142
Logan Square landlord evicts tenant for flying Palestine flag (chicagoreader.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/chicago@midwest.social
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The scumbag also owns the Logan Theater.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

That doesn't answer the question though. If a government ordered the killing of Nazis that would be very different than a government enforcing the eviction of someone displaying a flag in solidarity with people being genocided by Nazis.

You do realize how those two things are different right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Those aren't mutually exclusive to define authoritarianism. I wouldn't expect someone from hexbear to come with a good faith debate though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Okay lets back this up a step, I made a comment pointing out the authoritarian nature of capitalism which allows the shit like what happened in the OP.

    You come in trying to both sides this shit.

    So are you defending landlords? Because this is obviously fucked up and the landlord in question (and all other landlords imo) should be dispossessed of their property which would be an "authoritarian" measure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    authoritarian nature of capitalism

    Plenty of instances of communists doing the same shit. Please refer to my original post.

    Authoritarianism is not tied to political ideology. Authoritarianism takes advantage of whatever the political environment is. To think one environment doesn't allow for authoritarianism while the other does is extremely naive. This isn't a "both sides" argument, this is an argument that you incorrectly associate authoritarianism with only capitalism.

    I don't know how else I can explain this to you, so this will be my last response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Please spare me this nonsense go read a book.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yo know even the BBC journalists that were there said there was no massacre right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    lol, is this the comment that made some midwest.social mod go buck wild banning you from every comm they could? This is where you (checks modlog notes) were "denying a massacre"? Mod who did that: please make sure to ban not only other users who mention what the BBC says, but also that you remove any posts that link CBS News and the New York Times for their tankie propaganda massacre-denialism!

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/13/world/turmoil-china-tiananmen-crackdown-student-s-account-questioned-major-points.html

    There it is, @ringwraithfish^ !

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it.

    Come on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And there were many soldiers who were also killed as well, the first of which were not even armed but were lynched. There was absolutely fighting in the streets in the surrounding area, and no one denies that people did die. But it was a mutually armed struggle, not a massacre. Calling it a massacre distorts the reality and paints a distorted picture that is beneficial to the west and especially the current anti-China narrative.

    The fighting I mentioned above was also heavily instigated and pushed to happen by westerners with a vested interest in harming China who were there to rile up protesters and encourage them to do violence, but then left in helicopters when fighting did start. Some of these instigators have openly admitted this and now live happily in the US. It was not a "massacre."

    Come on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point. Otherwise you're just being pedantic that no one was killed within the square itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    It was not a "massacre."

    Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point.

    picard Even the title of the first article I posted is "There Was No 'Tiananmen Square Massacre'" It's in the url for chrissakes. This is beyond a failure of reading comprehension, it's a failure to even look at words.

    It was not. a. massacre. It is not at all pedantic to point this fact out. Especially when people, following a blatantly propagandist narrative line, incorrectly call it that.

    My choosing those two sources specifically among the thousands of others that was to point out how ridiculous it is to ban someone for "denying a massacre" when even mainstream western news sources (in addition to the BBC as was mentioned in the comment that caught that user the ban lol), including one of the most famous mouthpieces for the U.S. government's foreign policy, likewise "deny" that it was a massacre and likewise would have been banned according to the silly mod's standards. Those articles did not at all refute my point, they clearly made it, as should be obvious to anyone able to follow this thread.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is liberalism at its purest: absolutely no ideology or investigation, just a smug one liner and an unchecked source. You haven't read this book at all, otherwise you wouldn't be surprised by him saying there was no massacre in tiananmen square - Vijay states the same in the book, and speculates the army didn't fire a single shot to retake it from protestors.

    You are an absolutely fucking useless being who radiates pure ignorance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •