482
And the other is an image of some tanks (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
439 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Do you have a source for your estimate of deaths? 100+ is very ambiguous since it includes any number >100, which seems already beyond contention.

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

    Probably the official CPC figure of 241 killed in total. Most of the serious estimates broadly agree - NSA said 180-500, and the Tiananmen Mothers organisation have identified 198 of the dead.

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

    Since we're evidently reading the same Wikipedia article, I'll point out that those are among the lowest estimates on the page and the Beijing hospital record was 478 dead and 920 wounded.

    But these are all very different numbers from what was commented.

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

    Well if you're already reading a wiki article I'm not sure how you'd have trouble matching the source. As I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong, but you're making it sound like you're just here to JAQ off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    IDK why you're trying to source someone else's comment for them, but if you read the comment and the wiki you would see that they are not in agreement.

    This is why I asked for their source. Sorry if you find that offensive for some reason lol

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

    Correct, as I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong because they are working off memory, but it's not difficult to link the numbers - they mistook the police and army as having the same number of deaths as civilian protestors rather than student protestors, but the total roughly matches and there's only one source that makes that specific distinction between groups rather than a general guess at a total. I don't understand why you're so upset about being told the source after asking for the source.

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

    So just to clarify, you think that:

    1.) you can provide the correct source for another person's statement

    2.) what you posted qualifies as a source even though you did not give one

    3.) it's OK if the statement does not agree with the source

    4.) you can justify your misattribution by cherry-picking a number that "roughly" agrees if you massage it

    Bruh.

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

    1. Yes? I'm confused, is there no subject you're familiar enough with to recognise sources?

    2. Yes it does, it doesn't qualify as a reference, but luckily you're looking at the Wikipedia page so you can just click it instead.

    3. Yes, people make mistakes, but luckily sometimes other people like me are around to correct them.

    4. No, I can justify my attributionby the fact that there's only one (1) source that lists the dead by faction, the numbers just show how they misremembered the specifics of the source.

    This isn't some complex chain of advanced logic, I really don't understand what you're having trouble with.

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

    Well, it's true that this is very simple. I wanted the poster's source -- if there is one. Unless you're claiming to be them, you don't have that information.

    But since you seem very interested, do you personally think the CCP death estimate you keep presenting is accurate?

    You say the commenter above was wrong, but your tone suggests you still agree with them. Do you believe the rest of their narrative that student protestors were peacefully dispersed in song by the unarmed army choir?

    Do you recognize that CPC has a conflict of interest in providing accurate information about this, and that they continue to censor information about it to this day?

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

    OH what a surprise, it DOES turn out you were just here to JAQ off all along. You're as easy to see through as folahts' source is to find.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Lol I finally ask something you're qualified to answer and suddenly you have no opinion.

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

    You could have just asked those questions 3 days ago when you got the source, why are you upset about being treated with the same respect you give?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Do they look like equivalent questions to you?

    A source might give evidence for something that happened in the real world, while these last questions were about what goes on in that silly head of yours.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent