Oh well, I guess I should not have claimed that you chose to like ProleWiki more because you just like it. Now, how about I explain why I don’t trust ProleWiki on “Authoritarianism” because of its bias?
If you look at ProleWiki’s main page, it literally says that it is a communist (Marxist-Leninist) project. It leans towards Marxism-Leninism, which IMO makes its defense of those Marxist-Leninist socialist states heavily biased and unreliable.
They do. See https://lemmygrad.ml and see how almost every post has some downvotes. IMO this does make the posting culture there better.
Heck I think Lemmygrad is more tolerable than Hexbear, by a lot.
Sh.itjust.works has already defederated from Hexbear? That quick? No announcement whatsoever?
Btw, lemm.ee is federated with Hexbear.
Careful calling those regimes authoritarian. Hexbears like to attack this point by assigning a slightly different definition to authoritarian and then either (a) claim that all governments are “authoritarian” or (b) blame liberals for using this word to demonize socialist states. I once saw someone cite https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Authoritarianism to “prove” that those states are not authoritarian.
Yeah, the Chinese government is totally very democratic and is receptive to the criticism of its citizens! They never censor words and topics they don’t like on their social media platforms!
I know right! Even though I agree with some of the viewpoints, I would rather not see so much discussion about capitalism, communism, or politics in general. BTW, the word is “systematically.”
But then what the other commenter said would basically be “Both Wikipedia and Prolewiki are biased, but Wikipedia is biased to the wrong direction. I like Prolewiki’s bias more than I like Wikipedia’s bias. Therefore, Wikipedia is not reliable on the topic of Authoritarianism.”
Ok, maybe Wikipedia is biased, but I want to hear your arguments on why Prolewiki is not.
Yes, instead of Wikipedia let’s just use this random wiki that is heavily biased toward those authoritarian states.
I also hate this convention tbh. Doesn’t really make sense.
Mine is not blocked yet. I am definitely worried about this though. I am in East Asia.
Wonder how much YouTube is going to squeeze out of this ad blocker blocking.
Probably not, but the convention is that periods and commas always stay within the quotes, whether the period or comma is a part of the quote or not. (This differs from what one expects from writing code.) When using question marks though, the placement does depend on whether the question mark is a part of the quote.
Edit: When I was younger, I also didn’t know this and would place all punctuation marks according to whether it is a part of the quote. In fact, in my native language that is what you’re supposed to do. To this day I still dislike this convention in English.
Edit 2: I know that this is an American English thing.
The truth, like it or not, is that PRC has never, ever seized control of Taiwan. Hopefully it never does. This is not pedantry.
update to my previous comment: I decided to not take your advice anyway
The KMT flag would be over China right now if they had simply not tried to murder the communists in cold blood.
I disagree. Had Chang Hsueh-liang not kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek back in 1936 demanding that he stop fighting communists and form a united front against Japanese, things probably would have been very different. I do not understand why you think that KMT would still rule the entire China if they had not fought the communists.
On April 6, 1936, Chang met with CPC delegate Zhou Enlai to plan the end of the Chinese Civil War. KMT leader Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek at the time took a passive position against Japan and considered the communists to be a greater danger to the Republic of China than the Japanese, and his overall strategy was to annihilate the communists before focusing his efforts on the Japanese. He believed that “communism was a cancer while the Japanese represented a superficial wound.” Growing nationalist anger against Japan made this position very unpopular, and led to Chang’s action against Chiang, known as the Xi’an Incident.
In December 1936, Chang and General Yang Hucheng kidnapped Chiang, imprisoning him until he agreed to form a united front with the communists against the Japanese invasion. After two weeks of negotiations, Chiang agreed to unite with the communists and drive the Japanese out of China. When Chiang was released on December 26, Chang chose to return to the capital city of Nanjing with him; once they were away from Chang’s loyal troops, Chiang had him placed under house arrest. From then on, he was under constant watch and lived near the Nationalist capital city, wherever it moved to.
My main issue with that article on ProleWiki lies in its first paragraph:
In the very beginning of the article, ProleWIki equated liberalism with capitalism (they are very different), and also claimed them that liberals have “demonized” socialist states with this term. There is no denying that some liberals have demonized socialist states, but I would argue that this term was used properly in that context.
Have you ever noticed the most prominent difference between socialist governments and the governments of the rest of the world? In most socialist countries, you aren’t really allowed to publicly criticize the government. Ever noticed how much criticisms of the USA, the UK, France, or really any liberal country floats around the Internet? If you speak Chinese, I kindly ask you to go check out Weibo (Chinese Twitter), try posting something remotely critical of President Xi and watch your post get removed. Or try sending a message to a Chinese citizen with Weixin (Chinese Whatsapp), talk about the protest banner that someone hung on Sitong bridge in Beijing 11 months ago and see how your account gets disabled.
As you can see, the Chinese government exerts a lot more power on censoring Internet speech than the liberal countries do. I am not qualified to say whether the “western” countries are authoritarian, but in comparison, those socialist states really do enforce a lot more rules. Socialist states really are more authoritarian in comparison. It is more than fitting to call them authoritarian.
Now that I think about it, I realize that that was indeed not a good argument. But that was also what another Hexbear user said to dismiss the Wikipedia article just a few parent comments above. They basically said “Wikipedia is biased, so why should I believe Wikipedia?”
BTW sorry for the late reply. I was kind of busy.