this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
167 points (74.8% liked)
GenZedong
8 readers
1 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.
Rules:
- This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
- No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
- No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
- No dogmatism/idealism (Trotskyism, Gonzaloism, Hoxhaism, anarchism, etc.)
- Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can’t prove it to you, I just use my skills at googling “A B Abrams” to conclude that this is untrustworthy. I also can’t prove that the moon landing happened or that matter is made of atoms, doesn’t mean they are false.
See my edit. But here's the thing. We have video of the moon landing and rocks from the actual moon. That's solid evidence. We have plenty of evidence of the atom existing, because half our tech wouldn't work if they didn't exist.
Where is the evidence of a massacre at tiananmen square? Please read the links I gave you.
Edit: please remember, you said that this was an easily disprovable conspiracy theory.
lmao okay
To add to WhatWouldKarlDo's posts, which provided credible counter-evidence (A CBS reporter on location, and a Latin American diplomat's leaked eyewitness account), I want to further emphasise that using a search engine to assess credibility and provide ethos isn't a strong argument. If I search your username, and if you search mine, neither of us will show up as a real person and both our histories will show we reply to political topics. Should we therefore conclude we're both just writing propaganda, and further assume that makes it false?
We're writing opinions or analyses, and hopefully, substantiating them with evidence. And surely the book is doing the same.