Kittenzrulz123 never “apologized” for genocide, as this implies accepting that the alleged genocide is even real to begin with, and then stating that it’s good. Kittenzrulz123 took the correct stance that there’s no actual evidence for genocide in Xinjiang.
kittenzrulz123 isn’t denying genocide, here. Claiming that Stalin wasn’t as bad as Hitler is mainstream liberal historian consensus, and most modern historiography shows he was better than Churchill. There’s no denial of genocide by Hitler, nor a defense of Pinochet. Instead, there’s support for Salvadore Allende, who unfortunately was coup’d precisely because his path to socialism was not revolutionary, and a denial that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, which is just historical fact.
I don’t see any apologies for any genocides in those screenshots. If you’re talking about Stalin/USSR specifically, there was no genocide, so there’s no apology for one.
The accusation of genocide denial had no specific context given so you just have to guess. These are lazy anticommunist liberals they gobble up invented genocides when it suits the narrative of their masters.
Unless you can specifically ground exactly what genocides were denied? Show the posts and comments.
Why are you following my inquiry with a nonsequitor whataboutism I have nothing to do with? I am unsure what davel’s citations have anything to do kittenzrulz123’s flagrant genocide apologia. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me how they relate?
It’s impossible to competently read those screenshots and come away with the idea that, say, kittenz is “denying genocide” re: Pinochet. The others are similarly ridiculous, they just don’t mean thst at all.
Instead of gesturing to a post with like 10 screenshots of text, why not quote kittenz and say what you think is genocide denial.
Sure, I can transcribe the exact excerpts I read above:
Apologia A:
For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.
Apologia B:
Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him
Apologia C:
[President Biden image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]
For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.
Literally nothing about genocide.
Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him
Literally nothing about genocide and you seem to completely misunderstand kittenz orientation to Allende.
[Captain AmericaCX image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]
Obviously a reply to someone telling them to stop talking.
So you have nothing. I think you should take some time to ask why you are so confident even though it really seems that you are having difficulty reading and understanding what’s in front of you. I don’t mean the latter as an insult, it is perfectly fine to not immediately understand something. The issue is that you act very certain about a topic where you are actually uncertain.
For example we objectively know that most of the claims against Stalin were falsified. Not to say he was perfect but even the CIA admits they falsefied it.
What supposed genocides are they being an apologist of here?
Apologia B: Salvador Allende was a great democratic socialist who supposedly did everything right and look what happened to him Apologia
What? Salvador Allende is not Pinochet, and Pinochet was opposed to him. You do know that Pinochet was the one to overthrow Allende, right?
How can this even be interpreted as support for Pinochet?
Apologia C: [President Biden image captioned with “No, I don’t think I will.”]
That’s not even Biden, nor is there any genocide apologia going on there.
You are genuinely confused about something. I’m not sure where the mismatch happened but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. They were defending Allende, the Chilean social democrat who was killed by Pinochet. And are you saying that by using a pretty common Captain America meme they’re doing genocide denial about the Native American genocide? Because that meme is common enough that I didn’t even know it was a Captain America screencap.
The people making these accusations simply believe, without investigation, that China is committing genocide against Uyghurs. Any pushback on this is labeled genocide denial, in bad faith, because none of them have done even a mildly critical review if what has happened in Xinjiang nor the truly absurd US state department/intelligence connections of the small and dishonest group of think tank grifters pushing that particular narrative.
There are no logs to post that would satisfy them. They seek to slander and avoid thought, not discuss the topic of genocide with any level of seriousness. This is about their egos, not any actual concern about Uyghurs. I’ve never even met one of these people who can name an element of Uyghur culture. They’re just a rhetorical weapon to these national chauvinists.
Well, right now PRC is still aggressively demanding shores and sea routes of other nations.
Your link seems to be to a wrong page, as it doesn’t lead to any sort of explanation on what shores and sea routes are supposedly being demanded. Are you talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access and formulating that as if the PRC is the aggressor in this case?
I have seen some documentaries on mistreatment of Uyghurs
Okay? You can see documentaries claiming whatever their makers want. They don’t have to satisfy any sort of proof standards.
As it stands, not even your empire’s leadership believes that, so, to assert this, you have to know more than the most expensive military and spy operation in the world.
but I am talking about kittenzrulz123’s own genocide apologetics
What genocides were they supposedly being an apologist for?
Well, right now PRC is still aggressively demanding shores and sea routes of other nations.
Your link is just to a Lemmy search but I’m guessing you’re referring the SCS? And China isn’t really demanding the SCS it just plain has it.
I have seen some documentaries on mistreatment of Uyghur
That is just another link to a search on YouTube, not a documentary. But there was a concerted effort to produce spurious reports and manipulative documentaries so this could mean almost anything in terms of the accuracy of what you watched.
but I am talking about kittenzrulz123’s own genocide apologetics which lead to their removal in 196 as moderators.
