I have only been a member of this forum for a few days, and I have already been subjected to such unfair treatment. I feel indignant and believe that the members of this forum have not followed Chairman Mao’s words in “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”: “Punish the evil and promote the good, cure the disease and save the patient.”
At the beginning, many comrades suggested I share my personal history. Out of trust in comrades, I spoke honestly without reservation, but I did not expect to be caught out. I admit I have sexual thoughts, but social existence determines social consciousness. All of you male comrades here, who can guarantee that they have never been involved with anything yellow in their lives? Maybe it’s just one in ten thousand. As for the so-called male chauvinist ideas, I only admit that there are remnants in my worldview, and I do not consider it a major issue. If I were seriously male chauvinist, why would I promote women’s liberation to my classmates? Why would I write articles every year commemorating International Women’s Day? Why would I express hope for the women’s liberation movement to a female comrade on her birthday? Why would I learn about Luxemburg, Kollontai, and Krupskaya, the pioneers of the women’s liberation movement? Why would I discuss with classmates why fewer male comrades participate in the women’s liberation movement?
Gender inequality varies by region, which is an inevitable result of different development levels. Comrades, ask the comrades in Chongqing, are there sayings like “picking ears” or “mother old man”? Compared to other provinces, women’s status in Chongqing is higher. Is there something special about the women’s liberation movement here? In my family, my sister can beat me at home, my grandmother can casually criticize grandpa for being lazy, and grandpa tolerates it. Before transferring to middle school or high school, many girls in my class could freely hit boys or pull their ears. I have never denied gender oppression, but we need to recognize its particularities. Therefore, Comrade Fenghuo said I cannot agree with the idea that I deny gender oppression. On what basis do you deny my small contribution to the women’s liberation movement?
When I was young, I had male chauvinist thoughts, but those are in the past—immature ideas before I was 12. Do comrades also want to dig up old issues? If I were to bring up everyone’s old issues, I wonder how high the pile would be.
It’s not my empiricism, nor is it about seniority. I started promoting communism and serving the people at 13 or 14. When I was a labor committee member, I was the last to leave every day, did the most cleaning, and participated voluntarily in the weekly cleaning about once every three weeks. I am from the city, but I went to the countryside to farm at 14, during the summer vacation of that year. I also started working as a waiter during summer breaks at 14. Even when I was tormented by studies, teachers, and misunderstood by classmates, I persisted. Lenin’s words, “As long as revolutionaries have a breath left, even if it’s just to write an article or a statement, they have no right to commit suicide,” inspired me. Marx once said in his youth, “When facing our ashes, noble people will shed tears,” which made me feel that even if I sacrificed my life for the revolution, I would do so willingly.
How do you think my diagnosed severe bipolar disorder came about? Even if you know my childhood was unfortunate and I have mental illness, you still say I am “arrogant to the extreme.” If I need to apologize for speaking about artificial intelligence, should you not apologize for insulting my personality? I still remember a classmate in high school who said that the bourgeois weapons are too powerful, and now with artificial intelligence, how can revolution succeed? I thought about it for a week and finally answered him that the capitalist mode of production is no longer suitable for the development of productive forces; the economic base determines the superstructure, and the totality of production relations has collapsed. The armed forces, as part of the superstructure, will naturally collapse too. I distributed a speech draft of “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” among my classmates. Even when online criticism of the “net left” began, I still posted comments urging comrades to handle the contradictions among the people well, not to ridicule or mock. Why can’t you see my main point? Since 2021, I’ve seen too many people pessimistic about the revolution. A good friend of mine finally said, “Although I know communism is good, I would rather be exploited by capitalists for a few years and live a life of pleasure and decadence than fight for communism for decades.” Look at my life—whether in the canteen or at home, since I can remember, I have not wasted a grain of rice except in special circumstances. I remember my grandmother’s teachings. My water cup, paint almost worn out, the lid missing a hole; my pencil case, with frayed strings, replaced only when unusable; a napkin I tore in half to use.
