Only a few people are actually pushing back, though. I wouldn’t call that controversy, for such a context that is usually far worse.

It isn’t that controversial actually, seems pretty unified with only a couple people getting upset.

Nobody denies that hundreds died all over Beijing that day, what’s called into question is using the “Tank Man” image out of context and telling everyone that he was run over. It’s a mythologizing of another country’s tragedy for the purpose of twisting events in the favor of Western interests.

Think about it another way: why is it that the US, BBC, etc readily and repeatedly report on a mythologized version of the events when they know that the truth is closer to what you say?

Not who you were replying to, but I think this is a good point to jump in. A world Socialist government is necessary as production advances, it’s a process and not a decision someone can make.

Either way, Israel only exists through Settler-Colonialism and genocide of Palestinians. Hamas is a reaction to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, condemning both the oppressor and the oppressed due to both “using violence” just serves to preserve the status quo. I think you’d benefit greatly from reading Frantz Fanon. The “two-state” solution isn’t a solution, it just entrenches the genocide of Palestinians. A single, secular state (the solution commonly supported by Palestinian experts) is the only way to stop the genocide.

“Tankie” is a caricature. The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people labeled as such don’t actually fit that label, it’s more of a way to cast an image of someone’s positions based on, say, support for AES countries, and twist that into the evil Commie Pinko that haunts the dreams of 1960s children in the US.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if the caricature “tankie” is evil, such a caricature has no real relevance in reality. Unless you mean Gonzaloists, supporters of Gonzalo and defenders of Pol Pot are “tankies,” in which case I’d say the case for them being evil is thinking individual acts of terrorism towards peasants is a sufficient replacement for revolution.

Exactly.

What “game?” The only “game” I can see is you jumping through hoops to justify not having to explain your conspiracy theories and to avoid reading books that would help you understand the world around you. The “game” seems to be seeing how long you can intentionally keep your head in the sand.

The members of what are republicans? What on Earth are you talking about? Who is fawning over fascism and fascist leaders? What is this incoherent rant talking about?

What counts as “authoritarian?” I’d argue Liberals are quicker to support systems I would consider authoritarian than Leftists are. What views are they intolerant of? I think taking a firmer stance against fascism than Liberals do historically is a good thing, so I want to know an example you think is bad to be intolerant of that makes that an issue towards Leftists for you.

If you don’t trust me, then you can probably trust Dr. Michael Parenti, who wrote Blackshirts and Reds. The first couple chapters are all you really need to understand the major and critical differences between Communism and fascism, and why ever conflating the two makes no sense whatsoever in theory or in history.