107
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
107 points (92.1% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1417 readers
229 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
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
Why so mad against french?
They seem to dislike france's freedom of speech and their anti-islam stance.
... No, it does not make sense. I don't have a clue.
I think it has more to do with Macron and his bedding of right-wing fascists to avoid a left-wing government coalition
That, and their funding of religious ethnostate terrorists...
Edit: i don't get it, is it something I said?
Edit 2: OK, I was wrong about the specific context of the comment, but I'll take partial credit for guessing it had to do with the war in Gaza
Yes, the dislike of a democratically elected leader is reasonable clause to call for innocent french people to die in a massacre
I didn't say it was reasonable, I was only answering the question as to why they were angry with France.
I think what the west deserves for funding a genocidal fascist is entirely up for debate, but that they deserve something is pretty well justified, IMHO
Are you trying to say the West deserves violence? Advocating for violence isn't allowed in this community or instance.
Maybe the west should lay off the fucking violence themselves and not bleat when it gets dished back to them once in a while.
The West? All of the West? You hear that New Zealand?! You cowards!
But legitimately, 'dished back to them?' -- Not very pro-peace of you. Violence begets violence. You should aim for peace, not more war.
Point to on the doll where I was advocating violence.
The reading comprehension of people nowadays is shockingly poor because if it was better, you would have grasped that I was pointing out that it's fairly hypocritical to go around being a cunt to other countries then cry like a fucking baby when they do the same shit back to you.
The reading comprehension of people nowadays is shockingly poor
Absolutely not. I'm advocating for justice.
And what will this justice be? Because the post is saying a massacre.
I think it's pretty telling you were advocating for violence, and now you're forced to backtrack.
I wasn't advocating for anything, I was answering the question about why they were angry with the french.
If it were me, i'd say the west should face international sanction and prosecution in the Hague for all leaders/diplomats accused of willfully collaborating with a genocide. Of course, a western-controlled criminal court would never do such a thing, so I guess all we have is BDS and public protest.
You italicised something. Implying violence as per the post.
International sanctions? How would that even work? You can't sanction over half the world, let alone prosecute them. Why does New Zealand get sanctioned? Why Europe? Why Canada? What about countries that are collaborating in the Ukraine-Russia war? How about congo?
This is a fantasy
I italicized something because I believe the west (including France, in this case) does deserve some kind of punishment for their crimes against Palestine. Obviously I don't think countries who had nothing to do with this genocide need be punished, but at this point much of the western world has enabled it either by direct material contribution or by a failure to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel for their crimes.
It's not up to me to decide what that justice is or how it's administered, but I don't think there's any arguing that there shouldn't be some measure of justice for Palestine. Unless you believe Israel has done nothing wrong.....?
Yup, that's all we have, because as you alluded to: this is the west's global hegemony, we're just living in it.
And how about Iran, China and Russia? Do they also get this punishment?
Sorry, maybe I'm unfamiliar: how are they involved in Israel's genocide...? Or is that off-topic?
But funny you should mention three of the most sanctioned countries in the world as examples, because what I'm advocating for is just a bit of consistency
Should they also get punishment for their crimes against Palestine? Such as Iran aiding Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah, effectively instigating more war? And China and Russia's support of Iran and their mutual exchange of military equipment, intelligence, as well as their extensive propaganda networks?
Vaguely off-topic, yes, the post is related more to the tankies wishing more Charlie Hebdo massacres, which I'm glad you've disavowed. However, their calls for violence are in reaction to Israel-Palestine. For some reason, they believe France, of all countries, deserves massacres for their stance. Rather funny really, shows their ignorance.
Do you believe this is off-topic? If you think it is, we can drop it.
They are already being sanctioned for this. Meanwhile, the parties currently committing genocide and all of their collaborators have yet to see any repercussions for their contributions. Hell, as long as we're talking about Iran and the funding of terrorists, would you like to talk about the US funding and providing arms during the Kurdish-genocide? I wonder who (if anyone) was sanctioned for that conflict
I believe your mention of Iran, China, and Russia is off-topic from the OP, which was about France and the openly racist/islamaphobic cartoon depicting the famine in Gaza. I can only imagine why you might be actively avoiding that topic, even going so far as to clip out the main post and obfuscate the context, including describing the french OP as "anti-Islam".
I can only assume that omission was an innocent mistake and not in any way motivated by a personal bias against Islam.
