𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

The only thing that Wikipedia mentions in regards to violence on June 2nd is this paragraph:

On the evening of 2 June, an accident occurred in which a PAP jeep ran onto a sidewalk, killing three civilian pedestrians and injuring a fourth. This incident sparked fear that the army and the police were trying to advance into Tiananmen Square. Student leaders issued emergency orders to set up roadblocks at major intersections to prevent the entry of troops into the centre of the city.

Regarding the unarmed soldiers, that was an intercepted bus that was moving soldiers in who had been ordered to take up arms and disperse the protests. There were beatings but Wikipedia does not mention any deaths here.

As for you walking a point back, I mean when you went in and saw the twitter account saying that the lynched PLA officer had murdered 4 people, which the twitter account stated came from the ones lynching him.

Perhaps that was a simple misunderstanding then. You brought up the thread in order to reinforce your claim that the protestors were killing unarmed soldiers (at least how I understood it). Yet the only claim the account made is that the soldier supposedly killed 4 people, so the killing was retaliatory. It does list “the murderers” as the source, but we don’t have a better one (at least not one provided there). I mostly pointed it out since that account doesn’t come across as very reliable or informed, they posted a couple pictures to set a narrative, but when questioned seemed to walk back the claims they made.

As far as the death toll, best estimate we have comes from Beijing hospital records:

Records from Beijing’s main eleven hospitals, compiled shortly after the events, recorded at least 478 dead and 920 wounded, though Timothy Brook notes that these figures are an undercount due to lack of information from other hospitals.

This is quite significantly more than what the CCP has claimed (and quite atrocious in and of itself, even if it’s less than the bogus 10k figure).

The protestors were heavily factionalised. They weren’t universally pro-US. The US was happy to foment dissent, but ultimately the protestors were still socialists and had not insignificant support within the CCP itself.

I didn’t claim there was? The “standoff” happened on the way to the square, not the square itself, when protestors blocked the PLA from advancing.

Still, hundreds (up to 2600 according to historians) died.

Well that’s just it isn’t it? The claim that on June 2nd unarmed PLA officers were on the square and were attacked there is also unsourced in that Liberation News article. It’s just mentioned but there’s no footnote present that supports the claim.

And it’s hard to make that make sense. By all accounts, the protestors blocked all access to the square. They did so in the period of the 20th to the 24th (first attempt) and also tried to once the PLA was ordered to use violence when they moved in on the 3rd. So how exactly did this unarmed column of PLA soldiers manage to get there again?

And of course we know that the PLA was armed at that point since the protestors took their weapons (which we have tons of photographs of).

You seem to have quite uncritically bought into the CCP narrative of the events, even if the story presented doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Eyewitness accounts also dispute the CCP version. To be clear, they don’t dispute that the square itself was cleared (mostly) peacefully, but the events leading up to it and directly after certainly weren’t. And the images of that are quite gruesome, with PLA soldiers firing down streets and using expanding ammunition.

Historians don’t buy the western narrative that claimed tens of thousands died of course, that was horseshit. But the CCP narrative is heavily disputed too. The death toll likely is somewhere between 500 and 2600, based on eyewitness accounts and imagery of the events.

And just to be clear: these protests weren’t universally pro-US. The protestors were highly factionalised, some seeking better relations with the US, but nowhere near all of them did. This factionalism also made it harder to negotiate with them for the CCP, since there wasn’t a clear leader.

(Btw I have no idea what you’re referring to when you said I “walked things back”, as far as I can tell I did no such thing).

Ok so first off, this “source” is a random X account with little credibility, that already admitted in the thread that several images aren’t verified and that much is unknown. I have no idea where they pulled the dates from for example; when looking up these images I can find some other sources for the images for the 3rd and 4th of June, but not for the one supposedly for the 2nd. Meanwhile I can’t find any other sources claiming these “numerous violent clashes” on the 2nd. In fact, most sources claim that only on the 2nd did the protestors come to suspect that the PLA would move in violently, but only did so on the 3rd (prompting retaliation). I can’t find a clear source claiming the violence happened between the 20th and the 24th; only that protestors blocked the PLA from entering the city proper (which didn’t seem to be paired with much violence since the PLA wasn’t ordered to shoot either).

