you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -20 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

I would respond here, but anything meaningful would be removed.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    My argument would totally destroy yours but you'd just refuse to engage so I won't bother

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    It's not your average user's fault for not knowing, but some moderators definitely over-reach with removing and banning.

    Last week I caught a ban for being a "troll" from the Memes community here for saying that liberals generally like Khrushchevkas (AKA Soviet Bloc apartments) and cite them as one of the things the USSR did right.

    You don't see the bans and removals because the people and their posts are gone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm willing to believe that there's a grain of truth in this at face value, but from what I've seen, most communities will ban people for inflammatory disagreement. A lot of people here approach such discussions from other instances in bad faith (even I did above), but those outside of the instance are generally the ones more likely to be banned for it. These discussions will start somewhat heated, eventually degrade when one or both parties get frustrated, bans are issued, and then people will recall this discussion later as being 'banned for having a different opinion'. I'm sure it happens but it's not as common as people claim imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I'm glad you've had a much more pleasant experience with this instance than I have, but even the mountain of downvotes and people shitting on me for speaking my truth should paint a pretty clear picture about how non-.ml people are treated on .ml.

    Feel free to thoroughly dig through my moderation history to see that I've never been anywhere near inflammatory in the incidents I'm talking about.

    Unless you're taking the stance of "I've seen otherwise in other instances, so I'm not going to believe you or check to see if you're telling the truth," of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 weeks ago* (9 children)

    Nothing you could be hinting at would actually be meaningful anyways or something not debunked a million times. Go ahead. holodomor, purges, North Korea, CCP / Uyghur / Social Credit / Tiananmen Square, Pol Pot, … Which is it? Cmon it’s okay!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    Pol Pot? the guy who was widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist and completely ruined his country? That's a new level for yall

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Nobody is supporting Pol Pot here, the point is that anti-communists love using him against communists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Always love knowing I can drop a comment with minimal context and I got shooters out here that will pick up on the context for others. I couldn’t have explained this better myself, though I didn’t expect the pol pot one to be the bait. I should have put Che / Cuba or Sankara / Burkina Faso but the intention of my comment remains the same. You are absolutely correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    Mentioning his name means we support him? Wtf? OK, everyone make sure we never mention Adolf Hitler.

    Wait, shit, I said his name right there! Fuck!

    I guess you support He-who-shall-not-be-named, since you said his name after all. What a goofy comment lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist

    I don't think China did that, the MFA usually has a strict "non-interference in internal affairs" as per the five principles of peaceful coexistence. Deng met with Pol Pot multiple times in the 80s. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in Dec 1978, China did a retaliatory 28 day invasion of Vietnam in Feb 1979. Kim Il Sung even had the Changsuwon palace ready for Prince Sihanouk to stay in during the coalition government insurgency against Vietnam.

    To my knowledge: China, Korea, and most of ASEAN at the time supported Pol Pot and the coalition government, while the the Warsaw pact countries (except Romania), Albania, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the current Hun Sen government condemed Pol Pot. Romania and Yugoslavia stayed neutral. It was a fairly even split on the issue for communist countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago

    do you understand what the word 'or' means? The commentor was clearly just listing common talking points anti-communists use. You are purposefully misconstruing their words because you can't engage in substantive conversation about an issue that your total amassed education on probably amounts to the literal meme above.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)