Are you? You haven’t listed them and the only implication so far is that it’s being minimally media critical regarding accusations against China’s treatment of Uyghurs. A position that is correct and that I already explained can be twisted in bad faith to be labeled genocide denial. Why are you just repeating things? I already responded to this!
Am I lead to believe kittenzrulz123 would dismiss others concerns of genocide?
Your link is just to a Lemmy search but I’m guessing you’re referring the SCS?
It’s also doing exercises in Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, etc., why it’s not just SCS.
Are you?
that is indeed my inquiry…
You haven’t listed them
Jorunn did, not I. I fail to read China or Uyghurs anywhere in the screenshots. Could you show me which one I am missing?
???
Did kittenzrulz123 lie to you or something?
Ah, so you did engage in trickery by claiming that the PRC is the aggressor in this case when you were, in fact, talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access.
… Malaysia, Philippines
Do you have sources with regards to the PRC “demanding” their shores and “sea routes”?
Jorunn did, not I
But you are the one making the assertion here as if you believe it. So, either you can list them, or you are just being obviously bad faith.
China has zero military exercises in Japan, Malaysia, or the Philippines.
that is indeed my inquiry…
You can’t name them you just demand evidence to the contrary vaguely.
Jorunn did
Except they didn’t. Those screenshots don’t show any genocide denial.
I fail to read China or Uyghurs anywhere in the screenshots. Could you show me which one I am missing?
I already did in another comment it’s just them saying they don’t think there’s scholarly consensus. Why does everyone else have to describe what kittenz actually said but you don’t? Produce actual quotes not screenshots that don’t deny genocide.
Referring to this thread as “typical pressure” is wild. I’ve seen a lot of anti-tankie bullshit but claiming the Allende perpetrated a genocide and is also the same person as Pinochet is a new one to me.
The only question I have is why hasn’t kittenzrulz123 posted counter logs proving that they were not a genocide apologist.
For the same reason you don’t have to show counter logs proving you’re not an “apologist” for white genocide in South Africa.
So, you would personally allow the screenshots set the narrative that kittenzrulz123 apologize to genocide, than set an anti genocide stance?
Kittenzrulz123 never “apologized” for genocide, as this implies accepting that the alleged genocide is even real to begin with, and then stating that it’s good. Kittenzrulz123 took the correct stance that there’s no actual evidence for genocide in Xinjiang.
Did we read the same screenshots? How does Stalin, Pinochet, and Biden have anything to do with 新疆?
I’m referring to this:
Which deals pretty explicitly with the allegations of genocide in Xinjiang. What genocide are you referring to?
That read to me like pugjesus trying to pull a whataboutism, which like kittenzrulez123 I would ignore. I meant the ones below:
These were the exact reasons they were demodded for.
kittenzrulz123 isn’t denying genocide, here. Claiming that Stalin wasn’t as bad as Hitler is mainstream liberal historian consensus, and most modern historiography shows he was better than Churchill. There’s no denial of genocide by Hitler, nor a defense of Pinochet. Instead, there’s support for Salvadore Allende, who unfortunately was coup’d precisely because his path to socialism was not revolutionary, and a denial that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, which is just historical fact.
But genocide apologetics nonetheless.
Kittenzrulz123 was asked to cease them, and with outright refusal, they were demoderated.
Seeing as Kittenzrulz123 has choson to excommunicate, I will read this as desiring to maintain genocide apologetics in the future.
I don’t see any apologies for any genocides in those screenshots. If you’re talking about Stalin/USSR specifically, there was no genocide, so there’s no apology for one.
You don’t see Salvador Allende’s genocide and Captain America’s being mentioned in these screenshots?
???
The accusation of genocide denial had no specific context given so you just have to guess. These are lazy anticommunist liberals they gobble up invented genocides when it suits the narrative of their masters.
Unless you can specifically ground exactly what genocides were denied? Show the posts and comments.
Sure:
None of that has kittenz denying a genocide.
Stalin’s, Pinochet’s, and Captain American’s.
What’s the issue in those screenshots? What genocides were they supposedly being an apologist/denialist for there?
Why haven’t you posted evidence you aren’t a child molester.
Why haven’t you proven that you don’t deny the genocide of white South Africans?
Is it because it didn’t actually happen? Well there’s your answer.
Previously.
Oh look, who could have guessed, https://quokk.au/post/1070450#comment_5416609
SCP-style collaborative anticommunist creepypasta
The level of pathetic most liberals and “anarchists” strive to be is quite impressive.
Why are you following my inquiry with a nonsequitor whataboutism I have nothing to do with? I am unsure what davel’s citations have anything to do kittenzrulz123’s flagrant genocide apologia. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me how they relate?
You see, genocide good when “socialist” states do it
What genocide are they allegedly excusing?
the ones Jorunn excerpted in spoiled screenshots: Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, and American ones.
What genocides do you think Stalin committed?
It’s impossible to competently read those screenshots and come away with the idea that, say, kittenz is “denying genocide” re: Pinochet. The others are similarly ridiculous, they just don’t mean thst at all.