At first, I didn’t quite understand the comrades. Honestly, what’s wrong with that? Doing so only makes people who join the forum gloss over their mistakes, sneak in, and corrupt the revolutionary camp. I know the primitive society had three stages, with the matriarchal society lasting longer, but when I review history, I also find that primitive humans did seek strong women with large breasts to bear children. Maybe I remember wrong, or the records are inaccurate. The pursuit of “beauty” is a product of class society, no problem with that. We can only try to overcome it now; it’s impossible to eradicate this consciousness entirely. Later, for the overall situation and unity with comrades, I chose to admit my mistakes, but I was accused of being slippery. Comrade Fenghuo called it “cunning.” What should I do? Fight against you to the end? Please try to see it from my perspective—“sit on the bench and turn around.” A left-behind child, subjected to domestic violence, school bullying, and mental illness, how hard it is to survive to this day, yet still able to promote communism and integrate into the proletariat without wavering in faith. I have already deleted all comics and records. I admit I have sexual thoughts. I deny that my mind is invaded by male chauvinist ideas!
Let me repeat: my sister is currently a doctoral student, with independent economic thoughts. Even my hot-tempered grandfather respects her. Her status in my family is second only to my grandfather. I was exposed to pornography novels at 13, later learned to watch videos, downloaded from Forbidden Manga Heaven at 16, and have since deleted everything. I can’t explain why I argue with you. Why can Comrade Fenghuo mock my misspelling of “Marx” in English, which I only saw in seventh grade, but not allow me to say that you can’t tell the difference between the uppercase and lowercase “King”? I know what you want to say—maybe I have a hierarchical mindset, like “King,” but my surname is actually Jin. I have already recounted my experiences with domestic violence, school bullying, and being a left-behind child. I’ve said everything I can.
Summary: I admit my serious sexual thoughts and have taken measures, and I will continue to do so. I oppose being labeled as male chauvinist; I admit there are remnants of male chauvinist ideas in my mind. I think comrades are not yet familiar with handling contradictions among the people, which has a “cruel struggle, ruthless attack” flavor. If I were playing double standards, I wouldn’t have said I had thoughts of prostitution. I also said long ago that my theoretical level is low. Who has time to study theory at 18, busy with opportunistic studies? Why should I switch perspectives and understand you, who still have to go to work? Why not understand me, who bears mental illness, domestic violence, school bullying, and being a left-behind child? I painstakingly found an organization, thinking I could fight the revolution with comrades. I thought I finally found like-minded people, but what did I get? Disappointment. Even people like Xu Xiangqian and Chen Yi, if Mao Zedong had instructed them to do a public self-criticism, it would have ended there. Could I still be a capitalist roader? If I were a capitalist roader, I wouldn’t betray my class. “Punish the evil and promote the good, cure the disease and save the patient”—this is always in my ears, comrades.
I strongly agree with articles like “The Zhongwei Revolution,” which hit the nail on the head. I only joined the forum after reading it. Comrade Fenghuo’s hasty conclusion about me is not cautious. Many of your comments below are things I disagree with. You think too poorly of an honest comrade.
The King of Symbols, your so-called “cannon fire at the headquarters,” is essentially not “appeal,” but revision: you forcibly present the entire process of spreading male chauvinist poison, sophistry, slandering comrades, and refusing to explain as “I have been unfairly treated.” This is not a discussion of “learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones and treating the illness to save people,” but you are just making excuses for yourself and trying to legitimize male chauvinist and pornographic ideas.
Let me clarify the process to prevent you from continuing to distort facts.
1. What exactly happened?
- When you first came to the forum to do a “self-introduction,” it wasn’t because someone “caught you out,” but because you wrote a whole set of excuses to justify male chauvinist and pornographic ideas:
- Explaining your prejudice against women and obsession with pornographic literature as “I was bullied by my sister/girlfriend, so I naturally behave this way.”
- Packaging your interest in young girls’ images as “finding them cute” and “normal appreciation.”
When these words came out, comrades were angry and fought back, not because you “admitted mistakes,” but because you treated oppressive thoughts about women as defendable and rationalizable viewpoints.
- After comrades criticized you, instead of immediately admitting fault and explaining, you sophistically argued:
- Denying the reality of gender oppression, describing patriarchy as “women in Chongqing have high status” or using folk sayings like “paternal grandmother.”
- Using primitive biological determinism like “primitive humans mating with women with large breasts” to excuse yourself.
- Repeatedly claiming “I didn’t buy porn skins” or “I posted about March 8th,” as evidence of “I am not male chauvinist.”
- After the debate was exposed, you did the most despicable thing: slandering comrades as ‘CCP Revisionists AI’.
This is not “paranoia,” but after being hurt, you want to blow up the scene with a single sentence:
“Anyway, you can’t be trusted, all fake, so I don’t need to explain.”
Comrades asked you to clarify, and you started shifting the topic to nickname casing, continuing to evade.
- Your current “big-character poster” is a counterattack based on the above:
- Turning criticism into “cruel struggle and ruthless attack”
- Claiming your sophistry, insults, and revision as “honest words” and “being caught out”
- Framing comrades’ exposure of your male chauvinist and pornographic thoughts as “humiliating your personality,” forcing everyone to apologize to you.
Therefore, who is “slandering and framing”? You yourself know very well.
2. Point-by-point rebuttal of the core fallacies in your “big-character poster”
1) “Everyone has looked at porn, so you shouldn’t criticize me”
This sentence is thug logic.
There is indeed a lot of yellow trash in capitalist society, which precisely shows that: Marxists must be more vigilant, more resolute, and more ruthless in fighting against such things, rather than using “pervasiveness” as an excuse.
More importantly: you are not simply “admitting to having looked at porn.” What you reveal is—treating pornography and male chauvinism as a worldview that can be rationalized and defended.
Criticism from comrades is not about “you made mistakes in the past,” but about: you are still trying to justify errors and uphold wrong ideas now.
2) “I posted about March 8th and know Colonté, so I am not male chauvinist”
This is a typical petty bourgeoisie using politics as decoration:
- Posting a few words on March 8th does not mean standing on the side of oppressed women;
- Knowing a few names does not mean understanding women’s liberation;
- Saying “wishing women liberation” to female classmates while engaging in objectification and pedophilic tendencies in pornographic literature—that’s verbal revolution, physical surrender.
Your problem is right here:
You treat “women’s liberation” as a moral label, sticking it on yourself to continue hiding your male chauvinist and pornographic private agenda.
This is why comrades say you have a “red skin and white heart.”
3) “Chongqing Paternal Grandma, Old Mother-in-law, so women are not disadvantaged”
This sentence reveals that your understanding of patriarchy is almost zero.
“Paternal Grandma” and “Old Mother-in-law” are folk jokes, internal family teasing language, not production relations or social systems.
You use a few catchy sayings to deny the systemic oppression of women in labor, marriage, sexuality, domestic work, and violence—this is using folk customs to cover class relations, using individual phenomena to deny the overall structure.
Not to mention, you even use “my sister can beat me” to defend male chauvinism.
Even if your sister really hit you—being bullied by a specific person does not naturally lead to hatred of all women; only someone who wants to become a new oppressor would do that.
Someone truly standing on the oppressed side would oppose oppression itself, sympathize with all oppressed people, and not use oppression as an excuse to oppress others.
4) “You insult my personality, you owe me an apology”
You are again shifting the contradiction.
Comrades insulting you as “arrogant” and “cunning” are targeting your political attitude of spreading male chauvinist poison, sophistry, slander against comrades, not your “history of mental illness” or “unfortunate childhood.”
Now you pull out your personal illness and suffering as a shield, forcing the masses to be silent—that’s using personal suffering as political privilege.
In the revolutionary team, many have suffered. No one can then go around spreading poison and expect the masses to tolerate it.
What you should tolerate are not your own issues, but those women workers who are truly oppressed—your words are directly adding salt to their wounds.
5) “I have explained everything, I have said all I can”
No, you haven’t. The most critical things you haven’t said, or you said them but in a perfunctory way:
- Why did you stubbornly argue in the debate? What are your true thoughts?
- Why did you slander comrades as AI? What effect were you trying to achieve?
- What is your attitude towards young girls’ images and pornographic games? How did you package them as “cute” and “appreciate”?
- Now you say “delete the software and delete the records,” but that’s just an action. How do you clear your ideological roots? How will you accept disciplinary constraints? How will you accept mass supervision?
If you do not answer these, but only repeat “I admit pornographic thoughts are serious but I am not male chauvinist,” that is the core of revision:
You want to preserve a bottom line—“male chauvinism is not a big problem.”
We tell you: that bottom line is a reactionary stance.
3. What does “treat the disease and save the patient” mean? You most need this now.
“Treat the disease and save the patient” does not mean flattering you, flattering you, or letting you pass comfortably;
“Treat the disease and save the patient” means uprooting the poison, making you hurt, losing face, and reforming under the supervision of the masses.
Your biggest problems now are not “looking at porn in the past,” but three points:
- Not standing on the side of oppressed women and downplaying male chauvinism as “residual”;
- Reversing after criticism, turning the mass struggle into “unfair treatment”;
- Treating the organization as an emotional refuge, demanding comrades to accommodate your fragility, and asking for criticism to be “gentler.”
Revolution is not psychological massage.
The organization is not a place for you to find echo chambers, approval, or comfort.
If you want to stay, you must show a real attitude: not writing “big-character posters” to seek justice, but doing self-criticism, explaining clearly, accepting supervision, and proving with actions.
4. One last clear statement: what you need to do now.
You are not here to “cannon fire at the headquarters,” but to “rewrite the case.”
The path we give you now is very clear:
- Withdraw this distorted big-character poster and admit that you are revising the case and attacking the masses;
- Write clearly on four issues:
- How male chauvinist thoughts are formed, justified, and operate in your mind;
- How pornographic thoughts develop and how they combine with male chauvinism;
- Your specific psychology and motives when slandering comrades as AI;
- How you plan to reform: how to abide by discipline, how to study and make up for it, how to do labor, and how to accept re-education on women’s liberation stance.
- Put aside self-glorification like “I have contributions” and “I am not easy.”
In the revolutionary team, it is not about how many beautiful words you have spoken, but whether you can pull yourself out of the mindset of oppressors.
If you want to be a revolutionary comrade, follow this set;
If you want to be a “innocent good person” who has suffered grievances, then continue writing this kind of big-character poster, which can only prove that you are still standing on the male chauvinist side and still opposing the mass line.
The universality of contradictions is the commonality of contradictions, and the particularity of contradictions is their individuality. The particularity of contradictions manifests in various forms: different forms of material movement, different developmental processes, contradictions at various stages of development, and aspects of contradictions in each process and stage—all have their particularities. The particularity of contradictions is conditional and relative. Universality exists within particularity, and particularity contains universality. You say that in Chongqing there are sayings like “Pā’ěrduǒ” or “Mā lǎo hàn,” but similar sayings exist in my region of Shanghai as well, such as Shanghai men being afraid of their wives, even using small baskets to shell beans. But how does this particularity form? Fundamentally, women are still household slaves; it’s just that the forms differ. In the family, women mainly do housework, cook, and take care of children. Women’s labor is regarded as reasonable, unpaid contribution—just cursed at with “lazy” words. But in reality, those bought with bride price, used as sexual tools and household slaves, and subjected to sexual assault—aren’t they still women? Moreover, you speak as if Chongqing is an independent kingdom. Isn’t Chongqing under the influence of the Chinese revisionist capitalist social system? A simple search can find news cases: 14岁女孩被曝遭辅导班老师性侵怀孕，其父报警！男子被刑拘
重庆女孩陪领导赴宴遭暴力性侵致死 施暴者已被批捕——人民政协网
重庆通报52岁女子遭10年家暴维权：女儿曾下跪求别离婚_腾讯新闻
申请保护令当晚遭受最严重暴力 “两年十六次家暴案”受害者发声
7·13重庆女子打出租车遭司机猥亵事件_百度百科
So, you say, “In my family, my sister can abuse me physically, my grandmother can freely criticize my grandfather for being lazy, and the grandfather endures it. Before transferring schools in elementary, middle, or even high school, many girls in the class could freely slap boys and pull their ears.” Then, may I ask, if women in Chongqing have such high status, why are they still subjected to sexual assault? Why are they beaten at home? The behaviors you mention—slapping, pulling ears—do not analyze the class nature of students in schools. For example, female capitalists can also oppress male workers, but does that mean women’s status is higher than men’s? Ultimately, gender oppression is still class oppression. Because women in capitalist society are economically, politically, and culturally oppressed, marginalized, and discriminated against. The examples you mention are not manifestations of the particularity of gender oppression; women in Chongqing are still excluded from work, face greater difficulty in employment, earn lower wages than men, face discrimination in social views, are scrutinized on the street, secretly filmed in toilets and hotels, and subjected to sexual harassment and bourgeois aesthetic oppression.
I looked into this character “Laffey,” and in the post itself, the picture already shows extremely revealing clothing, exposing her body for the lewd fantasies and sexual gazes of the men below. Her voice line even says something like “Laffey, the transformation is complete, I feel a surge of motivation, I will work even harder in the future, probably… um, Commander, be more serious, don’t start by touching my ears…”
Physical contact, exposing her chest—this is blatantly pornographic, and it’s also a lolicon fetish involving a young girl image, isn’t it?
