[yorwba]

The problem with hearing the other side is of course that most people are more concerned with reaching the correct value judgment (imprisoning innocent Uyghurs is bad, killing innocent protesters is bad) than with reaching it based on accurate information.

If you tell someone who believes that thousands of people died directly on Tiananmen Square and were crushed to pieces by tanks, correcting them by pointing out that actually

> ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS ANY LARGE SCALE SHOOTINGS ON THE SQUARE PROPER, GALLO SAW MANY CASUALTIES BROUGHT INTO THE SQUARE AND DID NOT DOUBT THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN BEIJING WERE KILLED BY THE ARMY ON JUNE 3 AND 4.

that's not going to affect their value judgment (the numbers are smaller, people weren't killed on the square itself but elsewhere, who cares, it's still bad) and most likely they'll soon forget those details and keep telling their original story, because, well, it's just a much more visceral image.

[xupybd]

It's also the the information about these events is so hidden. The govt admits no wrong and hides all evidence to the contrary. For that alone I prefer to err on the side of these events being pretty bad.

Also having known an eye witness to Tiananmen square, I'm confident it was bad. Really bad. If he were to get caught talking about it, things would be really bad for him too. So you won't find many witnesses willing to talk.

[lucian1900]

No one claims there were no deaths. US-backed counter revolutions often involve violence, regardless of the self-restraint of the state being attacked. What exactly should the army do after several of its unarmed soldiers were killed by the “protesters”?