On the 1st of June (so even before any hypothetical lynchings on the 2nd) did the CCP decide to use violence to clear the protests.

You also keep talking about these supposedly unarmed PLA soldiers. You do realize how that makes no sense, right? The PLA is actively mobilised to enforce martial law, and they’re supposed to do so by singing songs or something? Of course they were armed. It’s also the primary source for how the protestors got their weapons; taken from PLA soldiers.

Martial law is what mobilized the army, which you falsely claimed happened after protestors started killing unarmed PLA soldiers. I didn’t equivocate it to killings.

And of those killed soldiers, here’s what your own source says: https://xcancel.com/SebasdePeru/status/1533603901508820994#m

Killed for having murdered four protestors. Not so “unarmed” either then. Additionally, those pictures are from June 3rd/4th, which again is after the PLA was ordered to move in and when they started killing protestors if they refused to clear out. Obviously the protestors will attempt to defend themselves against such aggression.

That’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what happened though. This makes it sound like the rioters started the violence on June 2nd forcing a government response, but that’s not the case. The CCP had already declared martial law on May 20th and had mobilised 30 divisions. The PLA was first sent in at that time, but because the protestors blocked them they couldn’t advance into the city and were ordered to wait on the 24th.

On the 1st of June, two individual reports (the Li Peng report and the MMS report) were published within the Politburo, decrying US influences and advocating direct military action. The CCP decided that day that military action would be used against the protestors.

June 2nd saw an incident with a PAP jeep that inflamed tensions. But I can’t personally find a source claiming firebombings and lynchings at this time. The jeep incident was the trigger that made the students believe military action was at hand though. Only on June 3rd did tensions escalate further, when the PLA advanced into the city and clashed with protestors trying to repel them. This is when I can first find the protestors using molotov cocktails and trying to beat soldiers to death, but at the same time the PLA had opened fire with live, expanding ammunition on the protestors (so they certainly weren’t ‘unarmed’). From there it only escalated further of course. So the protestors were fighting in response to the PLA advancing into the city to break up the protest, not the other way around.

Only a few hundred died

Dude, you’re saying that as if it’s okay. Hundreds or even thousands die after clearing a protest, how is that ever supposed to place the CCP in a good light?

many were armed and murdered PLA officers (kicking off the millitary response)

Source? Because as far as I can find, the protests were nonviolent until the army was sent in to clear the square. When protestors blocked the army a standoff ensued, which was eventually forcefully broken as per the CCP’s orders. The army was initially sent in because the strikes weren’t ending and the government was not willing to meet the demands.

Afghanistan’s suicide rate is 1.84. Palestine is at 0.77, Syria at 0.94. These places must be heaven on Earth then!

It’s apparently easy to bypass, but it also stores fingerprints and id images unencrypted.

https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.

IIRC (but could be wrong) the EPP wanted stricter chat controls, not an extension of what was already there.

He’s authored 60 repos on Github and has forked another 95.

https://github.com/marcj?tab=repositories&q=&type=source&language=&sort=

He also founded companies and used to be CTO: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marc-j-schmidt-957875110

So I suppose he’s both.

Repurposing the water would be good. Have the heated water heat people’s homes for example, give something back to the community.

Instead they heat up the fish.

No, life expectancy was used to show that life was better in Russia under the Soviet Union. Which is only true if you look at the direct chaos after the fall, but the comparison is much, much less rosy when you zoom out a little and realise that under modern Russia living standards actually increased, whereas they stagnated under the Soviet Union.

I argued that the Soviets were already behind most of the world, and that their stagnation was indicative of worsening living standards. Developing countries did not show such stagnation unless there was either severe civil strife or external factors (like the fall of the Soviets) impacting them.

