Social liberal is the center. Liberal is centre-right to right-wing.

That’s something only an idiot would use on his suitcase.

They didn’t “fight back”. They killed before any military action was taken.
It was a violent attack. It was an actual attempt to insurgency, rather than the Jan 6 revolt.

Only after the rioters killed over a 100 soldiers was military action taken.
Only after scores of soldiers dead,
did the military enter the street where the killings took place and did Chinese military kill the insurgents that killed their soldiers.
And during this time the protesters from the square were evacuated due to heavy violence from this one group of rioters.

What happened during Jan 6 was that the rioters all left the Capitol when the military arrived.
The rioters of 1989 did not.

The Jan 6 insurgents were more peaceful than the 1989 Tianenmen Square insurgents.

That’s because at least before any other student group decided to storm government buildings which was rumored to happen despite there already many police and soldiers present, one group of “peaceful” protesters decided to kill over 100 soldiers on the same street and one day before tank man decided to jump on a tank.

The “peaceful protest” was far more violent than the Jan 6 US insurgency was, since the US insurgents did not have such a violent group among them.

That happened in 1989.

It was the Capitol Hill Jan 6 insurgency or the similar Hong Kong 2019 insurgency but got way way more aggressive before any military action or counteraction was taken.

What Jan 6 and Tianenmen square share though is that once the insurgency took place the military was called in, but during the Jan 6 Capitol Hill riots, the rioters Capitol Hill rioters actually all left, not wanting to confront the military, while at least some of the Chinese insurgents on the street stayed and died fighting, while people on the square were peacefully evacuated.

Calling an insurgency a peaceful protest is indeed revisionist if one were to do so.

And calling a revolt an insurgency and calling insurgency where rioters kill over 100 soldiers a peaceful protest with counteraction against such insurgency a massacre is also quite the revisionism.

The timeline of Tianenmen 1989 is

• large continuing peaceful protests for US-controlled school education
• groups of students or “students” killing soldiers on the street
• evacuating peaceful protesters from the square + soldiers killing insurgents still active on the street
• train station incident, unrelated protesters block soldiers with strict orders from entering train
• tanks arrive on square and start patrolling the streets
• Man with shopping bags stops tank on the same street the soldiers and insurgents were killed, then jumps on it, other students drag him off the tank and away.

One group of students or “students” killed at least 100 soldiers before any violent counteractions or actions were taken by the military and that’s part of the 300 killed. The situation is very similar since such scenario could have happened if part of the Jan 6 rioters organized to inflict more violence and decided to stay after the storming and convinced part of the rioters to stay as well.

Calling the 1989 incidence in Beijing the Tianenmen Square Massacre is like calling the 2021 incidence in Washington D.C. The Freedom Plaza Killings where the Democratic Party ruthlessly slaughtered innocent civilians after a peaceful protest, with the exception that the protesters in 2021 were more reasonable and less violent than the rioters in Beijing. Especially for the fact that when Washington decided to send the military in, the Jan 6 rioters did not decide to stay and try to block the US military from entering the Capitol or Plaza.

I won’t be surprised to eventually see an actual equivalent type (demands from pro-palestine protesters for educational reforms) of protest happening in the US with far higher causalties as a result.

It will happen in a few years from now.

Are you in favor of wages above 0?

Are you sure it’s not 248 years?

What concerns would those be, that the few US chip companies would have to be compete again?