▲ 360 ▼ Evidence that lemmy.ml weaponizes rule 1 to censor criticism of russia and china (lemmy.world) submitted 1 month ago by lithiumground@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world locked 293 comments fedilink hide all child comments 💯 1
[+] lithiumground@lemmy.world [S] 55 points 1 month ago (40 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 40 child comments replies: [–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (24 children) A lot of instances are curated, they're the supreme mods after all. Some delay your posts until they can curate them, and some just remove them. It's the way it be. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 month ago* (23 children) This isn't said and understood enough. Instances on the Fediverse aren't free-for-all, apolitical places without ideology. Some try to be (with varying success) but being active in the Fediverse and especially running an instance is in itself a fairly ideological and political act. So chances are instances reflect their owners' ideology. And that is great because one has places to be if an instance doesn't suit them, unlike corpo platdorms where one ideology drives most of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] eurodyne@piefed.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) This. Just imagine if all of Lemmy was like one instance or another. The whole point of the fediverse is that there can be multiple instances, and you can just gravitate towards the ones that align with your own views. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago Except it would be nice if the instances were honest about their rules, or at least that they would be described somewhere written down, rather than people having to continually find out the hard way (such as OP). permalink fedilink source parent [–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (20 children) The only thing that bugs me about it is that the largest instances can control what most people see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago True. It's definitely not a perfect, problem-solved thing. Merely an (significant?) improvement from the corporate status quo. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) The great thing about lemmy's design is that that's not really true. I'm seeing this criticism of .ml despite being on .ml, because most of the posts that I see on lemmy are not on my home instance. At least half the time, I'm having discussions outside of my "home turf." When you have a space that agrees on certain base assumptions, it becomes easier to have more in depth and thoughtful discussions, because you don't have to focus on just proving or advocating for those basic assumptions over and over again, and watching every word you say to make sure it can't be twisted or misinterpreted to paint you in a negative light. By contrast, sharing a space with ideological opponents often means people tend to dig in and just make snipes at each other, everybody's just grandstanding and trying to get owns in, and the level of discussion is brought down to name-calling and accusations. At the same time, yes, echo chambers are a concern. If you're never exposed to opposing viewpoints, obviously that's not great either. We can see that happen on any number of subreddits. And if we were on different subreddits instead of on different instances, I wouldn't be seeing this criticism, and you wouldn't be seeing my response to it. The way the fediverse is designed inherently addresses both of those concerns. You can have a space where the discussions assume a shared ideology allowing for in depth discussions, but then you're also federated with other spaces with different shared assumptions. The "tankie" creators of lemmy designed it this way on purpose, for that reason. To allow minority views (including but not limited to their own) to have spaces for discussion, without becoming isolated. To allow for higher level discussions with shared assumptions while also allowing for interactions between groups with different assumptions. This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies, and that is not in spite of what the .ml's admins want, they literally designed it that way on purpose. The only censorship that really matters on the fediverse is defederation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 60 points 1 month ago (5 children) In large part that is what the word "tankie" means - denial of reality, instead substituting their own, which can only be done inside of a controlled echo chamber. Tankie is no way is synonymous with Communist. Think MAGA but on the left - it's otherwise identical in terms of behaviors, merely different talking points. You may find this illustrative: permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 weeks ago It's pro-authoritarian. That means this control is not really a contradiction. They say they're leftist, but I think it'd be hard to actually justify that based on the groups they support. Russia isn't leftist. The USSR may have been, but it's long gone. Russia is anti-LGBT+ and doesn't protect workers. It's an oligarchy. There are only two consistent things they follow. They're pro-authoritarian and anti-west. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu 4 points 1 month ago You may find this illustrative: 404 not found permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today -3 points 1 month ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 weeks ago They are not really leftist. They call themselves that, but they support the authoritarian oligarchy of Russia. That's not what a leftist would do. They are anti-western and pro-authoritarian, and that's about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago Tankeis are not leftists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago I never paid attention to the word until I came to Kbin and subsequently Lemmy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie says: Tankie originated in the UK as a term for hardline members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who continued to pledge support for the Soviet Union even when doubts had begun to emerge elsewhere in the party. ... Politically speaking, tankies regard past and current socialist systems as legitimate attempts at creating communism, and thus have not distanced themselves from Stalin, China, etc. Practically speaking, tankies are pro-fascist and pro-genocide, plus individual (literal) murders, so long as it is done by their favored in-groups (e.g. Russian aggression vs. Ukraine portrayed instead as poor whittle russia forced to defend itself, whoopsie), and opposed to anything (even outright socialism) when done by their opposed out-groups - chiefly Western Civilization. So their cries of "Death to the USA" are meant literally, and also inclusive of other NATO states. Source: go visit Lemmy.ml, which unlike most other instances by default without being logged in shows only Local rather than Global content, and see for yourself, it should only take a couple of minutes to find such evidence. Or possibly better yet lemmygrad.ml, except that most instances actually defederate from that one whereas almost none defederate from Lemmy.ml. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 24 points 1 month ago (3 children) One of my first experiences in the Fediverse was mentioning the Uyghur genocide and having my comment promptly removed by the .ml admins. They've been doing this all the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago imagine you mentioned the tianamin massacre, it would get thier panties in a wad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 child) When I first got on here I waded into a thread praising north korea and got so many downvotes for not knowing how awesome the Kim regime is. Fucking tankies man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 weeks ago It's a rite of passage here 😁 💯 1 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca 7 points 1 month ago They’ve always done this. “Rule 1” Is pretty much a .ml meme catch all for “you aren’t allowed to use facts here. Agree or be removed” permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) they have been doing that, maybe you dont visit thier posts often. hexbear, lemmygrad, and ml are all super tankies. others ones you may want to avoid is dbzero, or equivalent, startrek website comm, and some of blahj ones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] halm@leminal.space 2 points 1 month ago LOL, startrek.website? IIRC the whole hubbub about them was that they defederated from dbzer0 in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Klear@piefed.world -1 points 1 month ago What part of "tankies" do you not understand? permalink fedilink source parent [–] jdr@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago You might be thinking of lemmygrad? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (24 children) A lot of instances are curated, they're the supreme mods after all. Some delay your posts until they can curate them, and some just remove them. It's the way it be. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 month ago* (23 children) This isn't said and understood enough. Instances on the Fediverse aren't free-for-all, apolitical places without ideology. Some try to be (with varying success) but being active in the Fediverse and especially running an instance is in itself a fairly ideological and political act. So chances are instances reflect their owners' ideology. And that is great because one has places to be if an instance doesn't suit them, unlike corpo platdorms where one ideology drives most of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] eurodyne@piefed.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) This. Just imagine if all of Lemmy was like one instance or another. The whole point of the fediverse is that there can be multiple instances, and you can just gravitate towards the ones that align with your own views. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago Except it would be nice if the instances were honest about their rules, or at least that they would be described somewhere written down, rather than people having to continually find out the hard way (such as OP). permalink fedilink source parent [–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (20 children) The only thing that bugs me about it is that the largest instances can control what most people see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago True. It's definitely not a perfect, problem-solved thing. Merely an (significant?) improvement from the corporate status quo. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) The great thing about lemmy's design is that that's not really true. I'm seeing this criticism of .ml despite being on .ml, because most of the posts that I see on lemmy are not on my home instance. At least half the time, I'm having discussions outside of my "home turf." When you have a space that agrees on certain base assumptions, it becomes easier to have more in depth and thoughtful discussions, because you don't have to focus on just proving or advocating for those basic assumptions over and over again, and watching every word you say to make sure it can't be twisted or misinterpreted to paint you in a negative light. By contrast, sharing a space with ideological opponents often means people tend to dig in and just make snipes at each other, everybody's just grandstanding and trying to get owns in, and the level of discussion is brought down to name-calling and accusations. At the same time, yes, echo chambers are a concern. If you're never exposed to opposing viewpoints, obviously that's not great either. We can see that happen on any number of subreddits. And if we were on different subreddits instead of on different instances, I wouldn't be seeing this criticism, and you wouldn't be seeing my response to it. The way the fediverse is designed inherently addresses both of those concerns. You can have a space where the discussions assume a shared ideology allowing for in depth discussions, but then you're also federated with other spaces with different shared assumptions. The "tankie" creators of lemmy designed it this way on purpose, for that reason. To allow minority views (including but not limited to their own) to have spaces for discussion, without becoming isolated. To allow for higher level discussions with shared assumptions while also allowing for interactions between groups with different assumptions. This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies, and that is not in spite of what the .ml's admins want, they literally designed it that way on purpose. The only censorship that really matters on the fediverse is defederation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 month ago* (23 children) This isn't said and understood enough. Instances on the Fediverse aren't free-for-all, apolitical places without ideology. Some try to be (with varying success) but being active in the Fediverse and especially running an instance is in itself a fairly ideological and political act. So chances are instances reflect their owners' ideology. And that is great because one has places to be if an instance doesn't suit them, unlike corpo platdorms where one ideology drives most of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] eurodyne@piefed.