And sorry for saying this, but I think it’s kind of a given that as the world’s number two superpower, it’s kinda expected that their life expectancy is higher than developing countries in Africa. I don’t see how that’s this supposed slam dunk you’re pretending it is. “Yeah life in the Soviet Union was better than in Chad”, no shit Sherlock. But life in Chad is actively improving, which the Soviets failed to do. It’s an enormous nation filled with natural resources, the Soviets not improving living standards in such conditions is almost an achievement.

I’ve been talking about the stagnation in the rise of life expectancy between 1960 and 1980. It only started rising again around 2000, after the fall of the Union. Try to keep up.

Developing countries obviously had a lower life expectancy, but one that was still on the rise, indicating improving living conditions. Same goes capitalist nations and many of the more developed nations had passed the SU by a fairly wide margin.

The SU, as one of the very few nations in the world, managed to completely stagnate, which indicates that living conditions weren’t improving, and likely worsening somewhat (as advancements in medicine normally leads to a longer average lifespan).

By the way, you yourself steered towards comparing the Soviet Union with developing nations in Africa, as any other comparison was somehow unfair to you. I compared them with western nations, nations in Asia and now random countries in Africa to play along with your demands. And now that you can’t shift further, you throw in a “Imagine thinking” reddit-like response.

How about you either address the flatlined life expectancy during these 20 years directly then, skip the comparisons. Why didn’t it improve? Or just come up with a country that is a fair comparison to you. Because if you’re not going to seriously engage and just throw out silly soundbites then there’s no point to this.

Very specific.

I’ve looked at some examples for you. Countries like Chad, Mali, Gambia and Gabon show a continuous rise in life expectancy, just like other developing countries do.

Then there’s countries hit by the fall of the Soviets, likely due to a dependence on Soviet trade or support, like Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Lesotho, though these nations do not show the same stagnation that the Soviets showed before 1980.

The only example I could find of a stagnated life expectancy in the same period as the Soviets pre-fall (so 1960-1980) was Rwanda. But that’s likely due to the Hutu revolution in 1959 and the years of Tutsi repression that followed.

I’m sure there may be a handful of other African nations with a similar pattern, but it’s certainly not true that the vast majority of them showed this pattern of stagnation that the Soviets had. Africa taken as a whole also doesn’t show it, it is however dented after 1980 due to the fall of the Soviets. In fact, Rwanda being the counterexample here is kinda a bad look for the Soviets, given the internal conflict that caused the stagnation.

Feel free to name some counterexamples then. Otherwise, don’t bother commenting if you have nothing of substance to contribute.

That’s not how you phrased your comment. Try being clearer in your phrasing.

Also try responding to the rest of the contents of my reply instead of deflecting by saying “reddit dumb” and thinking that’s winning an argument. I very clearly demonstrated that a wide variety of developing nations did not show the same stagnation in life expectancy that the SU did.

You said “non-western”. I named two. If you want to shift goalposts further that’s fine but don’t act like you’re being all smart or anything.

Even for other developing countries the overall trend is clear: continuous rise in life expectancy, leveling off as it gets closer to 80. The SU plateaud just below 70 and remained there until its fall (after which it rose again). The vast majority of developing nations do not show this pattern of levelling off early.

Take Iran, or the Philippines, or even Vietnam (bar the civil war). All of them didn’t level off like the Soviets did. Same thing in other socialist countries like Cuba and the PRC.

It indicates a fairly severe mismanagement that the Soviet Union is one of the very, very few countries that managed to keep their life expectancy at 67-68 for over 20 years, when other countries kept rising and a good number had already surpassed them. Only after the year 2000 did they manage a sustained growth in life expectancy, rising to 73 after dropping to 64 (likely levelling off a little now due to the war in Ukraine).

The argument was that under the Soviet Union life was better. That may have been true when compared directly to the very tumultuous fall that directly followed. But the reality is that growth of life expectancy had completely stagnated in Soviet Union (it was even declining very slightly). It only started rising again after Russia had mostly stabilised post-fall, and is now higher than it’s ever been.