memes

For sure. That's why I'd prefer not to make an obvious blunder out the gate. The point of these kinds of memes (as agitation) is to create an opening to talk about these things. Whatever you say will have more of an impact if the first response isn't some nitpicking asshole with an actual valid argument.
The nitpicking asshole will be present no matter what, but if they look reasonable, then your job will be that much harder.

edit: to expand on my point and to build off what @UmbraVivi@hexbear.net wrote: Propaganda for the masses through memes function in two ways in my mind - They create public discussions, where you're not arguing with any specific person, but rather proselytising to the reading audience. In that case you will get further if the other person does not appear as reasonable, which they will if they point out the meme is blatantly false (even if the actual argument the meme presents is completely valid.)
The other case is sort of like advertising, where the meme itself isn't super important, it's just there to build up a sort of brand identity of thoughts. In that case it's also not a good idea to present something that can be easily dismissed the first time the hypothetical thinker tries talking politics with someone who has read a little bit about stuff (China sucking ass with the sino-soviet split isn't the biggest of secrets, there's a good deal of chuds that know of it too. All ideologies have low-effort dunks).
If that's the case they'll either realise they're mistaken or they'll get mad, neither of which fosters anything productive.

This is not to say you have to "high-road" it or be completely correct or write a massive dissertation - None of that is necessary (or for the latter conductive) for good agitprop. I'm just saying making an obviously incorrect statement an integral part of your propaganda isn't a good idea.

I think you're both right, it depends a lot on who you're talking to. If you're in a public debate against someone who might've done their homework, they could make you look like an idiot with this. But if you're posting sth like this on facebook or whatever, the masses are just gonna see this and not question it very much.

Okay coming at you with less hostility: What do you think you know about Tibet? What have you actually researched - Not just picked up from a 9 year old Last Week Tonight video or some newspaper article sourcing second-hand anonymous sources, but what do you actually know about Tibet? How specifically are tibetans being oppressed by the chinese government? What was Tibet like before the revolution?

I'm going to steal an excerpt from a book (both book and excerpt was pointed out to me by @Cowbee@lemmy.ml in a comment a long time ago) and share them with you. I hope they actually encourage you to look into things instead of blindly trusting the propaganda that surrounds us.

Two excerpts from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:

Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.” [12]

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. [13] Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” [14] In fact it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeatedremoved, beginning at age nine. [15] The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. [16] The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care. They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord’s land — or the monastery’s land — without pay, to repair the lord’s houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. [17] Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. [18]

As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf’s maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” [19] Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed. [20]

The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery. [21]

The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Selection two, shorter: (CW sexual violence and mutilation)

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. [22]

Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.” [23] Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. [24]

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who wasremovedd and then had her nose sliced away. [25]

Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W. F. T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. […] The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.” [26] As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri-La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.

edit: I would also encourage you to look at how tibetans (and other non-han ethnicities) are treated by the chinese government and compare it to how the US or the EU treats regions with ethnic minorities. One simple example: Tibetan is the language used in schools in Tibet. The same cannot be said for native american tribes in the US.

Hexbear does have communists, yes. As @BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net pointed out, Tibet waa a feudal slave society that the PLA aided in liberating. China has made missteps, but liberating the slaves and serfs from Tibet was not one of them.

The situation in Tibet was as described. The lamas kept serfs which are slaves. They did everything you'd expect medieval pieces of shit to do, including the things Epstein did on that island.

Lmao "oh no my uneducated notions about the world are challenged!" Go back to your echo chamber.
Tibetans being serfs to the Dalai Lama is surface-level knowledge, so common that even wikipedia, as biased as it is, has to acknowledge it.

If you're going to chime in on a discussion, then you need to do a basic level of investigation first or at least have the humility to acknowledge your deficiency when it is pointed out.
In better words: no investigation, no right to speak

Fuck off lib

You should really dispel yourself of this strange "tankie" notion you have. You're only alienating your allies, and getting nothing but barbarism in return. Also, give BanMeFromPosting's reply a read, it's full of real history you should take the time to learn.