@PugJesus@lemmy.worldM to HistoryPorn@lemmy.worldEnglish • 5 months agoSoviet (right) and Nazi officers celebrating the joint invasion of Poland as their countries both embarked on a genocide of the Polish people, Brest, modern-day Belarus, 1939lemmy.worldimagemessage-square95fedilinkarrow-up1406arrow-down121
arrow-up1385arrow-down1imageSoviet (right) and Nazi officers celebrating the joint invasion of Poland as their countries both embarked on a genocide of the Polish people, Brest, modern-day Belarus, 1939lemmy.world@PugJesus@lemmy.worldM to HistoryPorn@lemmy.worldEnglish • 5 months agomessage-square95fedilink
minus-square@PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMlinkfedilinkEnglish-1•5 months ago That’s demonstrably false It’s demonstrably true and has been widely discussed for at least a year now.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilinkEnglish1•5 months agoThe fact that some critical comments got removed does not prove that “anything other than adoration” results in a ban.
minus-square@PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMlinkfedilinkEnglish1•edit-25 months agoYou’re absolutely right, I could say “China is a country with over 1.4 billion people” and not get banned, despite that not being adoration. Yet any common or good-faith reading of that phrase would not imply that neutral statements are included under the ban. Any other bailey you’d like to run to? What’s your demanded ratio for censorship to count as censorship? 1 removed for every 10 that remain? 1-1? 2-1? 10-1?
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilinkEnglish3•edit-25 months agoHow are you acting like you were right after admitting you were wrong? Quite an interesting rhetorical trick. Motte and Bailey doesn’t give you license to put words into my mouth.
It’s demonstrably true and has been widely discussed for at least a year now.
The fact that some critical comments got removed does not prove that “anything other than adoration” results in a ban.
You’re absolutely right, I could say “China is a country with over 1.4 billion people” and not get banned, despite that not being adoration.
Yet any common or good-faith reading of that phrase would not imply that neutral statements are included under the ban.
Any other bailey you’d like to run to?
What’s your demanded ratio for censorship to count as censorship? 1 removed for every 10 that remain? 1-1? 2-1? 10-1?
How are you acting like you were right after admitting you were wrong? Quite an interesting rhetorical trick.
Motte and Bailey doesn’t give you license to put words into my mouth.