I have been a lurker here on lemmy for a while and I have hesitantly made an account because I wanted to create a post on politics.
I want to preface this by saying, I lived a childhood being indoctrinated on politics. I was constantly being told that free markets are the pinnacle of human intellect and that free markets (in literally an absolutist way on every aspect of life) is the only way that leads to progress. It honestly took me a while to challenge these beliefs with I attribute to Shaun and Hbomberguy on youtube, and eventually embrace leftist ideas in my personality.
When the recent drama regarding the Uighur muslims occured recently I was a bit let down. I have looked around and saw posts that I understand to be supportive of the CCP in China and other communist states.
So here is my question. Why? Even if we forget about the Uighur, what about the Tianamen square massacre? Is that also false information? China's tightening grip on hong kong despite being met with resistance from people of Hong Kong, is that also false information? The repercussions of Mao's leadership? The complete absence of gay and trans rights in modern day China? China being a police state? Is that all false propaganda?
If your answer might be that western states have also failed to protect the interests of common people, I agree. I think western states do see a resurgence of far right movements exactly for this reason. But this is not a comparison of who is the worst.
Why exactly do people here (at least that is what I perceive) turn a blind eye to the brutalities of an authoritarian government such as the CCP?
All extremists act the same way. They shelter themselves in a few strong beliefs, and hate whatever is different, different opinions, etc. Look at the nazis, fascists, communists, anarchists, this is all the same. This is why politics suck, because it's basically a mean for people to be divided, make clans and hate each other.
This sounds like an extreme strong political believe you hold that does not allow any nuance.
I'm an anarchist, and there are many communists I get well along with, except for the authoritarian branch of communism.
I guess I worded my sentence weirdly. If you get along with other people with a different mindset, then you're definitely not an extremist. What I criticize is extremism, not necessarily every ideology. The problem is when it becomes an extreme, that makes you hate others, etc.
How does a middle term that is not "extremist" apply to the animal slavery context (it is some quite ideological too)?
So your issue isn't about extremism, but with hating others just for being others? The ideology of facism is very much about that. Anarchists and anti-authoritarian communism are opposed to such, and actually wish that different concepts how to life can peacefully coexist.
The concept of extremism is strongly tight to a status quo bias, where you define a status quo as norm, and everyone who's strongly opposing it as extremists. If that is your definition I am an extremist.
That's true, but how do opposing ideologies deal with it? I see the exact same hate that the worst bigots express, so both are extremists for sure, and an extreme is never good by definition.
There are many means. Some of them are: Practicing mutual aid. Building spaces that try to be non-discriminant. Listing to marginalized people and learn to one can be supportive to their cause. Learning about structural oppression and how oneself takes part in upholding such and how one can undo that. Building mutual respectful relationships. But of course it also means to confront those who are discriminating especially if they aim to uphold/organize society in a way that brings huge risks for those they discriminate.
What remains true: humans aren't prefect. And we easily reproduce behavior that we actually wish to abolish. Machismo in antifa structures is a good example of such.
Do you notice that by your own definition, this statement is "never good" and so it is contradicting itself, because you present it as an extreme that does not allow other options. This means you don't argue based on logic but based on ideology, and I would argue an ideology that is by your definition extreme, because it is strongly opposing those ideas you call to be extreme.
This is not my definition, extreme means what it means, it's right at the edge.
What I'm saying is that you are at such an edge.
Fair, that's your opinion. You won't see me praising any political opinion though, so I really don't consider myself an extremist but whatever.