Damn, what kind of twisted creature would write such copy? Creating characters like this is specifically for pedophilic fantasies. If you like this kind of stuff, isn’t it just pornographic thinking? Isn’t it just objectifying women?
Your core point is: telling the truth shouldn’t be criticized. Instead of: I was wrong, so I should be criticized.
\n[quote=“Marks_King, post:1, topic:2532”]
Initially, many comrades suggested I share my personal history. Out of trust in comrades, I spoke honestly without reservation, but I didn’t expect to be caught out.
[/quote]
In reality, you don’t believe that your slanderous remarks about women are wrong, so you don’t accept criticism at all. You expressed your views, but they are reactionary. Why can’t reactionary remarks be criticized? Is it correct to just directly spout reactionary ideas without critique (not to mention you don’t even think they’re reactionary)? Why can’t others criticize? And talking about being caught out—it’s really shameless. You keep saying these are in the past, but the reality is you don’t reflect on why you are addicted to pornography. Is this the correct attitude towards mistakes? People make mistakes and are influenced by bourgeois ideas, but that doesn’t mean you should defend errors. Do you truly recognize your mistakes and still promote the extreme reactionary notion that wanting to oppress women is because women oppress men, thus glorifying class oppression?
\n[quote=“Marks_King, post:1, topic:2532”]
If I were seriously male chauvinist, why would I promote women’s liberation among my classmates? Why would I write articles every year commemorating International Women’s Day? Why would I express hope for the women’s liberation movement to a female comrade on her birthday? Why would I learn about Luxemburg, Kollontai, and Krupskaya, the pioneers of the women’s liberation movement? Why would I discuss with classmates the participation of male comrades in the women’s liberation movement?
[/quote]
In fact, you are seriously male chauvinist. What you do can be summed up in just a few words. During our exchanges, you revealed that you attribute the oppression of women to being oppressed by women, which is itself an extremely reactionary remark. Just like Hitler’s slaughter was because he was oppressed by Jews and couldn’t get into art school; or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was because Ukraine wanted to carry out Nazi oppression against Russia. Oppression only breeds resistance; otherwise, workers wouldn’t pursue equality. You talk as if you desire equality, but in reality, you talk about male chauvinism—meaning wanting to oppress women. You don’t pay attention to what everyone is saying and still try to flatter yourself over trivial matters. Claiming to be revolutionary, but in fact, still opposing the women’s liberation movement.
In 1942, we concretized the democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people into a formula called “Unity—Criticism—Unity.” To be more specific, it starts from the desire for unity, and through criticism or struggle, the contradictions are resolved, thereby achieving new unity on a new basis. Based on our experience, this is a correct method for resolving contradictions among the people. In 1942, we used this method to resolve contradictions within the Communist Party, namely the contradiction between dogmatists and the broad masses of Party members and the contradiction between dogmatist thinking and Marxist thinking. The “left” leaning dogmatists previously used a party struggle method called “brutal struggle, ruthless attack.” This is an incorrect method. When we criticized the “left” leaning dogmatism, we did not adopt this old method, but instead took a new approach—starting from the desire for unity, and through criticism or struggle, clarifying right and wrong, and achieving new unity on a new basis. This method was adopted during the rectification movement in 1942.
Starting from the desire for unity, but resolving contradictions through struggle, this struggle, in thought, is the struggle between proletarian thought and bourgeois thought, which must be critically pointed out and thoroughly criticized to truly resolve the contradictions.
You can see from your words that you fundamentally do not understand the basic principles of Marxist philosophy. Marxism admits the particularity of contradictions, but this particularity is merely an expression of generality, not something completely separate. Under the capitalist system, the oppression of women by men is a result of certain economic foundations, because in capitalist society, women still have to be confined to small families, where the basic unit of production remains the small family, and women’s domestic labor is not socially recognized. Just as many say, when talking about men in the family, they talk about how hard men work outside, how much suffering they endure, while when talking about women working at home, they loudly claim that women do not have to suffer the wind and sun every day, and only do some “small” household chores to eat and drink for free every day. Because women’s labor is not socially recognized, and physiologically has many characteristics unfavorable to capitalist exploitation, women naturally are regarded by the bourgeoisie as inferior labor and pure reproductive tools. To maintain their rule, the bourgeoisie is also happy to restrict women to this enslaved position under men, which is a general phenomenon. As for the particularity that in some countries or regions women’s rights are relatively higher, such as in some Western capitalist countries today, women have fought for some relatively equal rights through their own struggles, but in capitalist society, it is fundamentally impossible for women to be completely liberated from patriarchy. And you distort this point, replacing generality with particularity, turning women’s oppression under capitalism into oppression only in some regions, which is a complete reversal of black and white, a falsehood and a distortion of facts.
