I was going to make a joke then I saw you have awesome boobs so I'm going to agree with you instead.
I'd say that this level of fragility re long dead people is transparently pathetic and emblematic of nationalized insecurity. It is true it's good for people to have positive views of their founders, but getting this worked up about a definitionally correct comment is insane.
China doesn't care about the Streisand effect or what you think about them.
The only thing they care about is sending the following message:
"If you fuck around with our founder myths you gonna find out"
Israel does the same.
Remember when Elon criticised them and had to immediately wear a Jewish hat fly over to the holocaust memorial and apologize the very next day?
Great powers like China and Israel become and stay great because they don't take no shit from nobody in things that matter.
Formerly great powers like America and Germany collapse over time because they start hating themselves instead of honoring their ancestors.
It’s not a big deal but one thing that annoys me about him is the way he tries to be relatable. Like what he’s discussing is a common thing in immigrant communities but like his parents were professors and engineers for major automotive companies lol.
Aesthetically, and thematically they’re obviously brilliant. No one’s ever really contested that. The problem is the writing was pretty awful at times making it unintentionally goofy. I love these movies though.
It’s so funny how all the responses to OPs tweet have literally nothing to do with what he said.
They always go to these “tyranny of capital” arguments as though people with money having an outsized influence is at all equivalent to the actual state determining what you’re allowed to say, do, and see in every aspect of life.
The distinction between party and personalist dictatorships is a funny line to draw to me in the case of china as it's unclear to me how that distinction even matters anymore or under Mao.
Harry 🧙🏻♂️ retweeted
姆巴佩这件事整场闹剧都让我觉得恶心。
一个球员笑着聊了个表情包,说了一句“中国独裁者”,然后品牌解约、央视停播,最后还要用三种语言道歉。这个反应的规模本身就够丢人了,政治权威到底要脆弱到什么程度,一个关于已故领导人的玩笑,都能被搞成一场举国声讨?
人们可以嘲讽马克龙,也可以嘲讽特朗普。做了政治人物,本来就意味着你的决定、你的人品、你留下的历史都应该接受质疑。凭什么中国的领导人就能例外?
而且就算他不是在开玩笑,本身又有什么错?毛的统治造成过巨大的苦难,有人失去生命,有人家破人亡,有人的一生就这样被毁掉。为什么他的名声需要被所有人如此小心地维护,那些受过苦的人却未必能自由讲述自己的经历?到底谁的尊严更重要?
这件事里最冒犯人的假设,就是一个领导人仿佛拥有了所有人的身份。说他一句,就等于侮辱所有人。这对权力来说实在太方便了:把一个人裹进国旗,把批评变成背叛,再让普通人以为,维护他不被质疑,就是在维护自己。
还有那些谴责原话、却拒绝翻译原话的媒体。原来公众有资格被告知应该多愤怒,却没有资格听完一句话,自己判断。
仔细想想真的荒唐,人们被动员去谴责一件连看清楚都不被允许的事。 等不同的声音被过滤掉,再把剩下的愤怒举起来,宣称所有中国人都这么想。你不能先堵住反对的嘴,再把堵出来的安静当成众志成城。
他以前表达过的善意,似乎也一文不值了。疫情期间,他录视频支持中国。看到球迷举着我来自中国的牌子,他会走过去签名。现在一个玩笑,就能把这些全抹掉,就能证明他仇视中国人。这样对待一个人,真的很难看:你所有的善意都附带一个条件——永远不能碰政治禁忌。
何况,他本来也不需要先做够多少好事,才配拥有说话的权利。而一个人在巨大的商业压力下道歉,又能证明什么?能证明他理应道歉,还是只能证明,不道歉的代价实在太大?
对独裁者这个词的回应,更是讽刺得难堪。别人说了一句,接下来的答案就是禁言、限制讨论、要求大家一起谴责。这到底怎么能让那个形容显得更没有道理?
让我如此愤怒的是这一切太熟悉了。不要提名字。换几个字。调整语序。删掉评论。到最后,都不用别人动手,你自己先审查自己。
然后,这些恐惧还要被包装成一片和谐。
我没有义务按照指令愤怒,没有义务崇敬一个已经去世的领导人,也拒绝因为某些有权有势的机构坚持这么说,就把压制正常表达叫作尊重。
Girl: stop
Boy: *stops*
Girl: what did he mean by that
Why don’t men understand that sometimes a girl says stop because she wants you to take the lead? We were making out on the bed, MUMU tried reaching for my pants, and I told him to stop. I wasn’t even struggling with him. This CLOWN actually stopped and ruined my whole mood. DOG , YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO READ THE ROOM.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This meets the legal definition of sexual assault in many countries: sexual contact without consent.
justice.gov/ovw/sexual-ass…
police.uk/ro/report/rsa/…
eige.europa.eu/gender-based-v…
Last thing I’ll say about the Mao discourse is that people seem to be under the impression that his death count was all wealthy people but the vast majority were the exact opposite. Poor peasants starving in rural areas made up the vast majority of deaths.
Modern China is notably anti imperialist 😭
















