This is like… A very unfortunately timed still frame of him moving his arm for some non-seig heil reason, right?

…right?

Don’t get me wrong, these alt-right fascists are fro thing frothing at the mouths over the idea of being the nazi’s of the 21st century and “getting it right this time,” but there’s no way they’re going mask off this quickly.

…right?

The remaining userbase of Twitter was praising Trump long before TikTok credited him with “saving” it.

People who still actively post on Twitter like it isn’t a bought and paid for alt-right propaganda machine represent a clear bias.

I see someone had their ego attached to that opinion.

whoosh

Of course the only person who feels the need to voice negativity about the game is also the person with a demonstable inability to read.

I’d be pretty okay with a Conservative minority. In fact, it might be ideal. It’d give Poilievre the time to soak the blame without the power necessary to work towards dismantling freedom of speech.

I’m sure the environment would still suffer as a result, but that’d probably happen in any size of Liberal or Conservative government.

Sorry, let me rephrase: you can claim moral superiority all you want, but that doesn’t mean you can walk into their space and do whatever you want. Like it or not, is it their community.

Thanks, I hate it. That entire premise made me rewatch a little.

What a champ.

Remember, it’s only leftist to allow Eastern empires to rule people through show of force. Wanting no show of force, economic or otherwise, is “centrist” or, heaven forbid “liberal.”

To be fair, with the goals of that community being what it is, I fundamentally agree. I’m not one to sit idly by while people spread lies and misinformation. I’m honestly shocked it took them as long as it did to ban me. It’s hilarious that they hit me on such an innoculous offense, though. I actually once just straight called out Yogthos as being a Chinese-bought plant, totally ignorant to their role in .ml, or the fact that most people there tend to agree with their bias’. I figured that’s a far worse “rule 1” than this.

I don’t see any evidence of that

That’s why I asked what you meant rather than making assumptions about your intentions. But you even attempted to mock me for that.

I don’t need to continue to suffer your unwarranted insults and assumptions. I used my bias to make a statement about my own lived experience without insulting anyone, nor using it as irrefutable evidence of anything. You’re using yours to group anyone who disagrees with you together, insult their character and claim intellectual superiority. Go fuck yourself.

Rule 1 bayybeeeee!

I’m curious about the context of the curry comment, though. I love curry, but there’s no denying that many of my plastic containers are dyed yellow from holding and heating up curry. Are the loose connections between curry being an Eastern food, Chinese people being called “yellow” as an insult, and many curry dishes leaving yellow stains behind inherently racist?

Man, I wish that were true, but let’s be real: he’s set up to be the next PM if he can just walk it in. We should probably take him seriously.

While that’s true, where are all of Poilievre’s statements in the Trump anexation comments? I’ve seen a ton of responses from a ton of politicians but none from him?

Genuine question, though. I’m not on a lot of social media, and of course my interests have a bias, but I still find it strange that I’ve seen clear statements from so many politicians across the spectrum and none worth putting on the front page from Polievere? Did the CPC PR team just suddenly take a break when this happened? Where’s all the fervent, “Canada first” rhetoric when Trump is making claims on Canadian soil?

Good. Now do the same to the major triple A studios attaching loot boxes to every sports game and battle royale. Why the fuck start with Mihoyo?

Honestly, I prefer that to the mods making up some bullshit. If they want to have their community free from Liberal views, they’re welcome to do so.

I suppose it sucks to hear “we made our community for people who disagree with you and don’t want to deal with your perspective,” but that is entirely their choice. You don’t get to claim moral superiority and do whatever you want regardless.

I’m here in Meanwhileongrad to have a laugh pointing out hypocrisy. There’s nothing hypocritical about “you are not welcome here for reasons we agreed upon and freely shared. Go away.”