[/quote]
You are underestimating yourself too much. In your description, you are at most saying a few hypocritical words, and in fact, you have not played any real role in the women’s liberation movement.
People cannot promote what they do not understand. From your speech, it’s clear that you have no understanding of true Marxism at all, lacking self-criticism, indifferent to social news, and having no correct understanding of social reality. In such a situation, how can you claim to serve the people or promote communism? Do you not feel ashamed to say such things?
This phrase is really just like Kong Yiji’s “Don’t laugh at me.”
This is also a vicious excuse for oneself, simply saying that it’s fundamentally impossible to eliminate pornographic thoughts. This is complete nonsense. In fact, many petty bourgeois feminists can even sneer at bourgeois pornographic ideas, describing the pursuit of bourgeois aesthetics as serving beauty and obeying male gazes, yet you, claiming to be a Marxist, loudly proclaim that such things cannot be truly overcome. Certain classes will inevitably develop certain ideas; the proletariat must become a conscious class, and to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it must use revolutionary ideas and political thought to defeat the bourgeoisie. This is not only necessary during the process of the proletariat gaining power and waging revolutionary wars, but especially for its vanguard, if it cannot eradicate ideas that oppress, enslave, and insult people, the proletariat will never truly achieve liberation. Your defense of your actions essentially means allowing the vanguard of the proletariat and the revolutionary forces to tolerate the existence of pornographic thoughts.
From this, it is also evident that your so-called forum review standards and criticism standards are wrong, allowing opportunists with ambitions to infiltrate, which is completely ridiculous. It is precisely because of such standards that countless opportunists with insulting views on women, unwilling to correct their errors, have not infiltrated the forum.
This also reflects your attitude towards Marxism, indicating that Marxism is merely a tool for your life, not the true revolutionary truth. Therefore, since you started “fighting for the people” at thirteen and have been doing so until now, you have not gained much knowledge of Marxism.
This statement is even more a reversal of black and white. The forum and organizations always act based on issues, not individuals. Just like Marx, who had many enemies in his lifetime, but never had a personal enemy.
Many petty bourgeois are indeed oppressed by the bourgeoisie, but because their class is economically linked to the bourgeoisie and influenced ideologically by bourgeois and capitalist private ownership, they naturally develop various reactionary and bad ideas. These ideas not only help the bourgeoisie strengthen its rule but also negatively impact the liberation movement of the proletariat. Moreover, these reactionary ideas themselves also hinder the liberation of this petty bourgeoisie, making them willingly become victims of bourgeois deception and servants of the bourgeoisie.
And you treat these ideas as treasures, loudly protesting when comrades criticize your reactionary thoughts.
You are indeed very arrogant and overestimate yourself. You even said, “Let history judge my merits and demerits,” but I don’t know what you have brought to the revolution. Have you written theoretical articles? Participated in workers’ wage protests? Contributed to organizational building or what? Just a few words about “opposing bureaucratism” at school? Who doesn’t curse Lao Jiu or students under the dictatorship of the imperialist-funded universities? Here too, previously, sending greeting cards on International Women’s Day was considered a “contribution,” but that kind of contribution is really devalued because even Confucian parents can do it.
The title of your post also shows that you are still fiercely opposing the association’s line, and you talk about “shelling the headquarters.” In fact, your set of arguments only shows how laughable it is that you stubbornly defend reactionary ideas, and it will not diminish the correctness of the association’s line. Fake is fake, and disguises should be stripped away. You said yesterday that you wanted to reflect, but today you started to oppose everyone again, resisting criticism, which shows that you are not sincere in your reflection. No matter how you try to rewrite the case, it’s useless.
Exposing problems and reflecting on problems are two different things, comrades, and everyone understands that these are two different matters. Exposing problems does not equal reflecting on problems. There is a significant difference between releasing a bunch of things that look like mental attacks and sincerely criticizing oneself for these errors.
