Tankies vs every other leftist is just the modern internet version of the Bolsheviks vs the various anti-Bolshevik leftists during and after the Russian civil war.
What is their history? I am gay, that is just a random trait about me, it doesn’t make me connected to or part of the same group as other gender/sexual minorities- including other gay people. I oppose attacks on gay people, but I also oppose attacks on other minorities, I’m not somehow connected to them just because I happen to share an arbitrary trait that was the motive of the attack. My history is my life, not the life of my parents, or grandparents, and definitely not the life of some random person who happens to also be gay. Also no this is not an “LGB(no T) type thing”, even though it will be attacked as that. I support trans rights just as much as I support gay rights. Instead I’m saying I don’t identify with other LGBs inherently either.
You can choose to not identify as part of the queer community, I feel a similar way about my ethnic heritage. However, you will be prescribed as a member of that group by not only members of the group, but by bigots who hate those people. Even if you don’t feel connected to gay or queer people, people in those communities and bigots who hate those people will both consider you as part of the community because you like people of the same gender. When looking at people in aggregate, others will group you based on traits like that whether you like it or not.
This matters to your well being because political groups tend to act in accordance with how other people in that group have acted. In the case of tankies and TERFs, both groups use arguments that appeal to queer identities, claiming that it is in the best interests of gay people to side with them and that gay people have always sided with them in positive ways. The recent history directly contradicts these claims as terfs openly ally with self described fascists. Tankies are defined by their unwillingness to question the authority and leadership self described communist states, most of whom openly discriminate against minorititized groups, like gay people.
Going back to my feelings about my ethnic heritage, I don’t identify strongly as a Latina, but racists don’t care what I think. They’ll discriminate against me based on what they think of me. Thus, for my own well being, I am incentivized to know about the history of discrimination against Latinos.
Those people are tribalists/sexists/homophobes/racists/whatever and I will criticize them just as I did now. I won’t accept their premise just because they treat me like it.
Hell yeah. And can someone tell me how to remove the hexbear postings? that stuff is garbage but I’m not seeing how to block their shit besides individual posters
Hexbear has only been federated for a couple months. Lemmy.world was pretty quick to defederate from them. Their posts took up quite a bit of my feed on Lemm.ee before I started blocking their subs when I saw them.
I oppose both but reactionary is a meaningless term, it doesn’t describe an ideology or belief it is just prejorative used when people want to sound too smart to say “dummy”
Something that is reactionary is archaic or outdated. A reactionary is someone who wants to return to the past in some form or function, to turn back progress. TERFs pretty unambiguously are reactionary, specifically on the issue of trans rights. Tankies spew authoritarian apologia more at home in the mouths of mid-19th century nationalists than in modern democracies.
Reactionary is used to attack people like a belief system, but it is not. It is acted like an ideology when it is just an insult, that’s not to say I can’t think the insult fits. But you can pretty clearly tell when something is an insult based on if anyone would reasonably describe themself as it. Just own up to it and insult someone if you want to rather than use tankie pseudoscientific slanders that justified killing and imprisoning “counter-revolutionaries”.
The tankie belief system is that someone either ally or reactionary- don’t accept their rules.
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to communists who express support for one-party communist regimes that are associated with Marxism-Leninism, whether contemporary or historical.
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, ie people who claim to be using their energy for the betterment of women but spend all day dwelling on their hatred of trans people.
Tankie: Everyone on Hexbear and Lemmygrad. People who love China for the sake of being contrarian but wouldn’t last a week in China.
People who live China for the sake of being contrarian but wouldn’t last a week in China.
I’m not a tankie or even a leftist, but life in China is not that hard in most cities for foreigners. Or that much harder from most other places. Yes there are a lot of problems but you dilute the real criticism when you act like it wouldn’t be feasible for most people to live there. Just like how most people can live in the US(assuming they have legal residence)
Hey, if neoliberalism and conservatism hadn’t been such a pathetic fucking failure and unmasked themselves as simply being neofeudalism then us normies wouldn’t’ve had to become tankies. Even business owners are taking up the flag and heading to the practice range
Yes, normies. Basic small business Americans. People who have seen the utter failure of everything the right has claimed capitalism would fix and never fail at. We have veen given every single problem that they claimed socialism would cause.
So, since you made a claim and I responded in the positive against it and you STILL got mad, I’d like to ask you if you even know what capitalism is, and if you can distinguish it from commerce.
It’s funny you mention neoliberalism as a argument for being a Tankie, even though most ML states have adopted neoliberal policies. The market based reforms of China following the death of Mao were based around neoliberal principles to gain power in the system of global capitalism. It was a more nationalist approach, but neoliberalism has its tendrils all over many modern ML states.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. The only coherent complaint fascists have about China is that they’re the enemy nation. I don’t give a fuck what they think, because most fascists don’t realize they want a ton of the same shit as current China.
It’s confusing that you claim to be a Tankie, yet don’t defend China. What do you actually think a Tankie is? A Marxist-Leninist?
Tankies don’t oppose. Then they wouldn’t be tankies, just edgy MLs. If you support the government crushing attempts to fight against the system, you’re effectively just the liberals who denounce anything beyond peaceful protest.
Actually, now that I think about it, you’d be worse than liberals, because voting is more useful in liberal democracies and legally protesting isn’t even allowed in ML states.
They are revolution fetishists. That’s why orthodox MLs repeatedly fail at actual statecraft - because they study revolution, and often get angry when that fan service gets interrupted by conversation about policy.
From Wikipedia: in psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.[2]
The right-wing authoritarian personality was defined by Bob Altemeyer as a refinement of the research of Theodor Adorno. Adorno was the first to propose the existence of an authoritarian personality as part of an attempt to explain the rise of fascism and the Holocaust, but his theory fell into disfavor because it was associated with Freudian psychoanalysis. Altemeyer nonetheless felt that Adorno was on to something, and so developed a more scientifically rigorous theory.
The RWA scale was designed to measure authoritarianism in North America. It has proven to be similarly reliable in English-speaking countries such as Australia, but less effective in other countries such as France due to cultural differences and translation issues.[3]
Hey! You learned how to use a search engine! I mean, you probably just clicked the letmegooglethatforyou link that I gave you, but still! I’m super proud of you!
No i didn’t, i just realized where part of the problem lies. That you don’t know anything about communication being a two way avenue is your issue abcs you’reas obnoxious as the people you criticize. Nothing changes anything about what I’ve already argued, and your arguments are lacking since they’re only insults.
You didn’t learn how to use a search engine, or you didn’t click the link I gave you?
Nothing changes anything about what I’ve already argued
Have you argued, though? I have looked back through our conversation, and I don’t see a single argument. Do you not know what an argument is? An argument is when you make a specific claim, and then use evidence to support that claim. What claims have you made? What evidence did you provide in support of those claims?
Or do you just think that whining is the same as arguing?
you don’t know anything about communication being a two way avenue
You started this “conversation” by saying you were going to block this sub, then being a butthurt little baby when people like me and a couple of others ridiculed you for it. How does that behavior align with your ideas about what “conversation” is?
your arguments are lacking since they’re only insults.
I have made one argument (that you are a moron), and the evidence that I have provided for this has been:
You don’t know what a search engine is
You get dramatically offended by things you don’t understand
You conflated shitposting online with being an authoritarian
You believed that defederating from an instance made that instance no longer exist
You believed that defending Nazis was a good thing
Now, granted, I’ve hurled a lot of insults in addition to my argument, but that was just for myself, as a little treat, as a form of catharsis for having to respond to a moron.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarian_personality
I see where some confusion lies. There is a discrepancy between the psychological and political definitions. I’m largely interested in why people think x and is they make it make sense, discard/set it aside until it does. I didn’t account for that and it’s on me.
As far as I can tell, your intended meaning is absolutely correct, but you have some of the terminology wrong: fascism is an explicitly right wing form of oppressive authoritarianism. The extreme left can be authoritarian and oppressive, but never fascist.
Stalinism and the ideology of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge are notorious examples of tankies: left wing fanatics who engage in oppressive authoritarianism and violent persecution of anyone different from their narrow definition of the ideal citizen, often using arbitrary metrics just like fascists do.
Is the end result the same for an LGBTQ+ person, a pacifist or anyone else demonised by all forms of oppressive authoritarianism? Yes.
But that does not make the ideologies identical and the distinction is important because the differences mean that different tools are more effective in combating one than the other.
Your political ideology can use whatever leftist symbolism it wants to, but if the system you enact is an authoritarian, top down hierarchy that supresses the will of the masses in favor of a privileged elite, then you aren’t on the Left.
Even Marx and Engels at their most statist wouldn’t be in the same zipcode as Lenin et. al.
To be on the left means being for democracy from the bottom up and being agaisnt the concentration of money and power in the hands of a few.
Yeah but you can be called a TERF for literally anything.
For example, not believing that one year of testosterone makes it fair that trans women compete in the woman’s sports category.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s not fair.
You’ll be labelled as a TERF.
There’s also lots of rhetoric about how it’s OK to be violent to TERFs.
So just be aware that “TERF” is a term online bullies use to dogwhistle violence against women who’s goal is to ensure the protection of women.
For example, you would be labeled a TERF for not agreeing with “self ID” laws that mean any male prisoner could self identify as a woman and be placed in a woman’s prison - with zero confirmation or oversight.
You’d also be labelled als a TERF if you pointed out that in multiple countries, 48%, of the men who are claimed to be women in order to be placed in a woman’s prison have a criminal record for sexual offenses.
Since this Labels you a TERF. It would be also mean that you should be physically attacked.
See, many progressives love to chat about “dog whistles” and “fascism” all day - except they conveniently ignore it when they are doing it.
Pretty straightforwardly. If the goal is for gender differences to not exist, then having someone so strongly identify with a gender is pretty counter to the point. It just tries to ignore the current reality that there are social differences between men and women.
That’s part of what I don’t understand about the whole ‘women and men are equal, there are no real differences’, held up next to ‘call me a [wo]man not a [wo]man.’
It looks like one side is saying a persons behavior/likes/dislikes is tied to expression of genitalia, and the other is saying it isn’t. And these are often the same person saying both in different circumstances.
They can have differences and still be treated equally. I don’t think that’s too hard to grasp.
I.e. Women are more likely to wear make up but they should still be allowed to vote.
It’s also not tied to their genitalia. It’s tied to their brain chemistry/structure, which in the majority of people matches their genitalia.
The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men), and the differences to both cisgender men and to cisgender women were significant (p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively). These findings add support to the notion that the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity.
But, the ‘they have (non-marginal) differences but should be treated equally’ is the problem.
If there are differences that matter, those should be considered.
If there aren’t differences that matter, it doesn’t make sense to ‘care’ what gender you are.
The two categories of people covered by ‘TERF’ for instance would seem to interpret your referenced study as supporting and opposing their views.
(In practice, I understand that it basically never matters if someone is a man or a woman but upside of specific situations, mostly involving physical attraction. But I also just don’t ‘get’ why people try to create a ‘he’ or ‘she’ identity. I don’t really care if they do… it just seems like a contradiction.)
Humans aren’t logical machines. What makes sense is rarely the key to how we work. We have a whole unconscious mind that decides a lot of how we behave.
How we externalise gender is mostly down to how we are raised, society and the media. How we feel about it is down to our brain.
If we weren’t raised with such a big divide between boys and girls these problems wouldn’t be anywhere near as big of a deal.
If people didn’t receive hate and judgment based on how they expressed it I doubt many people would care as much.
But you would still have things like gender body dysmorphia where the brain can’t deal with the physical body.
Equality doesn’t necessarily mean treating the exact same. For example equality for somebody in a wheelchair might mean giving them equal access to a place by installing a ramp, not giving them the same access via the stairs as those who don’t need a wheelchair use.
You can acknowledge differences and do different things with those in mind to attain equality.
The problem isn’t that there’s differences between genders, but the assumption that 1) all people of a certain gender will think or act in accordance with the trends of their gender and 2) that the differences between genders means that one is better suited to certain tasks than the others.
For 1, while the behavior of men and women follows certain trends on a large scale, if you pick a random individual from each gender, they’re likely to be as similar or different from each other as if you had selected two people of the same gender. So when you’re doing something on an individual basis, like hiring for a position or electing someone to office, the average differences between the genders really doesn’t matter and should not inform your decision more than the person’s individual characteristics.
For 2, there’s an assumption that there’s exactly one type of person suited to a particular role, and that type of person is more likely to be of one particular gender. This assumption is false, though, as true innovation is not spurred by having a group of like-minded people, but by bringing a variety of viewpoints and personalities together so that problems can examined from every angle. Diversity in general ensures better coverage of an issue’s potential pitfalls and a larger pool of knowledge and experience, so hiring from one gender because they’re “naturally good at this kind of thing” is really only limiting the potential of the group.
I think your post makes my point well, actually. If the differences between people of a gender is so wide spread as to not matter in a personal level, it seems silly to be highly offended if you are referenced as the wrong gender. If someone calls one of us a brunette or blonde, I don’t think anyone would take great offense because it just doesn’t matter… gender seems like the same rule should apply.
Well that depends on who dishes out the definition. For example: should a physically male criminal be put in a female prison if he says he feels he’s a woman? Should prisons, sports etc. be mixed to make sure no-one is excluded? For many TERF-whisperers even suggesting that these things should be up for debate makes you the biggest TERF of them all
They very genuinely hate men and thus can’t understand why anyone would “want” to be one, nor do they accept anyone who “once was a man.” Once you see shit like “political lesbianism” thrown around, you understand that there’s just no hope.
It’s like a horseshoe from TERF to toxic masculinity, as both groups are terrified of seeing beauty in men (and all people) and have a very narrow definition of what a man can be.
Where I live its like everyone is pro MTF but against FTM. So you have all these transwomen and nonbinary people who claim they hate terfs but at the same time, they’ll act like FTM isn’t a real thing and they’ll give it a different name and just say “genderqueer” even if you’re talking about someone who is FTM and they refuse to acknowledge the term “Transman” but love Transwomen.
Like it really feels like there is so much in-fighting in the LGBTQ+ community. They often talk about acceptance but I rarely see them put that into practice outside of Pride events.
As a queer person myself I’ve not yet seen something like this at least not something common or popular. The mainstream LGBTQ+ community is clearly accepting of trans men and most of the “in-fighting” in queer communities is made up by conservatives.
And btw you should use trans man instead of transman because the latter implies trans men are somewhat different from “regular” men.
When you write “trans man” you’re using trans as an adjective and as a description of a man. When you use “transman” it’s a new noun and this means it’s a different thing other than just “men”.
also way to piss me off. Like are you trolling? Did you miss the context of my original post? You sure glazed over the discrimination I was talking about just to correct me on something that didn’t need to be corrected.
This really comes off like you’re trying to make this out like I said something I NEVER SAID.
yes I’m mad. I feel like you’re fucking with me and you better not be. Like do everyone a favor and be honest. Are you really trying to have a good faith discussion about this?
I deal with enough racism and homophobia in real life. I don’t want to deal with it here too.
You sure glazed over the discrimination I was talking about
Because it isn’t as widespread in the LGBT-Community as you pretend. Sure there is transphobia even in queer spaces but
It’s also against trans women
It sure waaaaaaaay less than the hate you get from the general public
I was talking about just to correct me on something that didn’t need to be corrected.
That your opinion and most trans people would disagree. And it also was one small point that you wanted to argue about instead of looking it up on the internet.
I deal with enough racism and homophobia in real life. I don’t want to deal with it here too.
I guess you’re trolling right now. This was only about transphobia and nothing else
Authoritarian leftists. Stalinists, basically. The kind of people who look at protests being crushed by tanks and say "Good, those reactionary civilian pigs deserved it!"
Liberalism and authoritarianism are opposites just like progressivism and conservatism are.
For historical (and arguably nefarious) reasons Western society has largely lumped liberalism and progressivism into "Left" and authoritarianism and conservatism into "Right".
But this ignores the reality that you can have progressive authoritarians (Stalinists/Maoists), and liberal conservatives (Libertarians).
Either you’re using a definition of “progressive” that doesn’t relate to progressivism, or we’re looking at some very different definitions of Stalinism.
Stalinism was never about improvement of human societies. One could argue that Trotskyism was at least pretending to (it’s incredibly hard to attribute real humanitarian intent to anything bolsheviks did, once you look closer at their methods), but Stalinism was unabashedly explicit about seizing control and shutting down dissent. It embraced Russian Empire’s secret police approach and was closer to early Muscovite monarchism, with a despot deciding who gets to enjoy privileges and control, than to anything progressive.
What you're talking about is the "authoritarian" part of the progressive authoritarian equation.
As the opposite of conservatism, progressivism is about societal advancement, elevating the average well being in the country, which on it's face Communism is explicitly about. Or are you arguing that Stalinist Communism was conservative, trying to uphold the values of the historical ruling power structures?
Authoritarianism explicitly opposes political action, attempting to eradicate it entirely. Progressivism is rooted in it.
Conservatism is not defined by “upholding the values of the historical ruling power structures”. A dog being wet doesn’t make everything that’s wet a dog.
Stalinism in practice was extremely backwards, ironically anti-communist, and conservative with its strict vertical power structure (traditional for Russian empire) and promotion of Russian nationalism (Stalin explicitly names Russians as “elder brothers of soviet people”). Stalin’s authoritarian approach also agrees with conservatives’ preference for strict social order models. Political activism was persecuted under Stalin in the same manner - and often by the same people - it was persecuted in Russian empire.
The founding myth of the empire - “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities and Russia is the Rus” was not only preserved, but actively maintained through any means possible. Can’t get more conservative than that.
just say you don’t know what imperialism is (it’s not when countries resist the largest imperial sphere in the history of earth), i can recommend some reading material
I’m too tired and busy tonight to make a case here, but I would just point out that lemmy.world has defederated from anyone who can explain to you what a tankie believes and why, and you are only getting one side of the story in this thread.
I think most Americans who lived through the Iraq war are aware that America lies, but still not aware of the extent of it. The main targets of those lies are socialist states. When the intent of the lies is to make socialist states look monstrous, anyone who claims otherwise gets smeared with the same brush: a defender of monstrous states. It’s a rhetorical firewall.
If you want to know what tankies believe and why, you should ask them. Whether you find them persuasive or not, you’ll at least have learned what a subset of the human population believes and it will round out your perspective on the world.
The two main lemmy instances where you can find tankies are hexbear.net and lemmygrad.ml. Hexbear is larger and more active, and their range of perspectives is a little broader because they include anarchists. Hexbear’s list of federated instances is here hexbear.net/instances, and lemmygrad’s is here lemmygrad.ml/instances.
The term origenaly referred to lefties that supported the Soviet Union rolling tanks into nations protesting for democracy.
Modern tankies defend historical “communist” states and their successer states like Russia. They can often be seen glorifying dictators and denying genocides.
Seriously lemmygrad is bull of people just saying that bullies like Russia would just be happy if we let them take Ukraine cause they clearly want it more than the people lving there. And a few million deaths is just the price to pay for “better” government.
Those people are such scared authoritarian dick suckers who would throw anyone else under the bus if they thought it would make their lives better
Well described, actually. And most of the tankies can be fought with actual knowledge of Marxism and socialism, since they try to pass themselves as all-so-knowledgeable of them and then spew the worst kind of misunderstandings of the socialist theories. Pseudo-intellectual edgy teenage-minded dumb-dumbs, in a nutshell
I discovered you can score extra points where you deconstruct their argument to the point where they’ll call you a “debate pervert” and ragequit the fediverse
Thing is, they’ll have so much unread communist literature around their home they’re bound to come back. Much easier to jump back into the bearbubble than read those big, big books
You don’t even need the big big books. All you need is both Marx and Engels to knock their bad understanding out of them.
My favorite cope that they invoke is that Lenin and Stalin’s communism wasn’t real communism. My tankie, according to Engels, they actually followed the “state capitalism” scenario to the letter, by having the state hold monopoly over the means of production, planning themselves like a corporation and owning the markets, the only difference being that the soviet states did not run on profit. Engels
Not really, cause any comment you make towards them, they just deflect and focus on something else.
Like typical conservative agents… There is no debating with them, because you will never convince them that you are right. that they are wrong, or that there is any middle ground (and even if you did concede a middle ground, it would be their victory) They will just amuse themselves exhausting you, and declare themselves a victor when you give up.
Its literally no different than trying to wrestle pigs in shit.
Only the pig is wearing a red shirt with hammer and sickle on it, while saying Putin is saving the world from Ukraine.
“Oh my god, that person questioned my narrative about “x” they must be whomever I’m othering because I’m insecure and it’s easier to take trash than deeply reflect why. I’m going to label them that, that’ll teach them.” Please. 🥱
Or, OR, if you believe that trans people shouldn’t exist, or should stop being trans, you’re an asshole. If you support dictators (even ones who ride horses shirtless in publicity photos), you’re an asshole. If you fall into either of those categories, your opinion is completely worthless, and should be ignored by everybody.
If you’re so busy defending your abhorrent beliefs to take the time to self reflect and figure out why other people find them abhorrent, then you’re not just part of the problem, you’re the whole thing. As I said before: bye, Tankie. Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
I knew that would be twisted but left it. I’ll be more precise: authoritarianism is authoritarianism, but I don’t know enough about their other perspectives to say they’re no good. Perhaps an exchange of ideas may bring two or more perspectives closer. Maybe not.
Well, then. Maybe you should spend some time on Tankie spaces and learn what they’re about before just assuming that anybody who doesn’t like them is just being a close-minded asshole.
Because i see how this works. You’re not better than them, you’re doing the same thing they complain about, and so far, that’s what authoritarians do. I forget a lot about tankie things that I don’t understand, because they’re usually banned, shouted down, etc. You keep showing your insecurity in my inbox, have the last word and feel smug. You’re so sure about your ideas, you can’t tolerate me entertaining otherwise. Maybe I’d come to the same conclusion for myself if I can’t let that happen because it’s not possible to hear from them. I used to defend freedom of speech for Nazis too, but I learned. I also learned about psyops of everyone from cliques to governments, including inflation and band wagon.
you’re doing the same thing they complain about, and so far, that’s what authoritarians do
I’m sorry; did you just compare some asshole shitposting online with an authoritarian? Are you actually stupid? Do you just not know what authoritarianism is?
Maybe I’d come to the same conclusion for myself if I can’t let that happen because it’s not possible to hear from them
Yeah. I think you might legitimately be stupid. You know you can go check out any Tankie spaces on Hexbear or Lemmy.ml any time you want, right? Like, a couple instances defederating from them doesn’t in any way silence them. They’re still free to post their garbage opinions on their own instances.
Ow oooh owwww I’m going to wither and die because someone on the internet felt threatened by a different perspective and rather than have legit rebuttal attacked like they accuse tankies of doing.
I mean, wither and die if you’d like. It’s no skin off my nose. But I don’t in any way feel threatened by your “different perspective”. I just think your perspective is dumb as hell. And I’m postulating that you’ve probably got to be a complete moron to hold that perspective.
Also, what is a legit rebuttal to someone who’s so dumb that they think that there’s no place to interface with Tankies? You’re pretty ridiculous.
You’ve made a pretty pathetic case for yourself. To me it looks like you are the one who feels threatened and insecure. I guess it’s hard to know how you look to the rest of us.
Ok? You’re the one who claimed that you were leaving, and yet you keep coming back to get the last word despite the abuse. Shouldn’t the abuse you’re deservedly receiving be some kind of impetus to, you know, actually leave? Or are you just too dumb to take the hint?
Yes, I went and followed another thread, and you all kept showing in my inbox. The other things I did were interesting and I forgot until the rage notifications came in. Like another commenter was asking for a solidly rational answer, so was i. I didn’t even know the term until more recently and I don’t agree with my ideas so great, i need violence, coercion, insults etc to come in. Anyway, my homegirl and mutual friends were all together in between times and this was space filler for downtime/(sometimes) idle contemplation (one need not accept an idea to entertain it). Thanks for the compelling arguments that “convinced” me. I did change my default filter for a minute and see a post in the top ten about subscriptions to whole other instances, so I’ve done that and it’s as rampant as hexbear, unsubscribe. I literally thought it was fascist based on the large, flashing “freedom! Own the libs!” that was so obnoxious, it hurt my eyes and I was confused about the nature of the server. Again, authoritarian communism. Yes, I understand the distaste but Communist philosophy in general isn’t something I’ve been widely exposed to outside a couple of college classes, and I daresay, English lit and soc 101 were probably where I got any exposure at all (maybe also critical reading, thinking, syllogism etc classes). It was definitely… illuminating. And i only got dv’d, cursed and insulted for wanting to see for myself, rather that doing the same, calling anyone stupid, moron, shitlib, fascist etc.
Ok. So let’s go back a few messages in our little private discussion deep in the “show more replies” of this thread, when I said:
Well, then. Maybe you should spend some time on Tankie spaces and learn what they’re about before just assuming that anybody who doesn’t like them is just being a close-minded asshole.
And you replied:
Nah I see how this works. Bye
So… let’s recap. First, you saw a meme you didn’t like because (according to your own words), you didn’t understand it.
I didn’t even know the term until more recently
Then, upon seeing that, you decided to post that you were going to block this sub, as if anybody in here actually gives a shit. When receiving pushback on that, you decided to ignore all of the opportunities to learn the information that you knew you didn’t know, and kept trying to take the moral high ground (which really was just you sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting “lalalalala”.
