I’ve run across these terms several times, but without enough context to figure out what they mean. Could someone help me out, please?
ETA All of you are amazing! A huge thank you to everyone who responded, and an extra thank you to those who have provided links or explanations to further and/or related information. I am learning so much by reading all of these comments!
Per Wikipedia, “Tankie is a pejorative label for communists and those who align with Marxism–Leninism ideology.” That’s basically what you get when you ask people to define, “tankie.”
But, as with most perjoratives, its usage has expanded. It can still be used in its original meaning but it’s often used much more broadly. If you do a search on how people use the word “tankie” (like in comment threads) you’ll see it’s now commonly used to describe anyone who isn’t sufficiently critical of China and Russia and sometimes as a modern synonym for “un-American”.
Tankies are Red Fascists. They're essentially communism-flavored authoritarians. I would contend they do not qualify as "left", "leftists", etc but far-right. They support and defend Soviet Russia and the CCP, specifically defending their atrocities and oppression.
I don’t see why not since progressive leftist describes where their beliefs lie and authoritarianism describes how they go about enforcing their beliefs.
Really depends on how specific you want to be with the definition of leftist though.
Sure, I guess I equate a desire to be subject to an authoritarian, strongman type leader as something that appeals more to people on the right. We’re a diverse and messy species though so there’s likely someone, somewhere who will be the exception that proves the rule.
I suppose it's always possible to believe in a benevolent dictator who will use their authority to establish whatever system it is that you think is "best", even if it's not authoritarian. Lots of revolutions try that.
Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5]
According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."[6]
So maybe? If you had a truly benevolent dictator that promoted equality, freedom (limited to everything except changing nature of government) and prosperity for all then that might fit? But in the real world, not effectively.
I’ve seen plenty of people start off with good intentions and then they change when they get a taste of power.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” - Lord Acton.
Can there be such a thing as a progressive/leftist who is pro-authoritarianism?
Not really.
Progressivness is about freedom, authoritarianism about the lack of freedom.
But someone could hypothetically be an actual communist and an authoritarian. Because communism is just an economic system.
In practice the only way it would work is “mob rule”. Like what happened during the French revolution where people rose up, killed the ruling class, and then distributed their wealth.
But even that wasn’t the same because the mob didn’t attempt to distribute it equally. Everyone just grabbed shit.
I think it’s especially confusing to people with a two party political system, because economic and social policy start to get intertwined, when they’re two different things.
Which a cynic would say is intentional so that no matter who gets elected, the wealthy win.
A cynic or a realist? All political systems have to have some checks against human greed and avarice or things quickly turn to shit for the average person. If you can’t vote someone out, that’s an important check you’re giving up.
Relative to his society, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? "I am going to make you vote, be secular, and give women rights, and you are going to like it or else the army will put you down like the dogs you are"
It would be difficult, since the authoritarian countries are inherently anti-progressive. So it would require a lot of compartmentalization and purposeful hypocrisy to hold such support.
Did he lead cuba? Because Castro is a prime example of authoritarians masquerading as communists. This is a pretty common tactic. Use actual communists to incite revolution and overthrow the government. Then an authoritarian steps in and assumes control and never transitions to full communism: i.e. party-less state.
Even Jeremy fucking Corbyn defends the USSR ffs.
Well then he's a fucking idiot. Imagine defending the USSR, lol.
Sealioning is a type of online harassment or trolling tactic, where someone persistently requests empirical evidence from another user with the intent to exhaust them rather than engage in sincere debate. It's named after a webcomic in which a sea lion follows a character around, constantly demanding proof for a casual statement made in conversation. It's often seen as a form of bad faith argument, as the goal isn't really to get information, but to frustrate or tire out the person being targeted.
"Tankie" is a term originally used within the left-wing political sphere to describe those who supported the Soviet Union, including its use of military force to maintain its influence over its satellite states, particularly referring to the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968 with tanks. Today, it's often used more broadly, sometimes pejoratively, to describe people who uncritically support or idealize authoritarian socialist or communist regimes, often ignoring or downplaying their human rights abuses.
A tankie is the type of person who will essentially argue that capitalism and western society are the roots of all evil, and deflect from any criticism of Russia, China, Iran, etc. by attacking the US instead of actually addressing the criticism.
There's some underlying validity in the argument, that gives it power. Yes, the US has done some messed up things. Yes, US intervention in Iran probably made everything worse. Yes, there are problems with Capitalism. yes, most English-language news about China is written from a western perspective, with few reporters actually living in China.