If one frankly admits to reactionary fallacies but does not want others to criticize, what is this called “sincerity and openness”? Isn’t it a form of attack? If admitting one’s own problems is for the purpose of correction, why does it feel “excessive”? If male chauvinist ideas are not the main issue, but respect for women’s ideas is the main issue, why, after pointing out the reactionary nature of such pornographic ideas, has respect for women’s ideas not fought against the pornographic ideas, feeling guilty and painfully realizing how one has hurt women, but instead cannot accept it?
I don’t think that these personal circumstances can erase your objectively existing reactionary thoughts. The comrades above also said that the association deals with issues, not individuals, and offline they don’t even know you, have no real-life ties with you, and have no reason to attack you. It’s just that your reactionary thoughts must be criticized and debated, to distinguish right from wrong. I also hope you can gradually wake up to how reactionary your thoughts are through criticizing wrong ideas. But you are quite indifferent to the comrades, last night I asked you several times about those questions, and you deliberately didn’t reply, or picked a few and said you had answered all. You are indeed very cunning.
Whether to admit and support women’s liberation is a litmus test for false Marxism. This itself is a very important issue, not about some elevation. Yesterday, I transferred Fenghuo’s three points about supporting women’s liberation, and it’s clear that you do not meet any of them, so how can you talk about “not considering it a major issue”?
Chairman Mao: Claiming “Never Reversing a Case” is unreliable. Xiaoping never discusses his feelings; people are afraid, dare not speak to him, and do not listen to the opinions of the masses.
There have been many criticisms of Marko Wang, and I just want to add one point: the current fickle and hostile attitude of Marko Wang is the biggest problem. The fact that Marko Wang made mistakes is not the worst; the worst is his attitude towards his own mistakes. He first arrogantly claims to be a Maoist, promoting various reactionary viewpoints, and after being criticized by everyone, he begins to kowtow and grovel, trying to muddle through. When his improper attitude is pointed out by everyone and he sees he cannot pass the test, he then publishes a “big-character poster,” tearing off the mask of false repentance and revealing his refusal to accept criticism and his stubborn stance of sticking to his mistakes. If Marko Wang continues to be dishonest about his issues in this way, he will never truly recognize his errors and will remain active on the forum.
I have nothing more to say. I only admit that I have serious pornographic thoughts and remnants of male chauvinist ideas. I do not admit anything else, but I will not escape. I will continue to stay on the forum.
At the same time, I also thank my comrades for their criticism. Although I feel uncomfortable, at least I have received an education.
If I were to put gold on my face, I wouldn’t say things like wanting to solicit prostitution or play Azur Lane. I am being honest because I trust my comrades.
How dare you shamelessly claim that your pornographic thoughts are reasonable, that women bullying you makes you a male chauvinist oppressor of women? We criticize, is there anything wrong with that? We hope you can correct your mistakes, but how do you respond to us? Slander, procrastination, and evasiveness. Your behavior is not “receiving education,” but rather lying through your teeth.
Now you are here shamelessly again, claiming to be very honest, but you uncritically spout a bunch of toxic garbage. Completely different from a person seriously self-criticizing and criticizing their own mistakes, you are utterly shameless.
You male chauvinist, we have debated with you enough, and yet you are still stubborn and want to stay? That’s a dream. We do not welcome you to stay any longer.
The issue is not that you deny it exists; such a simple materialist principle, I believe you are not unaware of it. Isn’t the title of your post “Cannoning the Headquarters”? Besides viewing us as the “Headquarters,” what else could it be? Opposing us in the title and the article, harboring resentment towards our criticism, while at the same time denying “all crimes except residual male chauvinism,” is utterly unbelievable, to the point of burying one’s head in the sand. Still, as the saying goes, exposing problems does not equal reflecting on them; even if you flatter yourself, it doesn’t mean you won’t mention your desire to solicit prostitution. If you insist on pointing to the trash you dumped and claiming that revealing this pile of stuff is reflection, I can only say that reading the “Guide to Ideological Struggle” is no different from not reading it at all. For those who cover their ears and steal bells and refuse to admit their mistakes, we will not allow them to continue participating in the forum unless they truly recognize their errors. Everyone has made their point very clear.
I suggest you read the forum articles and write a self-criticism.
Here’s the thing, Qian Ren 0 often makes mistakes here with us, but there’s one good thing: when he makes a mistake, he admits it and writes self-criticisms to correct the error. Wang Jiéwáng also shouldn’t stubbornly refuse to admit fault; if he’s wrong, he should dare to admit it, rather than refusing to admit fault just to save face.