• @PugJesusOPM
    link
    English
    82 days ago

    Please elaborate on this.

    Things like “The Yankee Dogs™ forced North Korea to adopt Juche” or “Soviet secret police torturing people to extract confessions for execution were just acting in self-defense against the bourgeois pigs!”

    Things that are both vile and untrue, but don’t relate to a singular factual statement (unlike, say, “The Soviets didn’t commit the Katyn Massacre”, which would be vile and untrue AND relate to a singular factual statement)

    • @Land_Strider
      link
      English
      22 days ago

      Do mean something like ground setting, prior-discussion-terminating stances taken through provable-or-refutable-almost-solely-through-statistics without providing such statistics, or do you also mean a use of particular lingo?

      I don’t have any questions for the second part.

      • @PugJesusOPM
        link
        English
        12 days ago

        I would probably take a closer and more critical look at their statements if I saw someone using some of the more distinctively tankie lingo, but that wouldn’t be worth a ban or a warning or any sort of action.

        “Stalin’s big spoon” and other such euphemistic jokes excluded. Those are definitely worth a ban, fuck ‘I was just joking’ about genocide denial shite.

        • @Land_Strider
          link
          English
          52 days ago

          Thanks for the elaboration. It’s always good to know if anyone with any kind of power to do something can explain how they interpret the basic rulesets and what the vague things like common sense or suspicion means to them in a context.