These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict. Sanctions work both ways, you see. However, multiple countries have called for sanctions against Israel and multiple countries have placed tariffs on Israel, Turkey being the most prominent. So there we go, then, justice solved, there's sanctions and tariffs.
No context justifies calls for violence.
I'll wait for you to tell me which of the sanctions you're referencing prevent the US from conducting business or financial transactions with major trade partners and that have the weight of the UN Security Council behind them, such as the ones for Iran, China, and Russia, and which have the adherence of the UN and its member states.
A council who's mission is to promote world peace through unity should be able to pass sanctions against member states that are egregiously culpable for war crimes against civilian populations and genocide. Yet here we are still waiting
Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn't worthy of inclusion. I'd settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.
Oh, so now you're changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want. That's convenient because there are none, and likely won't ever be any. Good job, you've won, you just needed to change your point -- Twice. Maybe you should threaten me with being off-topic again? It'll save you from this embarrassment.
Embarrassment, such as believing the UN stands for peace. The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it's official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed. Got an issue with this? I do too, but it's the best the world has and will most likely be the best we will ever have: flimsy laws and stern letters.
It can be fixed, though. All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender. And for the PLO and Hamas (and the many different militant factions) to come to conclusions if Gaza and the West Bank are the same Palestine. Hamas won't do this, though, because then they'll be like the Taliban. It turns out terrorist tactics and forces don't function when there are annoying rules you must follow and an appearance of lawfulness you need to keep, as per the UN. Governing is hard. Turns out using civilian infrastructure and targeting civilians is a war crime (I need to mention that this is also a jab at Israel, because I know for certain that you try to use this comment as a gotcha, lol)
I don't care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?
Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists, deary me. You want me to mention the Christian Terrorists, too? What, all one of them? He threw a stone into a window when he was drunk.
This is a lot of waffle as you try steering yourself away from admitting you were insinuating France deserves violence. If I was you, I'd just drop the whole thing and hope people forget this blunder--Works for me.
It just occurred to me that '[a christian terrorist] threw a stone into a window when he was drunk' appears like a reference to Kristallnacht.... If it is, then holy fuck is that a crazy euphemistic way of recalling one of the most famous antisemitic Nazi riots in history (if you're thinking of Nazi's being motivated by their christian beliefs then why stop at Kristallnacht, why not include the entire Holocaust?). If that isn't a reference to the November Pogroms, then I have absolutely no idea who you're talking about. Either way, you seem to have conveniently left out a couple millennia of violence conducted in the name of Christianity.....
It's about how stupid it is to raise attention to Christian Terrorists when it comes to this conflict. There ain't any Christian terrorists in Gaza, nor in Israel, or anywhere in the Middle East that can affect the conflict.
I've not changed anything, except put a finer point on what i've been saying from the outset - that Isreal, the US, and the other genocide collaborators should face justice for the terror and suffering they've caused in Palestine. Whatever sanctions already in place have not changed Israel's ability or motivation to continue their genocide, so more and stronger punitive action is needed. One "official" route - a minimum standard of justice - would be UN sanctions supported and adhered to by western UN member states. The UN's refusal/reluctance to do so is kind of the broader analytical point that I don't feel you're ready to discuss.
Finally a point of agreement. The UN and NATO were both created to legitimize the violence and statecraft of western-allied nations against a shared 'enemy'. Perhaps i've been too tongue-in-cheek for you - the sanctions and punitive actions taken by the western world through the UN have always been against the US's preferred enemies, and have always selectively ignored actions taken by the US and others, even when the evidence of war crimes and genocide are overwhelming. And yet it would be foolish to deny that the UN is the only collective body with any real weight, and there are certainly none that stand meaningfully opposed to western hegemony.
It's important context for someone on the left, because to those who stand opposed to western crimes then have no "official" path to justice. You can take from that whatever conclusion you like.
Look at how selective you're being with your condemnation.
Clearly not "nothing", if you stand in support of Israel's war and occupation of Gaza. There are some forms of violence that you clearly recognize as legitimate. I don't struggle to understand what you've said, I struggle only to show you the contradiction in your omissions.
A true "neutral" liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists. I don't even care that your sympathies lie on one side of the conflict or the other, but I do take issue with your cowardice to acknowledge it. There are no good guys in this conflict, and there's a choice you've made here that is consistent with all of your other comments on the topic that shares a striking resemblance with the sentiment expressed in the cartoon you refuse to acknowledge.
As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.
I've condemned both. What are you talking about?
I do not.
I'm not a liberal. What do you want me to acknowledge? That the conflict could've been avoided? I've ranted about the conflict before. If you're apparently an expert on my opinions or how I'm biased, you should already know my opinions.
You still don't understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, "No context justifies violence against innocent people."
Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you're going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.
Where the fuck did you do that? Must've missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I'm not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn't see it.
You've conditioned the end to Israel's genocide against Palestine on Hamas's surrender, but apparently have no conditions for Israel ending their own hostilities. You've deflected accountability away from Israel by saying 'whatabout' Iran/China/Russia, even as they are already being held to higher standard and face far more severe consequences for their once removed involvement (by an order of magnitude. It is not close.), and have made no indication that Israel deserves accountability of the same -if not more severe- magnitude. You've decontextualized the violence conducted by Israel and the US and western powers that define the current conflict, and gone out of your way to remove displays of bigotry and hate against Muslims.
You repeatedly placing the blame on resistance groups and selectively using the term 'terrorist' against them -while avoiding using the same term to describe Israel and their slaughter of innocent civilians - certainly says otherwise. I'll accept any application of the term 'terrorist' or 'terror' to the current Israeli occupation force as evidence of your opposition to their war. Even any clear indication that Israel is ultimately responsible for their own acts of genocide as evidence of your opposition. If you can clear that up then maybe we can part ways.
I'll be as clear as I can be: unprovoked violence is always wrong, but I do consider hate speech to be a provocation. If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out. I wouldn't tell someone to go do it, but I certainly wouldn't direct my condemnation towards the person who threw the punch and then intentionally obfuscate the hate speech that immediately preceded it in my recounting
The cartoon you've repeatedly dismissed as unimportant is hate speech. It's Islamophobic propaganda, and it borders on genocide denial. It renders passive and absent the genocide and famine that Israel is committing and holds up a racist and inaccurate religious practice as abstractly culpable for a horror Israel has chosen to commit themselves. I won't say it justifies calls to violence, but it absolutely does matter. It is important context to someone who would otherwise believe the call to violence was unprovoked. That cartoon was a provocation.
A part of understanding liberation movements is acknowledging that the oppressed minority is always held to a higher standard than the oppressor group, and in no thread has that been made more apparent than this one.
You can go digging in my comment history to find my views on it. i ain't gonna repeat myself for you. I'm also not going to humour you by writing up entire paragraphs. Focus on a single thing, and I'll respond to it.
Are you sure, absolutely sure you wanna use this particular example? Cuz you're gonna be dunked dude :v
Careful not to betray your commitment to nonviolence, bud.
(still no acknowledgement of the Islamophobia of the cartoon)
This is yours, not mine.
yes, I saw your report, I appreciate it. Do more reports
Yup, and I'm fine with allowing any soviets spewing antisemitic or Islamophobic slurs have their lights put out, too.
Same with this guy, whoever he is.
I'll be sure to do that, and I'll look forward to seeing you give yourself a stern warning for it, too.
I figured you'd post back with Hitler shaking the hand of someone, afterall he was a politician.
that's why i also posted the picture of the SS lol
But I did. You reported me for being off-topic, and I agreed with you and asked if you wanted to drop the topic.
Lucky for all of us that none of those friendships lasted, then, huh?
Lol I reported you for breaking the rule, not me. To your credit you didn't bring those countries up again, though.
hatred is beyond death
Damn, OP is a psycho. Thanks for fighting the good fight; you’re a far more patient person than I.
These “anti-tankie” folks seem completely incapable of nuance. Either you support everything the west does, or you must be a tankie who doesn’t believe in Tiananmen Square. There’s no third option it seems.
How is defending calls to massacre innocents 'fighting the good fight'
What's wrong with you? Clearly you haven't spent much time in the community. Many users are very much opposed to Israel's actions -- I know I am.
I'm not defending the massacre of innocents any more than you are.
Good.
The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.
It's the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.
None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they're defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because 'that's just the way it is'. There's no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don't know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn't ban me for the constant pestering.
We'll see.
This is true, and we'll all let you continue to hide behind what you say directly while you are here defending the stance "of which you didn't directly state".
Take your doublespeak elsewhere 🤷
"Critical support" is a fundamentally reactionary concept so the tankies newest thing is that they love Islamic fundamentalists simply because they are in conflict with the West.
true chickens