Now that you’ve received sufficient abuse, you’ve decided to actually educate yourself on what a tankie is by doing the very thing that I suggested several posts ago and visiting tankie spaces, and you’ve decided…
It was definitely… illuminating
Do you see why I called you a moron all of those times, now? Instead of just, you know, making use of the incredible power of the internet to inform yourself on a topic that you knew nothing about, you just decided to blast your stupid, uninformed opinions all over the place, and then get butthurt when you received pushback.
Hopefully, you treat this as a well-needed lesson, and refrain from doing that in the future.
No there’s no reason to call me that. I said i for distracted and it was like a train wreck. You know you shouldn’t look or engage unless you have something to offer without clogging up bw but then you do because whatever reasons (in this case distracted, then amused Ava amazed by what Kelly poppin in my inbox. Does unsubscribing from the sub stop inbox replies to comments? I also said I was busy, yes i know and have a superficial understanding of the term, and how would I know what to search for that wasn’t censored/blocked/bad faith info without asking for a general direction?
Hard disagree. I gave you several valid reasons for calling you that.
You know you shouldn’t look or engage unless you have something to offer without clogging up bw but then you do because whatever reasons (in this case distracted, then amused Ava amazed by what Kelly poppin in my inbox.
What? Can you rephrase that into something that a native English speaker would understand?
yes i know and have a superficial understanding of the term, and how would I know what to search for that wasn’t censored/blocked/bad faith info without asking for a general direction?
There’s this magical thing called a “search engine”. You take a word that you don’t know the meaning of, which in this case apparently is “tankie”, and you type it into the search engine. Here is an example.
Are you completely unfamiliar with how to use the internet? How did you find Lemmy in the first place?
Not only is it ok to say 'Hey, I was wrong," people will actually give you a lot of credit for being willing to say that. It’s not a sign of weakness; quite the opposite. If you’re never willing to admit to being wrong, you’ll never grow as a person .
I’m not convinced I was. I finally saw part of the problem was not defining our terms. I defined mine, and right-wing-authoritarian does not implicitly “fascist” in any stretch, using the term as described by a a altrmyer.
I know that you struggle with understanding extremely basic concepts, like “inform yourself before speaking as if you were informed”, or “search engines allow you to find information”… but do I really need to spell out to you that you are under no obligation to continue talking to someone that you find obnoxious?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re really dumb enough to not know that, or if you’re just so full of blind vanity that you think you’re going to somehow “win” the conversation by continuing it, despite the well warranted abuse you’re receiving along the way.
I love it when they burst into a rant about how easily offended others are when you call them out on 'banning' (blocking) a sub for having a meme they didn't like, lmao.
It’s even more hilarious 'cause I got banned from one of the tankie subs for asking the idiot I was arguing with if he got dropped on his head as a baby. They flagged that as “ableism” and kicked me out. LOL. Hypocritical, crybaby bitches.
That’s the thing, though. Nobody actually refuted anything that I said. They all just made smug, nonsensical retorts that didn’t have any basis in reality, and then they got butthurt when I called them delusional because of it. And yeah - insults were warranted. Because y’all are dumb as hell.
First things first, I’m not them. They banned me for my username because of latent tankie homophobia.
I just looked up that thread though since you could be right and I could be misremembering… nope, there’s a bunch of replies with links to sources and more concrete reasoning than your very own “Russian solders only get a few days of training”.
There’s even ppl warning you you’ll get banned if you keep using that language and you should tone it down if you wanna stick around.
Guess it was more important to insult everyone posting links and refuting what you said.
I mean, they banned you for having a funny username, and they banned me for asking if someone was dropped on their head as a baby. They’re crybaby bitches.
As for sources, I’m assuming most of that was posted after I was banned and could no longer reply. The only one I remember ignoring completely was one dummy who posted some hour long justification piece by Lukashenko, and like… I’m not about to waste my time listening to a dictator talking shop.
As for my penchant for insulting people… yeah. I don’t suffer fools gladly. It’s just not in me. So I amuse myself by telling them precisely what I think of them without couching the language.
It’s not you who didn’t suffer fools in that situation, it was them.
You can’t claim not to suffer fools when the power not to suffer them doesn’t lie with you.
The way to exercise your power to not suffer fools in that situation would have been to stop posting or stop insulting people, not keep going and get banned. The only exercise of power you can be accused of there is provoking a response you were warned about.
You can’t claim not to suffer fools when the power not to suffer them doesn’t lie with you.
I think you’re confused about the meaning of “suffering fools”. You can suffer fools by being polite to them, or refuse to suffer them by being real with them.
Here is Merriam Webster’s definition of this incredibly common colloquialism.
Now, as a practical example, me sharing that definition with you is being polite to a moron (i.e suffering a fool). You had every opportunity to look it up before spouting off, but you didn’t. You just chose to show your ignorance instead. When I say that I don’t suffer fools gladly, I’m not making up my own definition as you seem to suggest; I’m using the widely understood one.
The way to exercise your power to not suffer fools in that situation would have been to stop posting or stop insulting people, not keep going and get banned.
Why do I give a shit about being banned from a sub filled with morons? They’re obviously free to ban anybody they’d like, for any stupid reason they’d like. For example, they banned you for having the handle “gayhitler420”, and they banned me for asking politely if someone suffered brain injury as a child. Both of which are, in my opinion at least, incredibly snowflakey reasons to ban someone. If being banned by a group of shiteating howler monkeys is the price to pay for telling them that they are morons, well, I pay it gladly.
You’re either falling into a trap of believing that dictionary definitions matter or just being obtuse.
When someone doesnt suffer fools it means they have the power and status to do so and won’t suffer repercussions for it or will even hurt the people around them.
It’s not just something you say to justify or intensify insulting people.
When you go to another server and mouth off and get banned that’s not you “not suffering fools”, that’s your own foolishness not being suffered.
You’re either falling into a trap of believing that dictionary definitions matter or just being obtuse.
What? No, I’m just not being a fucking moron. You clearly don’t understand what that phrase means, and now you’re digging your heels in insisting it means something completely different from what it actually does, despite every single definition of it throughout history disagreeing with you.
Like, seriously - is this the hill you want to die on? You got the definition wrong. Just own that and move on with your life. Or, you can continue being a complete fucking moron and saying completely moronic shit to make yourself feel like you’re winning. Up to you.
Edit: I just realized that you’re bad with idioms. To nip this in the bud, I’m just gonna go ahead and explain what the phrase “hill to die on” means. It means picking a big fight over something unimportant.
Edit 2: Fuck. Ok. To “nip something in the bud” means to address something before it becomes an issue.
Shit - it’s actually kind of exasperating having to explain all of the idioms that you use on a daily basis to a fucking idiot.
I’m familiar with the idiom. When one doesn’t suffer fools they have the power to not do so. When you’re on someone else’s server mouthing off and getting banned you can’t dismiss it as not suffering fools because you didn’t have the power to not suffer them in that situation.
They in fact have the power to not suffer you, and did so.
So in that circumstance, like I said at first, you’re not the one who doesn’t suffer fools, they are.
Ok, I see you’ve chosen the second option: continue being a complete fucking moron and saying completely moronic shit to make yourself feel like you’re winning.
Fair enough. Well, since you apparently don’t trust dictionaries to define phrases for some reason, I doubt that there’s any evidence that I can present to you that will make you agree on the commonly held definition of the phrase. So, let’s just move past that.
My definition for the phrase at the time I used it a few responses ago, as well as now, is the exact same as the widely held definition as expressed by Merriam-Webster in that link I gave you. Which means that your entire argument is even more pointless than a sphere.
So, going forward, how about you just substitute every instance of me saying that “I don’t suffer fools gladly” with “I don’t have it in me to be polite to morons”? Because that’s what that phrase means. That’s what I meant when I said it, that’s what it means when literally anybody else on earth says it, and that’s what I mean right now. Can we be done with this dumbshit argument now? I mean, fuck. I believe you possess the unique ability to lower the average IQ of any room you enter.
And yet you’re willing to give attention to hurl epithets.
Block or defederate me? Rofl. Or communists who checks notes gave us the platform? “You morons” ah yes, thanks for reminding me I’m part of the group you’re insulting, maybe they put their viewpoints on the platform they created? I don’t see you signing up for truth social and doing the same thing; perhaps they’re not as authoritarian in some ways as say… you
Depends. If a government is oppressive to civil rights and punishes dissent, but they’re a rival/adversary of the US, do they get a pass for that?
A tankie would say yes, because they’re too blinded by anti American sentiment to think objectively. Generally speaking, a tankie will defend the Chinese government’s censorship, for instance.
think the problem is the psychological and political definition of “right wing authoritarian” are very different, but we (including myself) don’t know or forget, and also don’t define our terms at outset. Thanks for your reply. Btw I’ve always been dubious of “enemy of my enemy = friend.”
Add comment