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) This. Just imagine if all of Lemmy was like one instance or another. The whole point of the fediverse is that there can be multiple instances, and you can just gravitate towards the ones that align with your own views. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago Except it would be nice if the instances were honest about their rules, or at least that they would be described somewhere written down, rather than people having to continually find out the hard way (such as OP). permalink fedilink source parent [–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (20 children) The only thing that bugs me about it is that the largest instances can control what most people see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago True. It's definitely not a perfect, problem-solved thing. Merely an (significant?) improvement from the corporate status quo. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) The great thing about lemmy's design is that that's not really true. I'm seeing this criticism of .ml despite being on .ml, because most of the posts that I see on lemmy are not on my home instance. At least half the time, I'm having discussions outside of my "home turf." When you have a space that agrees on certain base assumptions, it becomes easier to have more in depth and thoughtful discussions, because you don't have to focus on just proving or advocating for those basic assumptions over and over again, and watching every word you say to make sure it can't be twisted or misinterpreted to paint you in a negative light. By contrast, sharing a space with ideological opponents often means people tend to dig in and just make snipes at each other, everybody's just grandstanding and trying to get owns in, and the level of discussion is brought down to name-calling and accusations. At the same time, yes, echo chambers are a concern. If you're never exposed to opposing viewpoints, obviously that's not great either. We can see that happen on any number of subreddits. And if we were on different subreddits instead of on different instances, I wouldn't be seeing this criticism, and you wouldn't be seeing my response to it. The way the fediverse is designed inherently addresses both of those concerns. You can have a space where the discussions assume a shared ideology allowing for in depth discussions, but then you're also federated with other spaces with different shared assumptions. The "tankie" creators of lemmy designed it this way on purpose, for that reason. To allow minority views (including but not limited to their own) to have spaces for discussion, without becoming isolated. To allow for higher level discussions with shared assumptions while also allowing for interactions between groups with different assumptions. This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies, and that is not in spite of what the .ml's admins want, they literally designed it that way on purpose. The only censorship that really matters on the fediverse is defederation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 child) This. Just imagine if all of Lemmy was like one instance or another. The whole point of the fediverse is that there can be multiple instances, and you can just gravitate towards the ones that align with your own views. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago Except it would be nice if the instances were honest about their rules, or at least that they would be described somewhere written down, rather than people having to continually find out the hard way (such as OP). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago Except it would be nice if the instances were honest about their rules, or at least that they would be described somewhere written down, rather than people having to continually find out the hard way (such as OP). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (20 children) The only thing that bugs me about it is that the largest instances can control what most people see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago True. It's definitely not a perfect, problem-solved thing. Merely an (significant?) improvement from the corporate status quo. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) The great thing about lemmy's design is that that's not really true. I'm seeing this criticism of .ml despite being on .ml, because most of the posts that I see on lemmy are not on my home instance. At least half the time, I'm having discussions outside of my "home turf." When you have a space that agrees on certain base assumptions, it becomes easier to have more in depth and thoughtful discussions, because you don't have to focus on just proving or advocating for those basic assumptions over and over again, and watching every word you say to make sure it can't be twisted or misinterpreted to paint you in a negative light. By contrast, sharing a space with ideological opponents often means people tend to dig in and just make snipes at each other, everybody's just grandstanding and trying to get owns in, and the level of discussion is brought down to name-calling and accusations. At the same time, yes, echo chambers are a concern. If you're never exposed to opposing viewpoints, obviously that's not great either. We can see that happen on any number of subreddits. And if we were on different subreddits instead of on different instances, I wouldn't be seeing this criticism, and you wouldn't be seeing my response to it. The way the fediverse is designed inherently addresses both of those concerns. You can have a space where the discussions assume a shared ideology allowing for in depth discussions, but then you're also federated with other spaces with different shared assumptions. The "tankie" creators of lemmy designed it this way on purpose, for that reason. To allow minority views (including but not limited to their own) to have spaces for discussion, without becoming isolated. To allow for higher level discussions with shared assumptions while also allowing for interactions between groups with different assumptions. This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies, and that is not in spite of what the .ml's admins want, they literally designed it that way on purpose. The only censorship that really matters on the fediverse is defederation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago True. It's definitely not a perfect, problem-solved thing. Merely an (significant?) improvement from the corporate status quo. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) The great thing about lemmy's design is that that's not really true. I'm seeing this criticism of .ml despite being on .ml, because most of the posts that I see on lemmy are not on my home instance. At least half the time, I'm having discussions outside of my "home turf." When you have a space that agrees on certain base assumptions, it becomes easier to have more in depth and thoughtful discussions, because you don't have to focus on just proving or advocating for those basic assumptions over and over again, and watching every word you say to make sure it can't be twisted or misinterpreted to paint you in a negative light. By contrast, sharing a space with ideological opponents often means people tend to dig in and just make snipes at each other, everybody's just grandstanding and trying to get owns in, and the level of discussion is brought down to name-calling and accusations. At the same time, yes, echo chambers are a concern. If you're never exposed to opposing viewpoints, obviously that's not great either. We can see that happen on any number of subreddits. And if we were on different subreddits instead of on different instances, I wouldn't be seeing this criticism, and you wouldn't be seeing my response to it. The way the fediverse is designed inherently addresses both of those concerns. You can have a space where the discussions assume a shared ideology allowing for in depth discussions, but then you're also federated with other spaces with different shared assumptions. The "tankie" creators of lemmy designed it this way on purpose, for that reason. To allow minority views (including but not limited to their own) to have spaces for discussion, without becoming isolated. To allow for higher level discussions with shared assumptions while also allowing for interactions between groups with different assumptions. This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies, and that is not in spite of what the .ml's admins want, they literally designed it that way on purpose. The only censorship that really matters on the fediverse is defederation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LuceVendemiaire@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 child) and those other instances can also moderate and delete comments and posts for all other instances unless archived or crossposted. If a lemmy.world mod deletes a comment in a lemmy.world post, I won't be able to see it from over here in db0 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago Tbf this is true for all instances - it is simply how the ActivityPub Protocol works. The home instance "owns" the content, so if e.g. a Lemmy.world user submits a post to a community on Lemmy.ml, then other LW users won't be able to see it if it gets removed, but the same is true vice versa if a ML user submits a post to a community located on LW. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 month ago (11 children) Why are you writing tankie in quotes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children) Because I disagree with the term. The admins are not "tankies," they are Marxist-Leninists. What makes someone a "tankie" is that they "defend" certain states. In practice, "defending" often includes just refuting misinformation, for example, if I refute that "everyone in North Korea gets the same haircut" then I'm "defending" it and therefore a "tankie." It can also mean acknowledging accomplishments, saying any good thing about any socialist state, like, "Cuba had a very successful literacy program," which is just an objective historical fact. "Tankie" is supposed to mean someone who blindly supports everything a socialist state has ever done, in practice, it means someone who supports anything a socialist state has ever done. Before it was "tankie" it was "pinko," and before that "red." That kind of red scare bullshit has allowed blatant misinformation to run rampant, because even rational people avoid pushing back on it for fear of being labelled a "tankie." As stories about how all communists eat babies or whatnot run rampant, it has in turn hurt the reputation of both leftists and liberals, because it literally doesn't matter how hard you try to distance yourself from the far-left, you'll still get associated with it. Joe Biden got called a communist for Christ's sake. To put it another way: Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being "smeared" as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations. The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal American liberals." All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds That is why I put "tankie" in quotes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Lol the admins for .ml are %100 tankies, calling them Marxist-leninists is just a kinder term for "western children who excuse the authoritarian actions of dictators they agree with". Trying to change history because it doesn't put russia or china in a good light or trying to call the shit they do as "western propaganda" is just being a tankie. End of the day, you tankies want to be the ones sending others to the gulags and think you'd be in power in your coming revolution. To bad you're a microscopic portion of the population that agrees with you and your authoritarian logic. You're just the "left" wing version of maga, ignorant and will excuse your dear leaders of any wrong doing while sticking your fingers in your ears shouting fake news. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) the left version of maga are the democrat die hards. never met a war they didn't support when it was team blue doing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (7 children) Naa tankies are just as bad. You excuse the invasion of Ukraine by russia and all the other countries russia wants to attack... looking like Latvia is next on putins list, and I'm sure you'll suggest they deserve it as well. You're just as war mongering as maga is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (6 children) Anyone who opposes any war will always be accused of supporting the other side, and as the other side is always painted as the aggressor no matter the conflict, those most opposed to war will always be painted as the most aggressive warmongers. It's no different from when I was labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or seen as "supporting 9/11" when I opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to building more tanks is literally the defining characteristic of a "tankie" for that reason, because if you don't want to build more tanks, it can only be because you want the enemy to win. Meanwhile, those who support building and deploying tanks are seen as "peaceful." Real "war is peace" hours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago (5 children) So that was a lot of words to say nothing. Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? It's the most clear cut conflict in the world at the moment, anyone supporting Putin's aggression has lost themselves to propaganda. Ukraine unfortunately didn't get enough support early on, this conflict could had cost half the lives lost to date. It's miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country's right to defend itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children) Do you think Russia is in a right to invade Ukraine? No. No more than I "supported" Al Qaida and 9/11 by opposing going to war. It’s miles apart to be against an aggressive occupational force with no clear goals, and not support a country’s right to defend itself. I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger, a "tankie," while you're the one arguing that we didn't build and deploy enough tanks. Exactly as I described: "war is peace." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) I don't believe countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and if I did then I would say that the DPR had the same right. It's not the Donbas war I'm questioning, there's a reasoning chain that's understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It's the full scale invasion of 2022 I'm questioning. There's no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. The nationalists were not in power by the time they began their invasion. They had already gained control of the region, Donbas, that wanted to be Russian. There's just no way to argue the full scale invasion should ever have started. Somehow, the extreme anti-war stance of not supporting even "defensive" wars makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger Your endgame argument is national states shouldn't exist, but today they do. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it's whoever carries the most power (that's war machines), that'll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that'll impact everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children) It’s not the Donbas war I’m questioning, there’s a reasoning chain that’s understandable. Both geopolitically, strategically and culturally. It’s the full scale invasion of 2022 I’m questioning. There’s no chain of thought leading to that invasion, other than greed and lust for blood by Putin and his inner circles. What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. As long as they do exist, national governments should be able to defend against other nations attempt to gain control over them. Disagree. Because if we do assume, at one point we get a global government and abolish the national states. Then it’s whoever carries the most power (that’s war machines), that’ll be able to decide the values of such a government. And by extend shape the culture that’ll impact everyone. So we have to feed the largest war machine on the planet because otherwise the war machines win? Yeah, no. It's not a fight over having war machines or not, it's a fight over which war machine gets fed certain minerals. I have no real stake in that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) What are you talking about? The DPR requested Russian military assistance. If the DPR was legitimate and had the right to defend itself, then Russia sending troops in at their request was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the full scale war. They're two different conflicts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* That's complete and total nonsense. That's not how war works and not how it has ever worked or will ever work. If a war is justified, then it is justified to not only repel the enemy troops from your borders, but to counterattack within their borders in order to reduce their ability to continue fighting. That does not make it "a different conflict" when you do. I can't believe people are still dragging out the same absurd talking points that social democrats used a century ago when justifing throwing bodies into the meat grinder of WWI. "We are only fighting against defeat" they said. As if, in their minds, once the German lines were broken, the Allied forces were going to just stop at the border! It's completely and utterly delusional. Or rather, it is bad faith, because they knew, and you and I know, that's not how anything works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) This is why all this hand-wringing over .ml's censorship is kind of silly. Because people on .ml are constantly seeing content from other instances with completely different policies Literally nobody has ever claimed that users on Lemmy.ml are not allowed to see content on other instances - this is not merely a strawman argument but an absolutely ridiculous one. Please don't bother to reply to this if this is the level of content that your messages will contain. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed - a community of people discussing FOSS comes nowhere close to mentioning that you are not allowed to come close to criticizing Russia, China, or North Korea - e.g. it is not allowed to state that Ukraine is not the aggressor and that rather Russia is, or to state that Uyghurs are being killed by China. I really really really really really really really really wish that Lemmy would implement a true instance block so that I did not have to spend time reading such comments as this. But for some reason that option is denied to me. Go figure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) It's not really a strawman in that I never claimed anyone said it. It's just that people talk about "censorship" and "echo chambers" and "they have to remove things to keep their users brainwashed" or whatever nonsense, ignoring the fact that the structure of the fediverse, as designed by the .ml admins, makes that more or less impossible. For anyone else that is curious, the complaint is about the lack of transparency in describing what content is vs. is not allowed OK, fair enough, they could afford to clarify the rules somewhat. But I don't really consider that a huge deal. I've been banned from communities on .world for things that aren't enumerated in the rules too. I don't see why rules have to cover every possible thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Your second whataboutism is also noted (counterpoint: 2 things can both be true at the same time) - and expected. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Your argument that lemmy.ml cannot be an echo chamber due to it allowing other machines to store content that it disagrees with is noted. That's one way to describe "designed a website where it's virtually unavoidable to encounter opposing views." At that point, you could describe me replying to you as me "storing content you disagree with on another machine" which makes your complaint about my reply existing sound just as silly. Btw nobody ever said that it was for that reason, so once again ridiculous. Btw, I never said that anyone said it was for that reason, so you are once again being ridiculous. Your second whataboutism Whataboutism is when you uphold consistent standards and expect others to do the same, understood. Once again I reiterate that I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wish that I did not have to be subjected to this level of argumentation. But it seems that as long as I continue to use Lemmy, my only option is to block each account individually, over and over again, ad nauseum. If you hate the fact that the devs structured the platform to force everyone to encounter opposing views and prevent echo chambers so much, I kinda have to wonder what you're doing on the platform at all. The federated structure is literally in the name, fediverse. It's like going to Burger King and being outraged at seeing burgers on the menu. Is it really that hard to find an echo chamber somewhere with only mainstream liberal views? That's not really something the fediverse is designed for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 60 points 1 month ago (5 children) In large part that is what the word "tankie" means - denial of reality, instead substituting their own, which can only be done inside of a controlled echo chamber. Tankie is no way is synonymous with Communist. Think MAGA but on the left - it's otherwise identical in terms of behaviors, merely different talking points. You may find this illustrative: permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 weeks ago It's pro-authoritarian. That means this control is not really a contradiction. They say they're leftist, but I think it'd be hard to actually justify that based on the groups they support. Russia isn't leftist. The USSR may have been, but it's long gone. Russia is anti-LGBT+ and doesn't protect workers. It's an oligarchy. There are only two consistent things they follow. They're pro-authoritarian and anti-west. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu 4 points 1 month ago You may find this illustrative: 404 not found permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today -3 points 1 month ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 weeks ago They are not really leftist. They call themselves that, but they support the authoritarian oligarchy of Russia. That's not what a leftist would do. They are anti-western and pro-authoritarian, and that's about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago Tankeis are not leftists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago I never paid attention to the word until I came to Kbin and subsequently Lemmy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie says: Tankie originated in the UK as a term for hardline members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who continued to pledge support for the Soviet Union even when doubts had begun to emerge elsewhere in the party. ... Politically speaking, tankies regard past and current socialist systems as legitimate attempts at creating communism, and thus have not distanced themselves from Stalin, China, etc. Practically speaking, tankies are pro-fascist and pro-genocide, plus individual (literal) murders, so long as it is done by their favored in-groups (e.g. Russian aggression vs. Ukraine portrayed instead as poor whittle russia forced to defend itself, whoopsie), and opposed to anything (even outright socialism) when done by their opposed out-groups - chiefly Western Civilization. So their cries of "Death to the USA" are meant literally, and also inclusive of other NATO states. Source: go visit Lemmy.ml, which unlike most other instances by default without being logged in shows only Local rather than Global content, and see for yourself, it should only take a couple of minutes to find such evidence. Or possibly better yet lemmygrad.ml, except that most instances actually defederate from that one whereas almost none defederate from Lemmy.ml. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 weeks ago It's pro-authoritarian. That means this control is not really a contradiction. They say they're leftist, but I think it'd be hard to actually justify that based on the groups they support. Russia isn't leftist. The USSR may have been, but it's long gone. Russia is anti-LGBT+ and doesn't protect workers. It's an oligarchy. There are only two consistent things they follow. They're pro-authoritarian and anti-west. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu 4 points 1 month ago You may find this illustrative: 404 not found permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today -3 points 1 month ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 weeks ago They are not really leftist. They call themselves that, but they support the authoritarian oligarchy of Russia. That's not what a leftist would do. They are anti-western and pro-authoritarian, and that's about it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] athatet@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago Tankeis are not leftists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OpenStars@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago I never paid attention to the word until I came to Kbin and subsequently Lemmy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie says: Tankie originated in the UK as a term for hardline members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who continued to pledge support for the Soviet Union even when doubts had begun to emerge elsewhere in the party. ... Politically speaking, tankies regard past and current socialist systems as legitimate attempts at creating communism, and thus have not distanced themselves from Stalin, China, etc. Practically speaking, tankies are pro-fascist and pro-genocide, plus individual (literal) murders, so long as it is done by their favored in-groups (e.g. Russian aggression vs. Ukraine portrayed instead as poor whittle russia forced to defend itself, whoopsie), and opposed to anything (even outright socialism) when done by their opposed out-groups - chiefly Western Civilization. So their cries of "Death to the USA" are meant literally, and also inclusive of other NATO states. Source: go visit Lemmy.ml, which unlike most other instances by default without being logged in shows only Local rather than Global content, and see for yourself, it should only take a couple of minutes to find such evidence. Or possibly better yet lemmygrad.ml, except that most instances actually defederate from that one whereas almost none defederate from Lemmy.ml. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 weeks ago They are not really leftist. They call themselves that, but they support the authoritarian oligarchy of Russia. That's not what a leftist would do. They are anti-western and pro-authoritarian, and that's about it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago Tankeis are not leftists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago I never paid attention to the word until I came to Kbin and subsequently Lemmy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie says: Tankie originated in the UK as a term for hardline members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who continued to pledge support for the Soviet Union even when doubts had begun to emerge elsewhere in the party. ... Politically speaking, tankies regard past and current socialist systems as legitimate attempts at creating communism, and thus have not distanced themselves from Stalin, China, etc. Practically speaking, tankies are pro-fascist and pro-genocide, plus individual (literal) murders, so long as it is done by their favored in-groups (e.g. Russian aggression vs. Ukraine portrayed instead as poor whittle russia forced to defend itself, whoopsie), and opposed to anything (even outright socialism) when done by their opposed out-groups - chiefly Western Civilization. So their cries of "Death to the USA" are meant literally, and also inclusive of other NATO states. Source: go visit Lemmy.ml, which unlike most other instances by default without being logged in shows only Local rather than Global content, and see for yourself, it should only take a couple of minutes to find such evidence. Or possibly better yet lemmygrad.ml, except that most instances actually defederate from that one whereas almost none defederate from Lemmy.ml. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 24 points 1 month ago (3 children) One of my first experiences in the Fediverse was mentioning the Uyghur genocide and having my comment promptly removed by the .ml admins. They've been doing this all the time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago imagine you mentioned the tianamin massacre, it would get thier panties in a wad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 child) When I first got on here I waded into a thread praising north korea and got so many downvotes for not knowing how awesome the Kim regime is. Fucking tankies man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 weeks ago It's a rite of passage here 😁 💯 1 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago imagine you mentioned the tianamin massacre, it would get thier panties in a wad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 child) When I first got on here I waded into a thread praising north korea and got so many downvotes for not knowing how awesome the Kim regime is. Fucking tankies man permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 weeks ago It's a rite of passage here 😁 💯 1 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 weeks ago It's a rite of passage here 😁 💯 1 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pratai@piefed.ca 7 points 1 month ago They’ve always done this. “Rule 1” Is pretty much a .ml meme catch all for “you aren’t allowed to use facts here. Agree or be removed” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) they have been doing that, maybe you dont visit thier posts often. hexbear, lemmygrad, and ml are all super tankies. others ones you may want to avoid is dbzero, or equivalent, startrek website comm, and some of blahj ones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] halm@leminal.space 2 points 1 month ago LOL, startrek.website? IIRC the whole hubbub about them was that they defederated from dbzer0 in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] halm@leminal.space 2 points 1 month ago LOL, startrek.website? IIRC the whole hubbub about them was that they defederated from dbzer0 in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Klear@piefed.world -1 points 1 month ago What part of "tankies" do you not understand? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jdr@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago You might be thinking of lemmygrad? permalink fedilink source parent