As we already discussed, if the vast majority of Marxists fit the definition of “tankie” you gave, then it’s just a pejorative for Marxists. The Black Panther Party supported and was influenced by the DPRK, if you count that as “glorifying,” in your own words, then the Black Panthers were tankies. If you don’t, and believe them to have been sufficiently nuanced, then “tankies” practically do not exist on Lemmy.
Most Marxists do not uncritically support Russia, though opposition to the Nationalists like Azov in Ukraine is something common on the Left, and believe Russia’s anti-US stance is beneficial for the Global South (see the string of African liberation movements in the past few years). Most Marxists can agree that the Uyghur people have been placed in re-education camps, but most do not believe they are being systemically murdered en masse like many people report. Most Marxists think the DPRK is doing surprisingly well for a country under extreme embargoes and was subject to more tons of bombs than the pacific front in World War II, not that it would be preferable to live there than in a highly developed country free from those problems.
Maybe they should stop playing devils advocate for Russia in general, If you have to have a conversation about the Genocidal Mob state, and throw a bunch of ifs, ands, or buts in the discussion. You’re already stoking trouble.
America can be bad, and Russia can be equally bad in the same instance.
The US is the world’s largest Empire. It plunders the Global South on a constant basis, and has committed numerous genocides and invasions. From Palestine to Korea to Iraq to Vietnam to Angola to Nicaragua to Afghanistan to Cambodia to the Phillipines to many, many more places, the US is on a ceaseless slaughter-course.
I am talking about the majority of the people people on Lemmy call “tankies.” Not everyone has your specific view and nuance of the word, yet when others see you use it to describe people, they think of the worst nightmare of McCarthy. It’s better to not use the word at all, unless you want to antagonize Marxists in general, because that’s what Marxists see it as.
My recommendation is to either refrain from using it, or use it with the knowledge that it’s just an anti-communist pejorative. I don’t recommend trying to claim you aren’t an anti-Communist while using the modern version of “pinko,” when everyone hears it as such.
My biggest recommendation, though, is to just visit places you feel are “tankie” and try to ask questions in good faith. Make a Hexbear account, and participate in the general megathread, browse the news mega, or just lurk, and then you’ll get a better view of what these “tankies” are actually like when they aren’t in an environment hostile to them and dedicated to misrepresenting their words at every instance.
I get called tankie from time to time, but
1a. I hate Putin’s corrupt fascist oligarchy
1b. I fully support Ukraine!
The Uyghurs absolutely were mistreated, but it is hard to care about at the moment when the US and Isreal are carrying out an actual genocide. Also, neo-nazis have taken over the US and are illegally abducting minorities.
I think the DRPK is very problematic, but they seem to be doing well despite the US putting such ridiculously excessive embargos and sanctions on them. Overall they are probably no worse off than capitalist India and they are probably better off than most 3rd world capitalist nations like Iran, Brazil, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc…
What’s a tankie, and what’s wrong with the .ml instance? I just joined it because I read that it was hosted by the people who created Lemmy, so I figured it’d be the best and/or least likely to go down
lemmy.ml has a slight problem of removing pro-ukraine and anti-china posts. It has a high amount of what are called “tankies”. These are communists who believe authoritarian regimes were great. (nothing against communists in general);
Exactly this. Like someone will post an article from RT saying that Ukraine grids up babies for fun. If you ask if RT is really the best source you get a response like “RT cites its sources. If you don’t believe it you can read the sources!!”
If you mention that the sources aren’t reliable or question anything you get sealioned hard.
I would recommend making an account on any instance not ending in .ml or bear.net That way you can have actual conversations without having to wade through the nonsense.
Don’t bother with him, I’ve tagged him as “bad actor” because he might seem reasonable at first glance but if you start pushing him on topics you know better than him it quickly becomes clear he’s arguing in bad faith.
No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn’t agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
I’m not salty about talking to him, I simply don’t see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I’ll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.
