this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
319 points (83.2% liked)
Fediverse
28409 readers
815 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I acknowledge that tankies are humans with rights but I don’t acknowledge that those rights include not being called an accurate but slightly demeaning term that they don’t like. Particularly because their preferred terms for themselves are inaccurate.
Like I’m not going to stop calling fascists by that name even if they prefer to be called freedom-loving patriots or something. And I personally see the two ideologies as having a lot of similarities.
I agree with you on both accounts. Their preferred choices arent the same as pronouns and I think both authoritarian ideologies are similar and dangerous.
My point was solely that namecalling, derogatory words or slurs arent doing anything for anyone. They‘re just helping others hate us and us do unspeakable things to them and vice versa.
Dehumanizing is a precursor for genocide for a reason and that is why I think its a bad idea. Of course its just my opinion and I‘m perfectly fine if you disagree with it.
No, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I do not fully disagree. But I think context matters. I like tanky because it helps people understand the dangers of the ideology more than other alternatives like communist or Marxist-Leninist or whatever. Is there more danger of violence against tankies or that their ideology may grow and cause violence against others? Right now I perceive the latter to be a bigger issue, and I don’t see any real risk of harm coming to them, at least in the social circles where my words have influence.
If there was a movement that sought to do physical harm to them (outside of a defensive context) then I would weigh that appropriately in my language. The term is a tool of persuasion and I deem that persuasion more important than any risk of dehumanization, which I do oppose and recognize as harmful.
I can see your point. Sadly we have ample evidence that others have thought the same about such terms and they have a bad precedent.
So thanks for discussing this in good faith. I like the way we discussed this as it often isnt what happens with others.
Have a good one. :)
Nice discussion