96
!fediverse@piefed.social </c/fediverse@piefed.social> mod throws insults then blocks replies. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
locked 296 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rimu published yet another hit piece against the /0 instance and this time posted it in his own instance comms as well. One of his mods jumped in, admitted they don't know anything about anything, but nevertheless felt confident enough to state their opinion as fact and in the process insult all of us collectively, then stickied his opinion for good measure.

So I decided to reply sarcastically, at which point that mod insulted me and locked the thread, which is apparently a feature in piefed which simply hides/deletes further replies in that thread, but since it's not a feature in lemmy, it appears to function like a shadow delete.

This is what my last reply would have been.

(Yes I'm being snarky, but that "I'm so mature" bullshit just rubs me the wrong way.)

In my opinion, using mod powers to get the last insult in, is just bastard behaviour.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 6 months ago* (23 children)

i said:

‘tankie’ is routinely used as a pejorative for communists (and anarchists at this point) who aren’t aligned with us imperial ‘foreign policy’

you are now saying:

I don’t think most people use tankie as a perjorative for communists broadly

that's a different claim; my claim was that 'tankie' is used as a pejorative against anyone on the left who's not aligned with us imperial 'foreign policy'.

you say that you don't think it's used as a pejorative for communists broadly

the fact that there are communists who have views which are aligned with us 'foreign policy' is not something that is in dispute on my end; you're addressing a different claim.

we are here because i raised rimu's documented goal of excluding 'tankies' through platform design. what does that exclusion mean if not targeting anti-imperialists?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (22 children)

    we are here because i raised rimu’s documented goal of excluding ‘tankies’ through platform design.

    Which you did in defense of this claim:

    Piefed was created out of anti-communist ideology.

    So either it was created out of an anti-tankie (and nazi) ideology, and being anti-tankie == being anti-communist (unlikely), or it wasn't created out of an anti-communist ideology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (21 children)

    excluding anti-imperialists while catering to pro-US leftists is still anti-communism in practice; even in the cold war there was an acceptable vs unacceptable left.

    historical US anti-communism looks exactly like that in fact, revolutionary anti-imperialists get targeted while liberal-compatible communists are permitted and promoted.

    I can't take the stated desire to exclude nazis seriously when rimu has not spoken out against the platform being promoted as a place to be free from 'degenerate roaches' (referring to predominantly gay/trans 'tankies'). all energy seems to be directed leftwards and he's even posted and commented in the comm where that type of language has been long-permitted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    excluding anti-imperialists

    Assuming "excluding anti-imperialists" means "adding features tankies and nazis won't like", then maybe? But I don't think I agree that it does.

    when rimu has not spoken out against

    That's a loooooong thread with a lot of links to loooooooong threads, but I think I see the comment you're referring to here. Has anyone asked rimu to make a statement about that comment? Has he even seen it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (19 children)

    rimus comfort or lack thereof with the promotion of piefed in the nazi bar as an alternative to the 'tankies' is something which he can clarify if he chooses. it makes it hard for me to take his opposition to nazism as anything other than performative without that.

    i don't expect a real response from him, the evidence is posted on hexbear and his stated position is 'Do not take anything a hexbearian says at face value.'

    Assuming “excluding anti-imperialists” means “adding features tankies and nazis won’t like”, then maybe?

    nazis are not anti-imperialists and as i stated i'm not convinced they're being deterred at all. if anything the open anti-communism is a beacon for them.

    I get that you want to assume that 'tankies' and nazis are the same, but as I just clarified, designating an out-group of incompatible leftists to slander as 'tankies' because they do not align with us 'foreign policy' is just straight up anti-communism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    Okay, so we can close the nazi thread with: Rimu saying he's anti-nazi holds no water because he didn't make an official statement denouncing a comment he may or may not have seen where the commenter may or may not have known the word they chose can be interpreted as a crypto-fascist dogwhistle.

    I disagree, but it's honestly not relevant to whether or not PieFed was created out of an anti-communist ideology.

    nazis are not anti-imperialists

    I didn't say they were, I was just including the full target audience of that feature, since you keep going to "anti-imperialist", instead of "tankies and nazis", which is the actual quote.

    I get that you want to assume that ‘tankies’ and nazis are the same

    What?? I don't assume that at all... genuinely no idea where you're pulling that out of.

    designating an out-group of incompatible leftists to designate ‘tankies’ because they do not align with us ‘foreign policy’ is just straight up anti-communism.

    So if it is impossible to oppose tankies without opposing communism broadly, does it follow that it's impossible to support any form of communism without supporting tankie ideology?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (17 children)

    So if it is impossible to oppose tankies without opposing communism broadly, does it follow that it’s impossible to support any form of communism without supporting tankie ideology?

    you can critique specific states or policies without using 'tankie' as a catch-all for anti-imperialists.

    you propose a false binary, my point was that identifying 'tankies' as an out-group to exclude in practice excludes all anti-imperialist leftists while allowing pro-US ones. it is selective anti-communism and is no different from how it operated in the height of the cold war.

    rimu rhetorically equates 'tankies' and nazis, but all the energy i've seen in practice seems to be focused on the 'tankies' and presenting an alternative free from their 'influence' (ie, free from voices opposed to us imperialism)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago* (16 children)

    I'm curious, would you agree with this statement: ‘nazi’ (and 'fascist') is used as a pejorative against anyone on the right who is not opposed to capitalism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (15 children)

    fascism is more specifically for ethnonationalists, not just pro-capitalist right wingers. fascism is compatible with capitalism and so there's overlap.

    anti-imperialists oppose ethnostates and colonialism and that's why there's so much overlap between zionists and fascists in opposing 'tankies'. support for israel (a jewish ethnostate) is support for fascism regardless of other politics.

    the question you pose feels like setting up the deflection of 'see you just call everyone you disagree with fascist'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago* (14 children)

    More like, plenty of communities (think MoG-snark communities and the like) love to shit on "libs" and call them fascists and/or nazis. And, if pressed, they'd say it's because Liberals are collaborating with fascists and Nazis, so there's no real difference between them.

    I don't think that's even a particularly adversarial take -- do you agree that happens in Leftist, anti-MoG type spaces?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (13 children)

    i have never seen people shitting on libs at all on MoG. so i guess i would say its more a nonsensical take.

    if the political party that you're demanding everyone vote for is supporting (politically, militarily, economically) a fascist ethnostate run an extermination campaign, you're gonna get called a fascist.

    this is precise usage, not loose pejorative (ie how 'tankie' gets used)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    i have never seen people shitting on libs at all on MoG. so i guess i would say its more a nonsensical take.

    I didn't say in MoG, I said in anti-MoG spaces.

    this is precise usage, not loose pejorative (ie how ‘tankie’ gets used)

    No it's not it's decidedly not precise. That's the point. They call "Libs" Nazis and fascists because they believe that libs sweep for/support those groups.

    Likewise, people use "tankie" as a perjorative against authoritarian communists and people who they believe sweep for/support them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

    I didn't say in MoG, I said in anti-MoG spaces.

    vague; are you attempting to make an allusion to hexbear.net/c/slop? like yeah there's gonna be people who are not favorable to anticommunism, plus the comm is for all forms of reactionary bullshit, lemmy bullshit just happens to show up there occasionally. MoG isn't even on the front page there right now, nor is it anywhere in top.

    supporting a genocide with billions in weapons and diplomatic cover is material, direct support. that's precise. that's the complaint that i've seen making about people who uncritically support political parties which have been doing this. 'sweeping for' is vague accusation with no clear criterion, bordering on wrongthink.

    'authoritarian communists' is also imprecise. authoritarian by whose definition? the US is authoritarian, we have the highest incarceration rate on earth. if you can't pay rent or otherwise secure housing you essentially end up unpersoned. if you're just somebody living in a country that's opposed to the US you will be subjected to misery via economic warfare under the guise of peaceful status quo (sanctions). 'tankie' isn't used for US supporters, no matter how authoritarian it is, it's used for anyone opposing US imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    vague; are you attempting to make a vague allusion to hexbear.net/c/slop?

    Yup, places like that.

    So on the one hand, Liberals == actual Nazis, simple as. No nuance needed. But on the other hand, not all communists support authoritarian communism, and what does that actually even mean, etc.

    If that's your honest take, then we're just fundamentally not going to agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    on the other hand, not all communists support authoritarian communism, and what does that actually even mean, etc.

    you started this claiming piefed's intended exclusion of 'tankies' wasn't anti-communist. my point is simply that what matters if a given communist is to get called 'tankie' or not is how willing they are to toe the line against americas enemies.

    the US is authoritarian, it has been the hegemon and projects that domination around the world, choosing to have more ire for it than its enemies gets you labeled 'tankie'. i can only conclude that the desire to exclude tankies stems from a desire to censor critics of us imperialism.

    Liberals == actual Nazis, simple as. No nuance needed.

    i said that they're fascists because while in power the party materially, directly supported a genocidal ethnostate. if you're not shouting from the rafters that it needs to stop, but are instead browbeating people to uncritically support them and silencing and berating people critical of them, then you're part of that.

    i mean any given liberal could simply stop supporting the ethnostate doing a genocide and you wouldn't get called a fascist, but that would require some ability for introspection

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    my point is simply that what matters if a given communist is to get called ‘tankie’ or not is how willing they are to toe the line against americas enemies

    And I disagree. Shall we keep going in circles?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    if you're done being evasive and can't muster up an actual response then i guess we're done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I haven't been evasive, I've been succinct. We don't all need to gish-gallop and build out massive, loaded narratives to try and salvage a take.

    But since you're just fillibustering on a loop, if you get bored, maybe just ask unruffled if you can borrow the keys to the bias-confirmer-3000, toss my history in there, and talk in circles as much as you like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    you can be both of those things. just because you're struggling to engage with anything other than straw targets or articulate any clear principles doesn't mean i'm gish galloping.

    you can reply with simply disengage and i won't respond.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    No it’s not it’s decidedly not precise. That’s the point. They call “Libs” Nazis and fascists because they believe that libs sweep for/support those groups.

    Huh. I wonder why they do that. Let's see if Rimu likes socialists who are anti racist or his Zionist liberal friends more. I have a good feeling on the answer.

    I would personally, but Rimu deleted my account from his instance. Because I called out his actions. Like a fascist burning books that say facts they don't like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •