• Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t think that you understand what we are trying to say. This community is for current world news. As in, current articles. An old article being related to current events is not what belongs in worldnews.

      • deft@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Help I’m desperately clutching at straws!

        • you who routinely gets outted as a propaganda pusher who also can’t even talk about Tiananmen Square
          • deft@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            6 months ago

            This link he provided uses sources that completely contradict what he is saying check it out it is hilarious.

            It quotes these articles, this is also what you find throughout both links he provided.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057762.stm

            There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.

            The shorthand we often use of the “Tiananmen Square protests” of 1989 gives the impression that this was just a Beijing issue. It was not.

            Protests occurred in almost every city in China (even in a town on the edge of the Gobi desert).

            What happened in 1989 was by far the most widespread pro-democracy upheaval in communist China’s history. It was also by far the bloodiest suppression of peaceful dissent.

            James Miles is now the Beijing correspondent of The Economist, and author of The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray (University of Michigan Press, 1996).

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

            Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no “massacre in Tiananmen Square.”

            But there’s no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.

            This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Richard Roth, who was detained by Chinese authorities for 20 hours on June 4, 1989, while covering the Tiananmen Square “crackdown”.

            The entire argument is no media personnel saw the events in Tianamen Square, THE SPECIFIC SQUARE, so calling it the Tiananmen Square Massacre is a lie since nobody saw anyone be massacred in THE SPECIFIC SQUARE. But read the accounts yourself, they say absolutely there was a very violent crackdown and many people were killed.

            These are links YOU provided and this is all you find on these two links YOU provided. It is so weak flimsy and pathetic. Sure nobody saw a massacre in the square specifically but we know it was a bloody crackdown.

            Where are Fang Zheng’s legs bro?

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_Zheng

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Tiananmen Square only really comes up when propagandized lemmitors bring it up, because it’s been discussed to death already. But we have no problem talking about it any more than the Chinese people or Chinese state does, despite Western propaganda about it being censored in China.

      • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’re right, but let us use our heads for a moment:

        When someone hears worldnews, they think current articles, not potentially outdated articles.

        This article belonged on worldnews four months ago.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think old news can become news again when new developments occur.

          What I’ll give you is that OP should have included those new developments in the body of the link, so that this conversation wouldn’t have to happen down in the comment section. I don’t think they were wrong to post it without that context, but it would have avoided our bickering.