovs, you’re in the fight. I get liberals cheering at Their Team when a radical kills a squad of police officers from The Evil County.
I find it curious that they can’t see the connection between Chinese counter-revolutionaries (yay!) and the Vietcong resisting US/French occupation (boo!) with the same tactics.
But the idea that holding a student ID card automatically makes you a pacifist? Come on.
Hundreds of them die, and of course they have to shoot some of the students, but they always come out the worst of it.
Lightly armed amateur rioters engaging a bunch of blooded veteran soldiers are going to have a bad time.
But this myth of Tianamen as a peaceful protest that Deng flattened with tanks is as ahistorical as it is choked with Bircher propaganda.
the people you’re talking to here supported the US in the Vietnam War.
Show me a liberal who is actually pro-Vietcong. Find me one Democrat who praised them.
Half the rational for the Vietnam War was as a proxy crusade against the Evil Russians. Liberals loved Vietnam when LBJ was fighting it. They only fell out of love after the '68 convention and Humphrey’s dismal defeat.
Show me a liberal who is actually pro-Vietcong. Find me one Democrat who praised them.
You didn’t accuse “Democrats” of supporting the US forces in Vietnam. You accused me of supporting them.
This is a super nifty example of the type of no-true-Scotsman stuff that the right type of propaganda framing can enable, though. By shifting the conversation to “liberals” and “pro-Vietcong”, you can shift the conversation away from the totally bonkers-pants things you actually said (how can you support BOTH the pro-democracy demonstrations in China but NOT the Vietnamese right to self determination which I OBVIOUSLY know you do not, because I have a totally insane caricature of you which also includes supporting anything at all about the US’s invasion of Vietnam or any opposition whatsoever to the Vietnamese fucking defending themselves!) and into an argument which by the definitions involved, literally cannot be disproven in any way.
“Liberals” have all these characteristics you say, according to you. Particular people can be painted as “liberals,” and someone who has a sensible opinion about Vietnam (which includes about 60-70% of the people in the US, at this point, and pretty much 100% of the people you will talk with on Lemmy) simply don’t count. You already know they’re “liberals,” so you know what they think, and what they actually think is totally irrelevant from a standpoint of doing the argumentation.
Students can be as violent as anyone else, given the opportunity.
Once you start flinging molotovs, you’re in the fight. I get liberals cheering at Their Team when a radical kills a squad of police officers from The Evil County.
I find it curious that they can’t see the connection between Chinese counter-revolutionaries (yay!) and the Vietcong resisting US/French occupation (boo!) with the same tactics.
But the idea that holding a student ID card automatically makes you a pacifist? Come on.
Lightly armed amateur rioters engaging a bunch of blooded veteran soldiers are going to have a bad time.
But this myth of Tianamen as a peaceful protest that Deng flattened with tanks is as ahistorical as it is choked with Bircher propaganda.
It’s fucking wild to me that you think the people you’re talking to here supported the US in the Vietnam War. Absolutely fucking wild.
Show me a liberal who is actually pro-Vietcong. Find me one Democrat who praised them.
Half the rational for the Vietnam War was as a proxy crusade against the Evil Russians. Liberals loved Vietnam when LBJ was fighting it. They only fell out of love after the '68 convention and Humphrey’s dismal defeat.
You didn’t accuse “Democrats” of supporting the US forces in Vietnam. You accused me of supporting them.
This is a super nifty example of the type of no-true-Scotsman stuff that the right type of propaganda framing can enable, though. By shifting the conversation to “liberals” and “pro-Vietcong”, you can shift the conversation away from the totally bonkers-pants things you actually said (how can you support BOTH the pro-democracy demonstrations in China but NOT the Vietnamese right to self determination which I OBVIOUSLY know you do not, because I have a totally insane caricature of you which also includes supporting anything at all about the US’s invasion of Vietnam or any opposition whatsoever to the Vietnamese fucking defending themselves!) and into an argument which by the definitions involved, literally cannot be disproven in any way.
“Liberals” have all these characteristics you say, according to you. Particular people can be painted as “liberals,” and someone who has a sensible opinion about Vietnam (which includes about 60-70% of the people in the US, at this point, and pretty much 100% of the people you will talk with on Lemmy) simply don’t count. You already know they’re “liberals,” so you know what they think, and what they actually think is totally irrelevant from a standpoint of doing the argumentation.
I asked you to name a liberal who supported the Vietcong and you are angry that the question hurts your feelings