Date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, with government using increasingly sophisticated tools to censor its discussion

There is no official death toll but activists believe hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed by China’s People’s Liberation Army in the streets around Tiananmen Square, Beijing’s central plaza, on 4 June 1989.

The date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, and the Chinese government employs extensive and increasingly sophisticated resources to censor any discussion or acknowledgment of it inside China. Internet censors scrub even the most obscure references to the date from online spaces, and activists in China are often put under increased surveillance or sent on enforced “holidays” away from Beijing.

New research from human rights workers has found that the sensitive date also sees heightened transnational repression of Chinese government critics overseas by the government and its proxies.

  • chloroken@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    69
    ·
    2 days ago

    My favorite thing to do is to watch liberals read the (very western biased) Wikipedia article on this event. The moment when they realize how many soldiers were killed before the crackdown is always radicalizing for those with even a modicum of intellectual curiosity.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      This sounds like how conservatives rationalize the Kent State massacre by claiming that the protesters were throwing feces.

      You’re not radicalized. You just switched which authoritarian you swear fealty to.

      • Corn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        It would be different if the protesters had lynched a dozen soldiers before they responded.

        Of course given the context of the Vietnam war, the soldiers wouldn’t have been justified even if the protesters killed some of them first; you don’t get to claim self-defense when you yourself are only there to put down a protest against imperialism.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I guess the Chinese soldiers were minding their own business at home with their families, and not there to just put down protests against authoritarianism.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Wasn’t the problem that their families were part of the protesters? That’s why reinforcements from outside the city (without family ties) were called in.

          • Corn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            See the big difference is the US was murdering countless Vietnamese to keep them under the boot of capitalism. The protesters in Tienanmen aren’t as black and white. If the protesters were protesting China poisoning the food supply and massacring countless villages of country on the other side of the planet to keep a country’s resources easy to exploit and their people’s blood ready to be spent keeping other countries under the boot of capitalism, it would be that simple, but they weren’t.

            Also “against authoritarianism” lmao you are a literal child.

              • Corn@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                2 days ago

                Here, it’ll take two minutes to read this. I’m not even going to get into the contexts “authoritarianism” is and isn’t used today (hint: liberals use it and see no hypocrisy).

                • livingheart@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  do you think this is convincing, compelling? it is not.

                  it totally equates the democratic delegation of agency to elected delegates for a specific term and purpose with permanent subservience.

                  it’s an attack on strawmen, and you’re a born bootlicker if you’re this easily swayed into cheerleading for authoritarians.

                  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    do you think this is convincing, compelling? it is not.

                    Always funny to hear people call folks in China brainwashed and then have this “I’ll never deviate from the American Party line” when it comes to foreign affairs.

                    Brains like a steel trap. Nothing gets in.

                • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Yeah Engels take on authoritarianism is dated and not really valid given that his ideologies do not result in anything other than authoritarian states IRL.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I’m always curious to compare how Americans view the Tianemen Square incident with Waco.

              Like, if you ask an American to explain what happened at Waco, you’ll get a bunch of blank stares. A few people with anti-government views will explain how a religious community was ruthlessly butchered by the Gestapo-like FBI. A few people with anti-religious views will insist this was a child sex cult that committed suicide while the FBI tried to help.

              But for the most part, those Americans who remember it just see it as another normal police action against people who were probably committing all sorts of crimes.

              You could also talk about the BLM protests from '14 to '18, and how the broad American view was that this was police acting to protect private property. And maybe some of the protesters didn’t deserve such rough treatment, but hey they knew what they signed up for when they blocked traffic.

              But the views on Tianemen are uniform. Chinese killed that nice man with their tank and then killed everyone else in the city and then covered it up in a way only people in China are unaware it happened.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              “Chinese government killed their own people, it’s fine! They are basically property”

    • NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I only see wiki reference 10 soldiers having died - is this the number you’re referring to?

      Do you think that’s alot? In my head that’s disproportionately few compared to the [disputed] 100s of civilians that the Chinese government declared dead

      • arcterus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        According to the linked page with PLA/PAP casualties, there were 15 verifiable deaths (PRC official number is 23). Half of them weren’t directly caused by the protesters, and the other half occurred after troops first opened fire. Truly, I feel quite radicalized.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Killing the villainous authoritarian ork creature CCP is always virtuous and good and needs to be celebrated.

      Stopping a tank in front of an unarmed bicyclist until police pull him out of the way is unforgivable genocide.

      • chloroken@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I had to do it, these people don’t even read their own fake sources.