I honestly think we are in agreement on most of the details here, but though I reject the US propaganda stating that a massacre of tens of thousands of peaceful protestors took place I remain skeptical of the Chinese state’s claims that the PLA was entirely unarmed prior to June 4th, that only around 300 people died (most of which were soldiers), and that the student protestors were the instigators in every case of violence.

First and foremost, however, I take issue with the ongoing censorship of all discussion of the events surrounding the protests in Tiananmen Square. I’m sympathetic to the goal of combating disinformation, but the simple fact that we could not be having this discussion if we were in China is one of the reasons it’s so difficult to overcome the US propaganda surrounding these events. If the only counter-narrative Americans have access to is the official narrative presented by the CCP it’s nearly impossible to get through to them with the truth.

Saying this as an American myself who had great difficulty trying to unravel what actually happened in Tiananmen Square and who still has a lot of skepticism towards the very simplistic narratives I keep seeing parroted around by those on either side of the issue.

Western media has an incentive to exaggerate, China has an incentive to downplay. Perhaps the truth which lies somewhere in between would be easier to arrive at if China didn’t heavily censor all discussion of the events.

I think about what happened in Tiananmen Square with equal revulsion as I do for, say, the battle at Blair Mountain, and I approach the topics with equal caution in determining the details. You seem to have no such caution with regard to the Chinese state narrative of what occurred in Tiananmen Square.

You can acknowledge that the narrative presented by western media about these events is exaggerated without going full tilt into denial.

Something did happen in Tiananmen Square. People were killed. The government of China does censor discussion of the events.

These are facts, and when you try to deny them it only reveals that you are more concerned with protecting your worldview than with adhering to the truth.

I disagree with those comments, but they seem pretty mild to have been banned. I just don’t see how it’s productive to ban all liberals the moment they try to explain their views. All that does is push people away who could potentially have been a future ally.