“Tankie” is a term that was originally coined (ironically, by Marxist-Leninists themselves) to describe members of the CPGB (Communist Party of Great Britain) who justified the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary in 1956. It has since become a catch-all term used to describe (self-described) leftists that slavishly adhere to the propaganda of or justify the actions of authoritarian regimes that are (or are perceived to be) “socialist” such as China or (bizarrely enough) modern-day Russia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't thank you enough for this. I've been too afraid to ask what the labels all mean.

It's nice to get some clarity on these things sometimes. I'm just trying to live my best life over here and not step on anyone's freedoms... I'm not in the know enough to be familiar with all the parlance of the various movements, despite supporting many of them (mostly from the sidelines as a straight white male).

[–] masquenox 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve been too afraid to ask what the labels all mean.

Nahh, fuck that shit. Ask away - if leftists can't or won't explain this stuff, they're not being very good at lefting. You will always have to deal with edgelord "online leftists," though... it seems to come with the territory.

When people used the term "tankie" five or six years ago, you could be pretty certain that they were socialists referring to the authoritarian left - these days, however, the term has been picked up by mainstream political discourse. Now the far-right use it as a catch-all for anyone left of Hitler while liberals use it to describe any leftist that criticizes their bogus centrist "respectability politics." But it's original meaning still remains intact no matter how much mainstream media tries to warp it.

However, I do feel we need better terms to describe the authoritarian left than just "tankie" - I suggest the term technocrat since that's basically what their ideology boils down to... a bunch of "enlightened" elites making decisions for the rest of us for our own good that they aren't qualified to make. It's violently incompatible with the beliefs libertarian socialists (like myself) hold - and the history on this is pretty violent, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, here's the thing. I know 196 is not only in support of all things LGBTQ+ but also they're actively hostile to anything that's not in support of LGBTQ+.... And you know what, good, as far as I'm concerned, if that's what this community wants then that's what it should be.

Getting to my point, I've met people who are openly and actively hostile to anything that's not in support of LGBTQ+, whether precieved or direct. I've bitten my tongue a lot around such people, because I can't even crack a joke about something being "gay"..... As an example. And no, not in the stereotypical "that's gay!" Childhood insult, more along the lines of "two men getting married? That's so gay." If I try to crack such a joke, my head is usually removed from my body and I'm turned into the communal hacky-sack for the remainder, because someone took something I said in jest, the wrong way. To me that leaves me with the impression that people who are aggressive supporters of LGBTQ+, can't really take jokes from people who are not part of the "in" crowd of LGBTQ+. As a lowly supporter, I guess I get to sit down and shut the fuck up.

The thing I'm afraid of is that someone will get hyper aggressive about the fact that I didn't know something that I should have or whatever logical fallacy is popular this week; so 90% of the time I'd rather not know and completely lose the conversation, than risk jumping in and getting clobbered for being the dumb cis guy that doesn't even know these basic things.

[–] masquenox 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I try to crack such a joke,

Yeah... I mean, this isn't rocket science - cracking jokes around LGBTQ+ people that only cis people would find funny is probably not going to be well-received.

people who are not part of the “in” crowd of LGBTQ+

There is no "in-crowd" here - LGBTQ+ people are not a monolith. I mean... why are you assuming that you should know anything about people you are not in-community with? When I meet someone new I don't automatically assume that this person must share my sense of humor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep. And it's exactly this kind of social stuff that I'm bad at. I seem to have educated myself in how to interact with the normie neurotypicals, but still have a lot of trouble with pretty much everyone else.

I'm not part of the normie neurotypicals either, I'm neurodivergent. So I continue to have trouble adapting and learning the nuance of all these little social cliques you all seem to fit into and naturally form, what you refer to as being "in-community".

I just want to get along. I don't know how to do that with certain groups/communities. IDK. I'm just some guy.

[–] masquenox 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

learning the nuance of all these little social cliques you all seem to fit into and naturally form,

People aren't monoliths... having something in common with this or that person doesn't mean you automatically fit into the "social clique" they may or may not be a part of.

"Community" can mean lots and lots of different things - therefore, being "in-community" can also mean lots and lots of different things. Some you literally have to be born into, some require shared experiences, and some require shared conditions - you could be in-community with someone without even realizing it because these things tend to happen naturally.

I don’t know how to do that with certain groups/communities.

You don't have to be in-community with all and sundry - I've had lots of LGBTQ+ friends without me feeling the need to be in-community with them. It's simply not necessary - we weren't friends because they were LGBTQ+, we were friends because we shared other interests.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You don’t have to be in-community with all and sundry - I’ve had lots of LGBTQ+ friends without me feeling the need to be in-community with them. It’s simply not necessary - we weren’t friends because they were LGBTQ+, we were friends because we shared other interests.

I completely agree. I don't consider myself in-community (or however we want to say it) with common neurotypicals. I've tried all my life to be, but I am not, and I've learned that I probably will never be. However, I've learned how their social cues and humor works, how to communicate effectively with them, when to use sarcasm, and when not to, etc. I've learned to adapt to them, because I don't expect they'll ever be able to understand or adapt to me. Afterall, they represent the vast majority of people - seems like well over 80% of the working population are either pretending to be, or are neurotypical. This is completely an anecdotal observation and not based on anything beyond my own personal experiences in dealing with others.

That was all delved from experience, and a lot of trial and error. Luckily, there's plenty of neurotypicals that I can observe and note when certain cues mean specific things and when there's understanding without explanation. I can understand when common people are saying something sarcastically, or that something is so exaggerated that it cannot be anything other than hyperbole.

I don't have the experience to do the same with so many other groups of people. They're not monoliths, but like generational gaps, I don't presently understand..... which leads me to another group I am having trouble adapting to, which is generation Z. There's plenty of boomers, Gen X and millennials in the workforce who I've learned the lingo and language of, but there's several terms and phrases that the zoomers are using that I'm having trouble understanding why they exist and how they've come to mean what they do. It's just something new I need to learn and adapt to as they enter the workforce. I don't want to be the guy in the room trying to be cool using the new generation's lingo, or something, I just want to grok their statements.

The list of groups/communities/cliques/whatever that I don't understand is very long, and most of them I don't really mind not understanding, since most of the time I don't deal with those cultures or groups; but Gen Z is coming, and I support and know, through indirect association, many LGBTQ+ folks that I just feel awkward around since I don't know if the joke I want to crack, that would land fine with normies is going to flop and I'll end up getting bitched out for saying something mean/hurtful/whatever when I meant it to be funny.

It's confounding, awkward, and altogether horrible. I don't like it and I would fix it if I could, but it's an entire culture of people that I'm not a part of and don't have enough involvement in to really understand. I love everyone, regardless of any gender/age/politics/whatever; and I want to be someone who at least doesn't stand out for being insufferable when I'm in any group. Most of the time I just stay quiet to the point of being weird, which in and of itself makes everyone else awkward, and to me that's worse.