MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]

Just bog standard racism/yellow peril

This thread is fucking littered with comrades begging you to read, but you just sit there and say “doesn’t look like anything to me” like it’s Westworld or some shit and then keep on bashing us. It’s amazing, truly.

We don’t outright dismiss them you dip. We engage with your sources and show why they’re unreliable or non-factual. You’re the one handwaving sources away and refusing to engage any further. Talk about a bubble around you.

My guy read your own fucking source. Your UN paper doesn’t even conclude that China is engaging in Genocide.

I’ll add to this - the Holocaust museum features prominently the testimony and picture of Rushan Abbas. She has a long history of activism in China (the details of which are important but we have more immediate concerns), and that lead to a career with… Radio Free Asia… Oh look, there we have another CIA/State Department mouthpiece.

I will further critique the source and echo another commenter saying that they don’t have a single link. That page tells a story, but it does not provide any direct sources other than testimony from activists with demonstrable links to RFA.

Chad

Quick question: did you know about any of this before today? Did you know about the Maidan Coup? Did you know about the nearly 15,000 casualties, including over 3000 civilian casualties, in Luhansk/Donbas between 2014 and 2022? Were you aware of the extensive reporting by western sources on far right elements in Ukraine committing crimes against humanity?

If any of that was news to you, do you think it’s ever appropriate to pause and reassess your position? Or are you just going to double, triple, and quadruple down on your fairy-tale understanding of the world with smug quips that don’t address anything of substance?

Lmao imagining this nerd immediately being ventilated because “the soldiers feared for their life.”

Okay, then vet the sources big guy.

Great, so you admit that all you have are the sources previously provided and the inherent flaws they contain We’re operating from a point of agreement, then! We do not have strong evidence for the claims being made.

Dunking is pointing out the stupidity and hollowness of liberal rhetoric with flare. It’s cathartic to call the smug morons who think they’re the good guys idiots with easily demonstrated facts. For example, all the self-respecting morons who have swallowed historic revisionism regarding the use of atomic weapons vaporizing 200,000+ civilians, one of the greatest war crimes of the 20th century, and still somehow think America are the good guys when it comes to foreign policy.

Your wild inferences about fear and ganging up are pretty weak logic in action lmao. You don’t know what a word means so you just guess wildly and immediately start drawing inferences from your (incorrect) guess work? You must be real cool at parties. So sorry that there’s more communists than you thought and we’re an active instance

Hey man, we’re all on this thread doing our best, but you are exhibit A for whom pig poop balls is intended for: aggressively uninquisitive, proud of it, and deserving of less than half the grace you’ll ever receive.

Do me a solid and imagine a hog with it’s own shit on its testicle, resting there like there’s no where else in universe it belongs more.

Then read theory and grow the fuck up, Jesus christ. Insufferable.

Well good news for you and your infinitely inquisitive mind, it’s less obtuse than “read the Bible.” Parenti is a scholar with a specific specialty and body of work much more relevant to your directly quoted word choice. If you had said some other kind of drivel he might have recommended Antonio Gramsci or Michael Hudson or Naomi Klein or Jason Hickel or so on and so forth. Michael Parenti’s work and specialty area just so happen to debunk your moronic claim of “redfash.” I specifically recommend the book “black shirts and reds,” If you need to be walked right up to it.

Also, LOL. LMAO even. Over here complaining about thought terminating cliches while uttering that fucking nonsense.

I don’t know, I tried to get blocked and all I got was a pathetic comment. I’ll let you know if the service around here improves.

We support dunking. We thrive on it. We’re used to libs saying the dumbest shit we’ve ever heard, but at least put a modicum of effort into your blatant lies please. Raise the hoop above our ankles, we yearn for a challenge.

If you’d actually like an in depth and informed history on the use of nuclear weapons in Japan and soviet intervention in the pacific theater of WWII, this video is an unparalleled resource in its thoroughness and conciseness.

https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

I know there’s irony in calling a 2hour video concise, but hey, history unfolds over months and years, so cutting it down to 2 hours is in fact relatively concise.

No, you’re talking about blocking my entire comm or all it’s users one by one. That’s why I called you an insufferable lib. You are indeed quacking like a duck over here. I’m not going trip over my dick trying to get your approval when you’ve already come to such a carefully informed opinion.

Ooooohhhh do me first. I won’t even hit you with the hog, I just want one less insufferable lib to stumble upon down the road.

Non-aggression pact =/= alliance. It was signed after 7 years of hostilities along the border and in the context of existential threats to both powers being prioritized.

This is literally just shit you can read on Wikipedia, a notoriously anti-communist source. Libs do be wildin’ out here with easily dunked claims.

Which, to the outside and reasonable observer reading this thread, is why we post ppb. Just look at the word counts - how much more effort does it take for us to bend over backwards and try to coddle someone obstinate and obviously wrong? If they’re at least trying and in good faith we can put up with bad ideas, but if they’re going to be petulant from the get go, we treat them with equal respect. You mess with the bear, you get the hog.

Commanding me to read something is just a classic thought-terminating cliche.

It’s exactly the opposite actually. It’s suggesting a scholar who’s body of work directly engages with what you’re saying. It’s indicating where one might indeed do some thinking and learn more about the matter, instead of terminating all thinking with a pithy sounding nonsense statement. “It is what it is,” or, “That’s just human nature,” are thought terminating cliches. They sound informative or even profound, but if you think about them for more than 10 seconds they’re literally meaningless in contexts where they’re uttered or begging the question and terminating discussion.

I’m not trying to just do an “aha gotcha, you used a phrase wrong here!”, but thought terminating cliches are legitimately rampant in hegemonic media and liberal thought. It’s important to know what they are, and it’s more than a little painful to watch what should be a useful concept so thoroughly abused.

I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I’m learning, and I’m content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.

Thanks for your contributions.