Instead of gesturing to a post with like 10 screenshots of text, why not quote kittenz and say what you think is genocide denial.
Sure, I can transcribe the exact excerpts I read above: Apologia A:
Literally nothing about genocide.
Literally nothing about genocide and you seem to completely misunderstand kittenz orientation to Allende.
Obviously a reply to someone telling them to stop talking.
So you have nothing. I think you should take some time to ask why you are so confident even though it really seems that you are having difficulty reading and understanding what’s in front of you. I don’t mean the latter as an insult, it is perfectly fine to not immediately understand something. The issue is that you act very certain about a topic where you are actually uncertain.
What supposed genocides are they being an apologist of here?
What? Salvador Allende is not Pinochet, and Pinochet was opposed to him. You do know that Pinochet was the one to overthrow Allende, right?
How can this even be interpreted as support for Pinochet?
That’s not even Biden, nor is there any genocide apologia going on there.
That’s not biden. That’s captain america.
oh thanks!
That makes the denials worse.
The kulaks were not a people but an economic class, and a famine is not a genocide[1].
Where are they apologizing for Pinochet or the US? That doesn’t even make sense.
Both. Which is why I want kittenzrulez123 to counter log.
You are genuinely confused about something. I’m not sure where the mismatch happened but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. They were defending Allende, the Chilean social democrat who was killed by Pinochet. And are you saying that by using a pretty common Captain America meme they’re doing genocide denial about the Native American genocide? Because that meme is common enough that I didn’t even know it was a Captain America screencap.
The people making these accusations simply believe, without investigation, that China is committing genocide against Uyghurs. Any pushback on this is labeled genocide denial, in bad faith, because none of them have done even a mildly critical review if what has happened in Xinjiang nor the truly absurd US state department/intelligence connections of the small and dishonest group of think tank grifters pushing that particular narrative.
There are no logs to post that would satisfy them. They seek to slander and avoid thought, not discuss the topic of genocide with any level of seriousness. This is about their egos, not any actual concern about Uyghurs. I’ve never even met one of these people who can name an element of Uyghur culture. They’re just a rhetorical weapon to these national chauvinists.
Well, right now PRC is still aggressively demanding shores and sea routes of other nations. I have seen some documentaries on mistreatment of Uyghurs, but I am talking about kittenzrulz123’s own genocide apologetics which lead to their removal in 196 as moderators. Am I lead to believe kittenzrulz123 would dismiss others concerns of genocide?
Your link seems to be to a wrong page, as it doesn’t lead to any sort of explanation on what shores and sea routes are supposedly being demanded. Are you talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access and formulating that as if the PRC is the aggressor in this case?
Okay? You can see documentaries claiming whatever their makers want. They don’t have to satisfy any sort of proof standards.
As it stands, not even your empire’s leadership believes that, so, to assert this, you have to know more than the most expensive military and spy operation in the world.
What genocides were they supposedly being an apologist for?
Your link is just to a Lemmy search but I’m guessing you’re referring the SCS? And China isn’t really demanding the SCS it just plain has it.
That is just another link to a search on YouTube, not a documentary. But there was a concerted effort to produce spurious reports and manipulative documentaries so this could mean almost anything in terms of the accuracy of what you watched.
Are you? You haven’t listed them and the only implication so far is that it’s being minimally media critical regarding accusations against China’s treatment of Uyghurs. A position that is correct and that I already explained can be twisted in bad faith to be labeled genocide denial. Why are you just repeating things? I already responded to this!
???
Ah, so you did engage in trickery by claiming that the PRC is the aggressor in this case when you were, in fact, talking about NATO blockading the PRC’s sea access.
Do you have sources with regards to the PRC “demanding” their shores and “sea routes”?
But you are the one making the assertion here as if you believe it. So, either you can list them, or you are just being obviously bad faith.
What are you even talking about here?
China has zero military exercises in Japan, Malaysia, or the Philippines.
You can’t name them you just demand evidence to the contrary vaguely.
Except they didn’t. Those screenshots don’t show any genocide denial.
I already did in another comment it’s just them saying they don’t think there’s scholarly consensus. Why does everyone else have to describe what kittenz actually said but you don’t? Produce actual quotes not screenshots that don’t deny genocide.
PS you are messing up the quote feature.
Is this a reference to their comment about the treatment of the Uyghurs not having a consensus drawn as to whether or not it’s a genocide?
It’s hard to say I think this person is deeply confused
Yeah I think the ban was valid. They were clearly not being coherent
They weren’t interested in being coherent. They just wanted to get banned and tell their friends: https://quokk.au/post/1070450#comment_5416609
Referring to this thread as “typical pressure” is wild. I’ve seen a lot of anti-tankie bullshit but claiming the Allende perpetrated a genocide and is also the same person as Pinochet is a new one to me.
Yeah look at me I’m one of you guys too!
Fucking tribalism behaviour.
Hah and then they will claim that it’s the tankies who are the “campists”
thanks for the updoots kind stranger!