But Tankies like to
Justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine by arguing that Russia
Deflect from arguments about Shein (which is a fast fashion nightmare, the worst of capitalism) by saying that US reporting on Shein is sinophobic, that evidence of Uyghur slavery is limited, or that the forced reeducation camps are a good thing because they help potential terrorists integrate into society.
Defend the current Iranian regime by pretending that the US is planning to invade (it's not, nobody's calling for that) or buying into the regime's lie that the protests are American / Israeli astroturf
Generally deflect from any problem with any non-western regime by pointing out that the west is "just as bad" and then actually arguing that only the west is bad.
Thank you for responding. I have boiled down the aggregate of answers as basically a tankie supports authoritarianism, or use of violence to deal with opposition. If this take is incorrect, someone please correct where I have it wrong. Btw, I have deliberately ignored references to left/right as meaningless in my quest for information.
“Sealioning” here refers to a way of trolling by asking ill-intended questions, usually disguising it in innocence. When other members try to explain and help, they’d try to lure them into hours of discussion upon it, usually by knowingly misinterpreting what they heard.
Or worse, just directly disrespect and reject all the suggestions the commenters provided. The essence is being a waste of time for everyone.
That would depend a lot on the context. What catches a moderator’s attention on an issue like this wouldn’t be seeing the individual post, rather seeing the reports about it. A mod usually acts on the consensus of the community and tries to determine if the members are correct in reporting things. They may be correct or wrong, but most of the time it’ll be correct. And we’d of course step back and apologize if we thought we were wrong.
Sealioning is a sort of evolution of JAQing off. It’s the JAQ coupled with feigned innocence and indignance when people actually stop putting up with BS.
Actually after thinking a bit deeper about it, it mirrors Socratic Questioning, but with the opposite intended end goal of muddying the waters instead of gaining clarity.
But y’know, if someone walks up and makes disparaging racist remarks about how they don’t like your kind, following them round and demanding they explain themselves out loud is about the most appropriate response that exists.
It’s related but it differs on the form. Concern trolling is derailing online discussions and debates by simulating concern over a seemingly valid counterpoint, making all participants waste time and effort arguing a previously settled matter, or pretending to just be playing devil’s advocate. Acting as if, although you support the cause or discussion at hand, you somehow still have some valid concerns to oppose.
I don’t think so. As far as I’m aware, concern trolling is an act to lower morale and place distrust among the opposing side. A person who’s on side B pretends to be on side A.
Let’s say you’re an admin on this site, and you have made a post asking for server donations.
Then just when all was going well, another member comes to the comments, who seems to support you and praise you really well at first. The rest of their comment is then telling everyone that they “appreciate your work”, but “you can’t handle it”, because this or that. Causing some of your genuine members to question you with their “concerns”
I’m on your side, so you should take my bullshit concerns seriously!
Concern trolling is acting like you’re concerned about the consequences of something.
Like,
If we let people wear masks during COVID, we’ll see more bank robberies because masks are normalized!
Sea Lioning would be if I just kept asking you questions about why masks help, often while asking you to link sources. I don’t actually want to see any sources tho. I’m just going to keep asking new questions and for more sources until you get tired and stop replying.
Because the more time you waste on me, they less you help people who are genuinely asking for it. Plus when you stop replying, I can claim that as a victory because that must mean there aren’t any sources that agree with you.
Concern trolling is “raising concerns” about certain issues that have little to no basis in reality and only serves to inject bigotry and bad ideas. For example, people were concerned about “the gays™” spreading their immoral gay AIDS virus all over innocent children during the 80s and into the 90s, only to learn that AIDS is spread through contact with broken mucosa membranes, which then shifted to “the gays™ are pedos” argument.
Everyone points to the comic in regards to sealioning, but I have always equated it to posters who are incapable of having an actual debate and keep saying “Why? Why? Why? Why?” until they get tired and fall asleep under the pier (but then their friend wakes up and takes over).
But why, specifically, is the term “Sealioning”? Is it referencing some behavior exhibited by sealions? Is it an aggregate of or wordplay on other slang?
I’ve seen Sealioning used quite a bit in a particular Lemmy instance that would self describe themselves as Pro-Russia & Pro-China, as a way of shutting down discourse between people who disagree with them. There are people who disagree with a particular narrative, and they’re discounted immediately for wanting to know how someone would arrive at a pro-Russian & pro-China position.
Also they’ll just “whatabout!” and change the subject whenever unassailable critiques of these regimes come up. As if its is only possible to hold outrage in a single direction at a time.
I’ll have you know I’m capable of disliking EVERYONE mentioned in a given conversation.
Add comment