but other scientists are not so sure.

Is it just me who thinks we should act as if it is going to collapse soon, even if a few scientists aren't sure?

In what way are Dutch and Danish taxpayers being forced to fund said palace? The point of sicaniv's screenshot seems to me to be that western taxpayers are being given no choice but to fund a war they aren't involved in, after 10–40 years of austerity and being told the state can't afford basic services, suddenly there's a bottomless well of cash for tanks.

… saying shit like “fuck the CCP, can’t censor me”. … I’m really curious how you get millions of people to believe in something that didn’t happen at all.

These two points are related. First off, Tiananmen did happen, just not as reported in the west. People can make almost any anti-China/-communist statement they like in the west and 98% of people will believe, accept, and confirm it. There is no chance of any censorship, in fact, it's the opposite. It's not just like when mainstream reactionary celebrities use the front-page of a mainstream newspaper to advertise an interview on a mainstream news website to say that they've been censored. It's worse than that.

Engels, On Authority:

These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

Censor, defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (5th Edition):

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. …

1. An officer empowered to examine manuscripts, books, pamphlets, plays, etc., intended for publication or public performance, in order to see that they contain nothing heretical, immoral, or subversive of the established order of government. See censorship.

Not only are 'China' and it's representatives not authorised in the west to 'suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable', the west will also share lies that are intentionally 'morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable' for China.

These stories e.g. about Tiananmen are calculated to be 'heretical, immoral, or subversive of the established order of government' of China. There can be no question of censure if such messages are (a) not prevented and (b) purposefully spread and given extra attention.

The very act of claiming that one refuses to be censored in the re-telling of Tiananmen reaffirms the idea that China is 'totalitarian' – even outside it's jurisdiction! More on this double-effect, below.

Censorship, same source:

1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.

1. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

1. Deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances.

1. Counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy.

The only disguised form in which stories about China appear in western media is the anti-China form. The only pain that most westerners are protected from is the pain of having to face the cognitive dissonance that would arise if they were to learn the truth after however many years of being lied to.

At the same time, with regard to Tiananmen, at least, part of the publication has indeed been deleted. Not by China but the west. This is counterintelligence as the deleted information would be of value to the enemy, China and the CPC. That is the very definition of censorship.

In this instance, the lie about Tiananmen is also intended to strengthen the bogeyman of 'authoritarian China'. That's the deeper motif. The surface details of the lie are practically irrelevant. It's the deeper mischaracterisation of China that is (i) harder to forget and (ii) matters more for propaganda purposes.

Tiananmen is convenient in this respect because it's supposedly about suppression of expression. By claiming that one can't speak about it, one implies that China still suppresses free expression. The perfect recipe for propaganda.

As the motif is only implicitly understood, it goes in subconsciously, underneath the intellectual guard. Someone might challenge the facts of e.g. Tiananmen, but they donn't even realise that they should challenge the framing (unless they've been taught to do so, which is really only required to get a first class degree, and even then…).

You might even successfully make someone see Tiananmen differently but, without more, you won't affect the lasting impression of China or the CPC as monstrous. And when some other reprobate like Zenz comes along with another story that supports the motif, the lasting impression becomes stronger. Even if western media puts their hands up and says, 'sorry, everyone, we got the facts wrong', all it does is make people think the press is ultimately honest. It didn't make people think fundamentally differently about China.

Millions of people accept the lie for several reasons. One of those, as discussed above, is that they're lied to. Another, as hinted above, is that they're poorly educated. A third, beneath the surface, which makes people not want to find the truth or become better educated, is that doing so might worsen their material conditions. Westerners know, implicitly, that their abundance comes at the expense of the global south, including China.

It's also not wise to discount the influence of paid bourgeois agents on the public discourse. These operate: in the open, as media personalities; subtly, as academics, teachers, priests, accountants, lawyers, economists (who are in the open but don't tell you they're propagandising, partly because they don't know they're doing it); and in the shadows, as social media puppet accounts and astroturfing campaigns, counterintelligence/misinformation ops, etc.