People who
Support modern russia and/or are opposed to Ukraine
Deny that the Uyghurs were mistreated by china
Think the DRPK is a nice place to live right now.
and his response to that was:
Most Marxists do not uncritically support Russia, though opposition to the Nationalists like Azov in Ukraine is something common on the Left, and believe Russia’s anti-US stance is beneficial for the Global South (see the string of African liberation movements in the past few years).
Translation. We don’t fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.
Most Marxists can agree that the Uyghur people have been placed in re-education camps, but most do not believe they are being systemically murdered en masse like many people report.
Translation. We can (which doesn’t mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).
Most Marxists think the DPRK is doing surprisingly well for a country under extreme embargoes and was subject to more tons of bombs than the pacific front in World War II, not that it would be preferable to live there than in a highly developed country free from those problems.
Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies” even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I’m sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
The fact that you felt the need to write out - at length - your extremely one-sided and obviously self serving account of the argument makes me even more convinced that you lost an argument and are extremely salty about it.
He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
Sounds like projection on your part.
Translation.
No, the comment was already in English. You’re just ignoring what he actually said so you can create a lazy strawman. I’m unsurprised that you were absolutely the one not discussing in good faith.
Translation
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies”
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous,
Any actual examples though?
then pushing his own agenda on others.
Yes, that’s what arguing for your position is. What is he supposed to do, just automatically concede to you?
I’m sure people can find those in other thread
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
Ad hominem
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
Ad hominem
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he’s not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.
Any actual examples though?
Besides the one I mentioned? Well there’s also the one where he’s pushed about being critical of Russia’s actions he deflects to America being worse.
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
Ad hominem
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Not criticising marxists, just tankies.
As we already discussed, if the vast majority of Marxists fit the definition of “tankie” you gave, then it’s just a pejorative for Marxists. The Black Panther Party supported and was influenced by the DPRK, if you count that as “glorifying,” in your own words, then the Black Panthers were tankies. If you don’t, and believe them to have been sufficiently nuanced, then “tankies” practically do not exist on Lemmy.
Alright, forget the word tankie.
People who
That definition doesn’t even apply to the people you’re critising
Most Marxists do not uncritically support Russia, though opposition to the Nationalists like Azov in Ukraine is something common on the Left, and believe Russia’s anti-US stance is beneficial for the Global South (see the string of African liberation movements in the past few years). Most Marxists can agree that the Uyghur people have been placed in re-education camps, but most do not believe they are being systemically murdered en masse like many people report. Most Marxists think the DPRK is doing surprisingly well for a country under extreme embargoes and was subject to more tons of bombs than the pacific front in World War II, not that it would be preferable to live there than in a highly developed country free from those problems.
Maybe they should stop playing devils advocate for Russia in general, If you have to have a conversation about the Genocidal Mob state, and throw a bunch of ifs, ands, or buts in the discussion. You’re already stoking trouble.
America can be bad, and Russia can be equally bad in the same instance.
Russia is not a global Hegemon. Even if it wanted to be as bad as the US, it physically can’t do nearly the damage the US does on a daily basis.
They are currently invading and occupying multiple neighbouring countries.
And unlike the places the US goes to, life is far worse under Russian occupation.
The US is the world’s largest Empire. It plunders the Global South on a constant basis, and has committed numerous genocides and invasions. From Palestine to Korea to Iraq to Vietnam to Angola to Nicaragua to Afghanistan to Cambodia to the Phillipines to many, many more places, the US is on a ceaseless slaughter-course.
Uh huh, yup, cool.
Not what we were talking about at all, but okey dokey.
The US is neck deep in a genocide far worse than anything Russia is doing.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. They only practice corruption, warmongering, barbaric mass murder and ethnocide on a regional scale. I apologize
The US does it on a global scale, which is worse in my opinion.
not by a long shot, and thats the point.
Most of the people you are talking about, are not who I am referring to in the post.
I am talking about the majority of the people people on Lemmy call “tankies.” Not everyone has your specific view and nuance of the word, yet when others see you use it to describe people, they think of the worst nightmare of McCarthy. It’s better to not use the word at all, unless you want to antagonize Marxists in general, because that’s what Marxists see it as.