You don’t see the irony in starting from the perspective that the poster (me, btw? Not sure how you missed that) is the one dug into his own views, despite a complete lack of information about what the arguments were, what the discussion was, or what “evidence” was being ignored? Don’t get me wrong, you’re correct in saying you shouldn’t take my opinion as universal truth and it was never stayed as such,bbut assuming the opposite is true is equally fallacious.

Your take on irony fell flat because it required a biased perspective to perceive as ironic. Considering this is an entire community built around shamelessly mocking that particular bias, you surely couldn’t have thought that readers would approach the discussion from the same perspective as you.

I believe that those particular Chinese students were, at least in the majority, failing to think critically about the discussion at hand. Perhaps the assumption that they failed to do so was a result of state brainwashing via propaganda was unfair, as I admitted in another post in this thread. To suggest that this means I assume all Chinese citizens are incapable of thinking for themselves, and that all Taiwanese people are free thinkers truly just shows that you started this conversation in bad faith. I initially attempted to assume as little about your intentions as possible and appreciate your comments for what they were, as misplaced as they seemed. It’s unfortunate that in this case, I was clearly feeding a troll.

It’s not that I needed more historical context to make sense of the information you’re providing. The history lesson makes sense. It’s that you never drew any conclusion, nor connected it to the original post. Your post was heavy on insinuation, but void of clear meaning, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions on your intent. The only methods to “fill in variables” here are to make assumptions, possibly with the extra context of your post history, or politely ask your intent. I chose the latter. Though I still have to derive your intent from your post to be that I used the word incorrectly, as you’ve again neglected to actually say what you mean.

“Brainwash” is used to refer to exactly the condition I was referencing: being led to believe falsehoods completely and wholly, through the control of information and repetition of said falsehoods. Its original popuparization in anti-Russian, American political discourse is completely irrelevent to the message the word effectively communicated to those who read my post.

Language changes, and it’s the current interpretation of it that gives it meaning. Hilariously, you used the word “propaganda” to refer to falsehoods used to dismiss outside views; the word propaganda simply means information with political intent and its relation to falsehoods was a result of the Third Reich. The Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, founded by Joeseph Goebbels, became famous for its spread of intentionally misleading propaganda, and popularized the connection of the word to lies and falsehoods. So should I suggest then that your use of the word is incorrect, as you’ve removed it from its context and used it to convey negative connotations that it didn’t originally hold?

Again, I genuinely do appreciate the history lesson. The intersection between words and their historical context is exactly in my professional field and I find it to be a fascinating topic. But if the intent was to attack the quality or authenticity of my post through semantic analysis via historical meaning, I think there are better ways we can both spend our time.

1. Be civil and nice.

This is the specific rule as it is written in the sidebar.

Which is funny, because if you go back through my comments in that same thread, I had far more uncivil and mean comments elsewhere. But the one that got removed and banned is the one that speaks to lived experiences with Chinese (and American) nationalism in a fair and reasoned way? I was unsurprised when I discovered I had a ban. I was grinning like an idiot when I saw what post did it.

That’s very interesting, and I genuinely do appreciate the history lesson, but what exactly are you trying to communicate? That brainwashing is only possible in North America because that’s the population it was coined for? That the act only constitutes brainwashing if it’s coupled with calls for violence? That brainwashing is a strictly government term and using it colloquially has no meaning? That I should fully detail every term with a unique historical significant etymology?

There’s a lot of weird insinuations and half takes that don’t add up to a complete idea in this post.

You know, I’ve said far more rude and direct things. I’ve straight called people tankies, verbalized that they’re being dishonest, and actively told them to go fuck themselves for the way they treat others in similiar Yog threads of memes .ml. But the (paraphrased) “fuck you, you’re a dishonest shill and engaging with your backwards pseudo-intellectualism is a waste of everyone’s time” is far less rude than “I have lived experiences with Chinese nationalism justifying crimes against sovereign nations”?

It’s almost like the ban is a whole lot less about how I said things and the way I’ve treated people, and a whole lot more focused on what I said.