“Do your fucking dishes,” is my guess.

I love you and how you take the time to call out all of these comments.

Liberalism

Living rent-free in your mind. Kudos on your dedication to your community, but your time may be better spent on a different hobby. Maybe try reading “tankie” theory?

China bad! Yellow Peril!

Look, the commentor knows how to Google, but not well.

Every media source is biased, some are just open about their biases while others like to hide theirs. Take the time to read with a critical eye instead of dismissing the source because some website told you they couldn’t be trusted.

There are plenty of examples of mainstream, Western sources publishing absolute garbage, they just have better optics.

You were called a liberal because of your support of liberal governments, making it related to the topic. The holier-than-thou tone of your response highlights your lack of education on the relevant topics. Seeing as you think no one else provided any value to the discussion and you knowingly chose to contribute nothing of your own (is coat-tail time vampire an established term?) Let’s try to salvage something out of this thread. Beyond the derisive tone of this first paragraph, everything beyond is provided as a measure toward engaging in a good-faith conversation.

Why were you called a liberal and why would a communist see this as a fault? To add some clarity before the quote, communists usually apply the term “liberal” to what people in the US refer to as “conservatives” and “liberals.” They are lumped together due to their mutual support of liberalism and neoliberalism. The following quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Section 2.4. It does not fully answer the above question, but it will begin to give some context. Any additional clarification can be gained by reading further into Marxist theory.

In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation—essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties—and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility—for Marx, the fact—that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of liberal rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of feudalism and religious prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the ideas of non-alienated labour and meaningful community.

The only empire is the US empire and the way they talk about themselves as an empire, they’re proud of it too. Yell one-word feel-good slogans at them like “CHANGE”, “FREEDOM”, or “DEMOCRACY” and all the citizens shout and cheer because that’s what they’ve always been told to do.

Try sitting during the pledge, the singing of the national anthem, or insulting the military. The US empire will have none of that. Truly the land of the free.

Yes, too much capitalist oppression has poisoned my general tolerance of apologia for this type of garbage.

Ever heard of the Yellow Peril?

Please explain to me how it works then.

True, but you can also see that I clarified my statement in better detail after initially wording it poorly. You got me, I guess I’ll go rethink my entire worldview now.

I agree with you on both points, but that is not the argument that I was making. If you need some more context, Here’s just one of the many additional comments I left in this thread explaining my position.

FYI, citing the fact that the meme originated in China does not negate how it is used by others after the fact. It’s like arguing that when neonazis use the swastika, it’s ok because its actual origins are as an ancient religious symbol. The meanings of things can change and be used for reasons other than their original intention.

I’m not saying the meme is racist, I’m saying that it’s being used in a racist way here, specifically in the form of Sinophobia.

There’s plenty of more recent examples, but I’m not going to go to the effort to dig up more in a conversation where the majority of the replies I get boil down to “nuh-uh, I saw different online stupid tankie.”

If 2006 is the year that you landed on, I’ll again point you to the two specific names I dropped, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, both of whom experienced this with the US and allies more recently.

Do you see why I wouldn’t bother putting the effort into finding a better source? The low effort replies and baseless personal attacks are all over this thread. Even the people I gave the benefit of the doubt to while replying didn’t reply in good faith.

What do you feel like you’ve added to the conversation by trying to personally attack me? Does it feel good to attack someone behind the protection of anonymity? I wonder, if we did meet face-to-face, would you have the courage and strength of character to engage with me in a conversation as a fellow human worthy of respect despite our differences in belief or would you still hide behind weak, uninspiring insults as you have here?

Ah, the context of how you meant my username is ironic wasn’t clear.

Why do you think the CPC takes the influence of culture so seriously? Of course they are aware how culture can influence a revolution.

Not sure if that was meant as a gotcha? I thought it was obvious given the conversation so I assumed you meant my username was racist. My bad.

Again, read between the lines.

I’m a communist who likes cats and puns. If you can make a compelling argument for how celebrating Mao in the form of a cat pun has a basis in racism and the historical oppression of a people, I’m ready to change it.

The origin of the meme is not what I have issue with. The issue is with its use in Western countries and the history of how these countries stoke sinophobia. Criticism rooted in racism spills over into the mistreatment of people from the country that is the source of that racist sentiment in addition to foreigners.

If you aren’t familiar with the history of racism, go read up on it.

Read between the lines.

Culture has an impact on politics and can be the spark for sudden and violent political upheaval.

I think you misinterpreted part of what I’m saying. The use of the meme in Taiwan and Hong Kong were political dissent, not racism.

The use of the meme in NATO countries is racist due to their history of racism and because this is one of the tools these governments use to convince you that China is your enemy and you should support military actions against them before their military becomes stronger than that of the US and they lose their monopoly on international power and subsequently their power to bully the rest of the world.

Before you dismiss this argument by saying it’s just because Xi doesn’t like the meme, where did you get this information? From what I’ve seen the Chinese government has not responded and the reasoning behind the ban is purely speculative. Sure, I believe they banned the comparison as it was the basis of geopolitical dissent, but to claim it’s because a world leader who gets insulted frequently and in worse ways has thin skin is a stretch. He has bigger worries than Westerners tweeting at him.

If you want a tool to fight the power of dictators, you’d be better served focusing on organizing the citizens of your own country against the powers that work against their interests at home. They point you toward foreign leaders and say “look, they’re worse” so you won’t criticize the shit job your own “representatives” are doing at home.

Projecting much? Care to explain how it isn’t racist or damaging with an argument other than “nuh-uh”?