Just because western liberals and global south compradors claim that they are at risk of censorship does not 'change[] the thing[ it]sel[f]'. The censorship is the other way round, which means westerners are projecting. Westerners can say whatever they like about China or communists. Nobody will stop them. Indeed, they are encouraged to lie.

If it's a good lie, every media outlet will pick up the story and give it credence. That story will enter the public consciousness. It will be in the background of movies and novels 'based on true stories'. Chat show hosts, etc, will talk about it as if it's incontrovertible and common knowledge. And people will accept it, in part because:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force', (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology.

As for the truth, you might start here: https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md#what-about-the-tiananmen-square-massacre

More broadly, you might enjoy Michael Parenti's History as Mystery.

It's wild how this warning appears on an ostensibly European news agency. If only Anglo-Europeans would connect the dots.

tankies focus more on state-level political events

In other words, the authors have no idea what they're talking about. We're abstracting to the level of classes, not states. Maybe they focused on the intellectually deprived western Marxist discourse.

Anyone else concerned for the Musk / NAFO fans confused as to how they're supposed to pick a side but none of it makes sense because that would require a nuanced view? Nah, me neither.

Often the same people who say this are the same people who think they can't talk about racism because they're white. Nothing is ever a them problem. Everything is a you problem. They don't like it when other privileged people stand with the oppressed. It makes them look bad and the cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.

I've heard it before and I'll repeat it here: this is related to the reason why liberals hate communists so much; our very existence forcibly reminds them that their empty idealist rhetoric doesn't fill bellies, build homes, or prevent hate crimes.

Edit: I knew I'd read it recently, it was Criticalresist8, who put it like this:

They can’t reconcile the fact that they are not actually the most progressive and tolerant person in the room.

I think we should be cautious about something now that the fediverse is rapidly growing.

We should be careful not to get drawn into wrecker tactics. If you search the fediverse for lemmygrad, you'll see quite a bit of trouble kicking off in other instances. I came across this when looking for news about lemmygrad being down on the weekend. I wouldn't ordinarily search to see what others are saying about us because I don't care for the drama. And if If liberals avoid this place, I'll be happy.

But there's a problem. People are posting lies about us and warning others not to come here. But that's not the worst of it. Now, I don't want to see monsters where there aren't any. But it seems to me that the structure and form of these posts and comments are dangerous. The way they're framed will lead others to (a) put words in our mouths and (b) question us in a particular format.

We've seen this already on posts on lemmygrad, and some of you may have seen it in comments here and on other instances. It goes, roughly, like this: 'I've heard that you eat babies. Why do you eat babies?' Or: 'Why do you love Putin/genocide/etc?' Or: 'Don't worry about those people on LG, they're all young, and don't know why better.' Or: 'Don't worry about [redtea], he's a champagne socialist from New York.'

These comments are infuriating. And they will lead you to slip up if you're not careful. Because, when faced with an accusation, the temptation is to defend yourself. But how do you do that? You might reply that you only eat babies on Fridays, or that you love Putin for XYZ, or that you're not young, you're 45, or that you're not from NY, you're from a small village outside Memphis, population 10. If you reply to these provocateurs with the wrong response, you may allow people to build up a profile about IRL-you, attached to statements that could get you in trouble. Don't fall for it!

Is this a psy-op? All those agents paid to astro turf the narrative on Reddit and Twitter will be looking for other work. So I wouldn't discount it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The effect is the same whether it's isolated or orchestrated. People are being riled up to come at us with their pitchforks, here and on other instances. Be careful, and don't fall for their tricks. Don't dox yourself. Don't be trapped into saying something illegal.

I'm posting this so that we can talk about how to spot these traps and how to avoid them. Everyone on LG is concerned with making the world a better place, with ending oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, exploitation, climate catastrophe, etc. We have vitriolic enemies because of it. Don't let them define what we stand for—choose your words carefully.

I also dislike the military-industrial complex. But that seems to be a different point to the one you made at first. Making it seem as though Russia is at war so that Putin can build a palace doesn't seem accurate.

