1096
There are too many of these people on lemmy
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1096 points (89.3% liked)
Political Memes
5327 readers
2631 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a no true Scotsman argument.
There are plenty of actual tankies here. In fact, the Lemmy software is created by tankies and one of the larger Lemmy instances is run by them.
From what I've seen, there's a big divide amongst the tankies. There are those who are basically Stalin MAGA, base their political opinions on Soviet aesthetics and don't consider much the practical implications of their actions. Some simply lash out against mainstream liberal ideology and others are just trolls.
Ane the other camp is made of people who read a lot of communist philosophy and are absolutely convinced the only way to achieve an equal society is by forcing everyone into it. This has its own problems, but they at least have an internally coherent ideology.
That's not to say I agree with either camp. Their ideology promotes a vanguard party which can quickly spiral into "some are more equal than others". Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that. But I do understand where the second camp is coming from. I think the path to a better world lies in trade unions and people coming together to defend common interests.
When they are actively censoring and banning people who make critical comments about the PRC, the USSR, or even present day Russia, I don't care where they come from.
I was banned from lemmy.ml myself for saying something about the Tiananmen Square massacre.
How did this even happened? How can anyone not right-wing ban for opposing Putin's oligarchs like Usmanov, Roldugin, Rotenberg, Yakunin and Putin himself?
West bad, not-West good
That's literally all they care about.
If you push them they yell "just joking bro" or ban you immediately.
I was just banned from leftymemes because I was having a conversation about Democrats. They essentially said that the Democrats suck because they don't want to sink the levels of depravity of the Alt-Right. I pretty much said, whatever happened to "Be the Change you want to see?" They want a government that works together. You can't do that be being savage, raving, lying lunatics like the Alt-Right.
Apparently that's enough to get you banned by the Alt-Left. Fuck them
When a term becomes an insult, it's very difficult to use it as anything other than an insult.
I more often see "tankie" used to decribe anti-war liberals than pro-war leftists.
There are two useful tests when evaluating the value of words like this:
Do people use it as a form of self-identification? If they do, that's probably the real definition. If they don't it's probably just an insult.
Does the word have a consistent definition? If the definition frequently shifts to suit the needs of the speaker, it's probably not a real definition.
I really like your first point! Second one is a little tricky. It's not just a fluctuation with an individual, but rather the difference between groups. Bottom line, the consistent definition depends on your own exposure to it, if you're not going by what others claim to be "is the most frequent."
The second one is definitely a bit trickier.
I think there are two major forms of inconsistency that matter most.
When the parties in a conversation use different definitions for a word, they will just argue in circles. They may both have good points but neither party will understand the other. That's often fairly easy to resolve, "I can understand your point if we use your definition of X. We can also see how my point stands if we use my definition of X. How about we call them X1 and X2 so we don't get confused?"
When one party uses different definitions of the word it's fair to ask them to pick one or to be explicit about when they're shifting definitions. When someone says, "I believe Y because X is TRUE and I believe Z because X is NOT TRUE," they've introduced a huge logical hole which needs to be addressed.