Date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, with government using increasingly sophisticated tools to censor its discussion

Date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, with government using increasingly sophisticated tools to censor its discussion

There is no official death toll but activists believe hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed by China’s People’s Liberation Army in the streets around Tiananmen Square, Beijing’s central plaza, on 4 June 1989.

The date of 4 June remains one of China’s strictest taboos, and the Chinese government employs extensive and increasingly sophisticated resources to censor any discussion or acknowledgment of it inside China. Internet censors scrub even the most obscure references to the date from online spaces, and activists in China are often put under increased surveillance or sent on enforced “holidays” away from Beijing.

New research from human rights workers has found that the sensitive date also sees heightened transnational repression of Chinese government critics overseas by the government and its proxies.

  • @stopgermanizerz@endlesstalk.orgEnglish
    1•3 days ago

    Sometime whataboutism is warranted, when the pot is calling the kettle black.

    Kinda like a guy calling archlinux nazi is a godwin point. Calling a genocidal state nazi is just an accurate description.

    • @Gorilladrums@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•3 days ago

      When Whataboutism is Fallacious:

      • Tu Quoque Fallacy – Uses whataboutism to dismiss criticism instead of addressing the issue itself.
      • Red Herring Fallacy – Introduces an unrelated comparison to distract from the original argument.
      • Ad Hominem Fallacy (only in certain cases) – Uses whataboutism to undermine the credibility of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
      • Two Wrongs Make a Right – Suggests that an action is acceptable because others have done it.
      • Argumentum ad Populum – Justifies a behavior by implying it’s acceptable because many others do the same.

      When Whataboutism is NOT Fallacious:

      • Exposes Hypocrisy – Highlights inconsistencies in judgment or double standards.
      • Provides Relevant Context – Uses other examples to enhance understanding of the issue rather than deflecting.
      • Challenges Selective Outrage – Points out biased criticism when similar actions are ignored elsewhere.

      So while you’re right that there are cases when it’s a valid argument, this is not one of those cases. In this case, OP of this comment thread didn’t provide an argument or add context or even made a point. Their whataboutism goes through fallacies like a check list. Therefore, their usage is fallacious in this case.