What do you recommend I use instead?
My recommendation is to either refrain from using it, or use it with the knowledge that it’s just an anti-communist pejorative. I don’t recommend trying to claim you aren’t an anti-Communist while using the modern version of “pinko,” when everyone hears it as such.
My biggest recommendation, though, is to just visit places you feel are “tankie” and try to ask questions in good faith. Make a Hexbear account, and participate in the general megathread, browse the news mega, or just lurk, and then you’ll get a better view of what these “tankies” are actually like when they aren’t in an environment hostile to them and dedicated to misrepresenting their words at every instance.
Just FYI, I’m tagging you as “tankie” for future reference, because everything you’ve said so far is the most tankie of tankie takes.
You can do what you want, I’m a Marxist, if that’s a problem then you do you.
@Irelephant@lemm.ee
Thoughts on this user immediately coming in to immediately disagree with you about what a tankie is?
I get called tankie from time to time, but 1a. I hate Putin’s corrupt fascist oligarchy 1b. I fully support Ukraine!
The Uyghurs absolutely were mistreated, but it is hard to care about at the moment when the US and Isreal are carrying out an actual genocide. Also, neo-nazis have taken over the US and are illegally abducting minorities.
I think the DRPK is very problematic, but they seem to be doing well despite the US putting such ridiculously excessive embargos and sanctions on them. Overall they are probably no worse off than capitalist India and they are probably better off than most 3rd world capitalist nations like Iran, Brazil, Haiti, Afghanistan, etc…
I don’t know the rest of your political beliefs, but from this you don’t seem to be a tankie from this.
What’s a tankie, and what’s wrong with the .ml instance? I just joined it because I read that it was hosted by the people who created Lemmy, so I figured it’d be the best and/or least likely to go down
Hi there,
lemmy.ml has a slight problem of removing pro-ukraine and anti-china posts. It has a high amount of what are called “tankies”. These are communists who believe authoritarian regimes were great. (nothing against communists in general);
Exactly this. Like someone will post an article from RT saying that Ukraine grids up babies for fun. If you ask if RT is really the best source you get a response like “RT cites its sources. If you don’t believe it you can read the sources!!”
If you mention that the sources aren’t reliable or question anything you get sealioned hard.
I would recommend making an account on any instance not ending in .ml or bear.net That way you can have actual conversations without having to wade through the nonsense.
They will also argue terminology instead of addressing the points you raise.
Nothing’s wrong with .ml people just like drama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Given that “tankie” means anyone to the left of Elizabeth Warren, Marxists are a subset of tankies.
Don’t bother with him, I’ve tagged him as “bad actor” because he might seem reasonable at first glance but if you start pushing him on topics you know better than him it quickly becomes clear he’s arguing in bad faith.
So you lost an argument to him and got salty about it.
No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn’t agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
I’m not salty about talking to him, I simply don’t see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I’ll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.
and his response to that was:
Translation. We don’t fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.
Translation. We can (which doesn’t mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).
Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies” even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I’m sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
The fact that you felt the need to write out - at length - your extremely one-sided and obviously self serving account of the argument makes me even more convinced that you lost an argument and are extremely salty about it.
Sounds like projection on your part.
No, the comment was already in English. You’re just ignoring what he actually said so you can create a lazy strawman. I’m unsurprised that you were absolutely the one not discussing in good faith.
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
Any actual examples though?
Yes, that’s what arguing for your position is. What is he supposed to do, just automatically concede to you?
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Removed by mod
I rest my case: you just consider anyone disagreeing with you in any way to be unacceptable.
Sure.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he’s not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.
Besides the one I mentioned? Well there’s also the one where he’s pushed about being critical of Russia’s actions he deflects to America being worse.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem conclusion.
Where is the substance?
Incorrect, it is not an ad hominem.
Again, no it isn’t.
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
Are you saying that OP has changed their mind?
Still not what an ad hominem is. Or a one liner for that matter…
No, an actual example
That’s not an example though. That’s literally just him stating his opinion.
Can you actually learn what “ad hominem” means and come and try again?