Russia is not at war to glorify Putin. Although, his estimation does seem to be rising in the eyes of the global south because he is fighting the imperialists who have long oppressed them.

Again, the point you replied to seemed to be talking about indebting Dutch and Danish taxpayers to pay for a war they're not part of. Russia is at war, so it would make sense that Russians will be taxed to pay for it. I agree that this is tragic. Much better for that money to be spent on public services.

But in response to your reply: in general, Russians have very little choice because Russia was forced into a corner by NATO. I'm not sure what you mean by outdated equipment. Outdated by whose standards?

Europe's leaders have forgotten the lessons learned by French and Russian monarchs. I mean, the virtue-signalling sanctions against Russia were bad enough but at least they could source gas through China or from the US. If they sanction China, there's nowhere else with the production capacity to replace what will be lost. Maybe we're watching a live show of state-Darwinism, where Europe accidentally degrowths itself out of existence and saves the world from climate change.

What do you mean? There were famines, a cultural revolution, and a great leap forward. You're not going to see these things now even if you visited unless the cultural revolution takes a great leap through a time machine.

The 'if you love it so much …' is among the worst rhetorical devices in history. It's meaningless and intended to rile up the other person without dealing with the substance. It's based on the faulty notion that knowledge can only come from experience. It's also based on a lack of class and material analysis.

If you went to China today at the invitation of Jack Ma, Xi, a random lower level party worker in a city or the countryside, or a random person in the city or the countryside, your perception of China will be radically different depending on who you go with and what you do. Even if Xi invited you, the trip will be coloured by whether he's dragging out CIA spies, ignoring Blinken's calls, strategizing over Taiwan, or doing a tour of speeches at universities and cutting the ribbon on new hospitals.

Visiting would give you a better picture of China, but it won't give you the full picture. That still requires studying China, which can be done anywhere. It'll be easier of one learns Chinese but there are sources in other languages. The Qiao Collective does done good stuff, such as this conference: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQFBO6UUfDCQoIxtdxX5dVRwl1kS9IhnV

Chinese people can be wrong and popularity doesn't make something right. Whether they are right or wrong, their class position makes a difference. The grandchildren of someone who lost their private property under Mao is going to have been brought up with stories about how scary it all was. The grandchildren of a peasant who the party lifted out of poverty will have been brought up with different stories.

Yeah - China might be pulling ahead in renewables, but they’re still building more new coal plants than the rest of the world combined.

New coal is disappointing but it doesn't detract from the other advances. It's not the same in the west, where new fossil infrastructure is still being signed off but with no real attempt to start building for an alternative. From the thread:

According to calculations by economist Sean Starrs, the PRC controls an estimated 6% share of the world's most valuable capital. Yet it has spent more on the energy transition than any other country since 2012.

Do you mean the thread that I posted or the npr article when you say:

But yeah, this article is one-sided bullshit that ignores the massive elephant in the room.

'China (Coal)' is shown at the top of the list of top emitters (14.32% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions), e.g. here. The problem is that the stats only date from 1988–2015, beginning shortly after China opened up. Taking in the full historical picture:

the United States is single-handedly responsible for 40 percent of excess global CO2 emissions. The European Union and the United Kingdom are together responsible for 29 percent. And along with the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Japan, the Global North as a group is collectively responsible for no less than 92 percent.

Meanwhile, the Global South – the entire continents of Asia, Africa and Latin America – are responsible for only 8 percent of excess emissions. And that’s from only a handful of countries, such as around the Gulf. The majority of countries in the Global South still remain within their fair shares of the planetary boundary, including large nations like India, Indonesia and Nigeria. Even China was within its fair share as of 2015, the final year of data in this study, although it has since overshot the limit.

The final sentence of the second paragraph suggests China is still a problem. Partly, that's true. But one of the author's has since concluded that China still hasn't reached it's 'fair share' of contributions to 1.5C warming:

Not only have [Global North] countries overshot their fair-share of the safe planetary boundary... but the 1.5C and 2C budgets too. By a long way. And the consequences fall hardest on the global South. The injustice is staggering. …

Using carbon prices from IPCC scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C, we calculate that over-emitting countries would owe a total of $192 trillion to the rest of the world by 2050 to compensate for this appropriation. Most is owed by the US, UK and EU.

Three other factors are also relevant (i) China is doing something about its emissions (ii) China is causing so many emissions to feed the insatiable west and (iii) it is operating in a world dominated by Anglo-European imperialists. Unless the west starts to think about rapid and radical changes, new Chinese coal plants are by-the-by. More by Jason Hickel, et al, here.

The willingness to put aside differences…

It just goes to show…

How much the whole world fucking hates the US.

It helps to reframe what 'winning' means for NATO. It does want to weaken Russia. But kicking Russia out of Ukraine as fast as possible wouldn't achieve that goal. In a war of attrition, imperialists can keep drip feeding weapons to Ukraine (bought with loans that will later be used to asset strip the country) and slowly bleeding Russia. (What NATO didn't account for is that Russia would win the war of attrition, but that's another issue.)

The longer the conflict, the more the US can prop up it's domestic military employment figures. It doesn't want to send soldiers to fight and die so much as it wants to create jobs in a way that lets the state funnel billions of taxpayer money (here, Ukrainian taxpayers' more than USians') into the military industrial complex. In other words, the longer the war, the more they line their own pockets.

Plus, thankfully, no other neighbour has been stupid enough to think it could defeat Russia in a conventional war on its own turf. Remember that Ukraine had one of the best militaries in the world before this fight, with recent, active military experience and a decade to stockpile arms and prepare for war with Russia. Imagine being tiny Latvia with 1.8m total population. Russia's active military is over 1m and rising. Latvia wouldn't stand a chance except as part of a whole NATO offensive. Even then, I would expect it to immediately consider withdrawing and becoming neutral to avoid being obliterated in that event.

As for Poland. Got to wonder whether Belarus would become engaged at that point. And if Poland gets involved, the war is going to get very close to Germany. And its politicians are cowards who are happy to send others to their deaths but have no interest in fighting themselves.

The hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty in China probably disagree with you.

It logs the timing as well, which could be sensitive data. For example if an employer were to gain access to this information and tie it to an account that someone thinks is anonymous, they'll know when you weren't working but getting paid to be at work. Or it could be used to determine when some is at home or out. Or be used as evidence for holding certain views.

It's unlikely for a single employer to get that data. But I wouldn't put it past the five eyes to set up an instance, mine data, and use analysts/AI to cross-reference it with other user metadata.

It's like J Sakai says in his security pamphlet. It's bad practice to give any information to feds, even 'benign' data because it helps them to build profiles on you and others. To offer a rather extreme example, if they know you were upvoting a comment at 16.07 EST, they can guess it wasn't you at a protest at the same time. This means they can narrow down the suspect list to the other handful of people with your build, etc, who go to protests. Being lax with data means the feds have an easier time undermining the efforts of people who are tight with their data.

It's a privacy issue that I hadn't considered. I knew our admins could see this data. I didn't realise it was visible to other instances.

built on the principles of full transparency

"We don't gaf if you know how much wealth we're stealing"

I can picture it now:

EUROPEANS

tired of being cold this winter because the US turned off your gas supply?

fight in Ukraine where the fire is always on and fresh warming mead flows all night long.

€3,400/month (minus expenses)

And all their users don't realise that the reason those censoring instances look more like Reddit is because Reddit had a campaign to censor all radical speech. It's not rare because radical speech isn't popular, it's rare because it's hidden and crushed.

Would you talk me briefly through setting up your own instance? Do you just run it when you want to go online or do you need to stay connected with a 24/7 self-hosted server? Don't answer these questions if it means sharing details that would compromise your security.

"Their mods have asked their users to be nice to us and to follow our rules if they come here, but it still breaks our rules because we can't cope with facts that contradict our worldview. How dare they remind people that NATO is a murderous organisation?"