The only reason I replied was to give context to this comment:
I’ve been called a racist, a homophobe (???) and worst of all a liberal and a fascist (same thing apparently /s) all because I insisted that China isn’t worth simping for.
That’s not what happened, I showed what actually happened. The homophobic comment was well-warented as well, claiming users are “sucking XYZ person off” is an insult historically directed at men on the basis of homosexual actions being “shameful” or “gross,” reinforcing that image of homosexuality. As a pansexual man, that certainly doesn’t feel good to see. You crafted an enemy to fight, and when people pointed out that the enemy you created in your head doesn’t actually exist, you projected that strawman onto others. Here’s an example:
If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I’m a donkey with a laser dick :P But I’m more anarchistically inclined so different perspective. I see your point though. What I’m saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
Despite multiple people providing nuanced responses with western sources backing them up, and only a few people calling you a liberal, you started calling others “tankies.” Even now, I never once called you a liberal, you had to lie about that to provide a “buffer” for yourself.
What I hate most about tankies is that they are the only true leftists and anybody who disagrees with them is just a poser and a liberal. Especially anarchists.
Many of the people disagreeing with you and calling you a liberal were Anarchists, actually. Anarchism isn’t a vibe, or a purity test, Anarchism must side with reality. Simply saying “every government bad, and the more people, the more bad it is” would only be applicable if there was already a mass Anarchist movement that served as a genuine alternative. In the absence of such a movement, you have to work with what’s there and build up alternatives in the meantime.
I’m not interested in “debating you.” I just saw you misrepresenting Marxists and Anarchists who disagreed with you as “tankies” who “simp” for the PRC despite giving well-sourced and nuanced responses. Not everyone was respectful, but numerous people were, and when people like @[email protected] gave you careful and thoughtful responses to questions you yourself asked,, you ignored the majority of the comments because “you were busy,” rather than simply not responding. You couln’t even do the bare minimum of respect for all that effort, but you had to get in a quick jab in response.
All I’m saying is that you need to do some self-crit. What was your goal? To convert people to see things your way? That backfired spectacularly. Was it to learn more yourself? You evidently admitted to not reading the longer, higher effort comments, so that’s a wash too. If anything, it just seems like you wanted to argue and call people tankies. I don’t think your accusation that “tankies” call everyone else a “lib” is a coincidence given your tendency to call people who disagree with “tankie,” it’s projection.
It is very funny that they’re back here complaining about “the tankies” and rehashing the same talking points they couldn’t defend a few days ago. It’s like they are trying to embody the stereotype of the “Western leftist”.
Yep, I wasn’t even trying to start a debate, just point out that they were being dishonest on this thread and misrepresented the other thread entirely.
This is a great reply to my comment you really did a good job addressing any of the points and not making things up. Also nice job getting your buddy involved now they can start 10 different threads with essay-length comments again and then complain that I didn’t answer each of the 10 paragraphs in each of the 100 comments.
I already regret honoring any of your nonstop abuse as conversation. I’m blocking you.
I told you outright that I’m not trying to start a debate here, just point out dishonesty. I doubt TheOubliette is going to start anything here either, people have more important things to do than try to convince someone who is unwilling to listen to begin with.
The only reason I replied was to give context to this comment:
That’s not what happened, I showed what actually happened. The homophobic comment was well-warented as well, claiming users are “sucking XYZ person off” is an insult historically directed at men on the basis of homosexual actions being “shameful” or “gross,” reinforcing that image of homosexuality. As a pansexual man, that certainly doesn’t feel good to see. You crafted an enemy to fight, and when people pointed out that the enemy you created in your head doesn’t actually exist, you projected that strawman onto others. Here’s an example:
Despite multiple people providing nuanced responses with western sources backing them up, and only a few people calling you a liberal, you started calling others “tankies.” Even now, I never once called you a liberal, you had to lie about that to provide a “buffer” for yourself.
Many of the people disagreeing with you and calling you a liberal were Anarchists, actually. Anarchism isn’t a vibe, or a purity test, Anarchism must side with reality. Simply saying “every government bad, and the more people, the more bad it is” would only be applicable if there was already a mass Anarchist movement that served as a genuine alternative. In the absence of such a movement, you have to work with what’s there and build up alternatives in the meantime.
I’m not interested in “debating you.” I just saw you misrepresenting Marxists and Anarchists who disagreed with you as “tankies” who “simp” for the PRC despite giving well-sourced and nuanced responses. Not everyone was respectful, but numerous people were, and when people like @[email protected] gave you careful and thoughtful responses to questions you yourself asked,, you ignored the majority of the comments because “you were busy,” rather than simply not responding. You couln’t even do the bare minimum of respect for all that effort, but you had to get in a quick jab in response.
All I’m saying is that you need to do some self-crit. What was your goal? To convert people to see things your way? That backfired spectacularly. Was it to learn more yourself? You evidently admitted to not reading the longer, higher effort comments, so that’s a wash too. If anything, it just seems like you wanted to argue and call people tankies. I don’t think your accusation that “tankies” call everyone else a “lib” is a coincidence given your tendency to call people who disagree with “tankie,” it’s projection.
It is very funny that they’re back here complaining about “the tankies” and rehashing the same talking points they couldn’t defend a few days ago. It’s like they are trying to embody the stereotype of the “Western leftist”.
Yep, I wasn’t even trying to start a debate, just point out that they were being dishonest on this thread and misrepresented the other thread entirely.
This is a great reply to my comment you really did a good job addressing any of the points and not making things up. Also nice job getting your buddy involved now they can start 10 different threads with essay-length comments again and then complain that I didn’t answer each of the 10 paragraphs in each of the 100 comments.
I already regret honoring any of your nonstop abuse as conversation. I’m blocking you.
I told you outright that I’m not trying to start a debate here, just point out dishonesty. I doubt TheOubliette is going to start anything here either, people have more important things to do than try to convince someone who is unwilling to listen to begin with.