No, that’s just common sense. It’s the tankie apologist/concern troll business. You seem to be comfortable labeling dissenters in a way that lumps them in with an out group even if there’s no clear indication they are part of that group.
This is common fascist behavior, for example during the United States’s McCarthy era. While persecuting leftists was the main goal, McCarthy and his cronies would also persecute anyone who objected, labeling them communist apologists or just communists themselves, ensuring their objections were disregarded.
Man, in this very thread the progression I’m bitching about happens with “There aren’t any tankies!” comments.
“Leaves of three, leave it be” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If you’re out in the woods of Appalachia and see some ivy with three leaves, chances are it’s Poison Ivy. “Generally posters claiming there aren’t many tankies on the Fediverse are concern trolls” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If, in the Fediverse, of all places, someone is not merely claiming to have personally not seen many tankies, but firmly saying (or implying through additional statements) that there aren’t many tankies on here, they are generally a concern troll.
As for tankie apologists, I don’t see why a tankie apologist should be regarded differently from a Nazi apologist, or any other fascist apologist. Ardent apologism by people not part of the in-group is a thing, and surprisingly common. Like atheists who praise Christians to high heaven (pun intended), or right-wing minorities playing “They’re not that bad” games about the alt-right.
I don’t understand people who comfortably deal in their own generalizations or absolutes. They’re comforting because they’re simple but they’re rarely correct because they’re colored by the random chance of your personal experience and your innate biases. This is why science education is so important: it teaches you that whichever observations you non-systemically generate are probably at least somewhat bullshit. They might make sense on a personal basis until you challenge the assumptions they’re based on.
Your experience is entirely different than mine. I’m very active on Lemmy and I rarely see tankies as defined. Guess I’m a concern troll! Or am I a tankie apologist? I also see you calling others that don’t meet your criteria concern trolls or tankie apologists. I guess we’re all concern trolls, apologists, or whatever else you want to say we are so you can write off whole cloth anyone that disagrees with you. On the bright side, you proudly proclaim your biases and assumptions are facts, so it’s easy enough to know it’s probably best just to block you.
“You just want to write off anyone who disagrees with you!”
lmao
Sorry for not having a scientific study of Lemmy’s population ready to satisfy you. It’s funny - any time I bring receipts, regardless of how many or how upvoted, it’s always the same story - “It’s just a few bad apples! There’s not a lot of them! They don’t bother you!”
If you make a claim about tankies but never back but beyond the claim of personal experinece, then you at least owe it to yourself to understand that you may be wrong.
Alright, what exactly kind of evidence do you think is possible to gather in this situation? Realistically speaking? Am I to ignore my eyes and (metaphorical) ears because they aren’t a scientific study?
Rigorous studies trump anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence trumps a complete absence of evidence.
A collection of posts, perhaps already deleted and in the mod log? Any users you have personally seen and reported simping for China that the mods continue to have around anyway? Mod policies publicly making this okay? A meme page in love with toltalitarianism?
It doesn’t have to be a scientific study… just any kind of evidence other than “trust me bro”.
Don’t ignore your eyes, but also don’t be so damn pretentious. Show us what you are seeing.
That you can complain about fascism while unironically using this textbook fascist logic is enlightening.
Do you think the “9 fascists sitting at a table” argument is ‘textbook fascist logic’?
No, that’s just common sense. It’s the tankie apologist/concern troll business. You seem to be comfortable labeling dissenters in a way that lumps them in with an out group even if there’s no clear indication they are part of that group.
This is common fascist behavior, for example during the United States’s McCarthy era. While persecuting leftists was the main goal, McCarthy and his cronies would also persecute anyone who objected, labeling them communist apologists or just communists themselves, ensuring their objections were disregarded.
Man, in this very thread the progression I’m bitching about happens with “There aren’t any tankies!” comments.
“Leaves of three, leave it be” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If you’re out in the woods of Appalachia and see some ivy with three leaves, chances are it’s Poison Ivy. “Generally posters claiming there aren’t many tankies on the Fediverse are concern trolls” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If, in the Fediverse, of all places, someone is not merely claiming to have personally not seen many tankies, but firmly saying (or implying through additional statements) that there aren’t many tankies on here, they are generally a concern troll.
As for tankie apologists, I don’t see why a tankie apologist should be regarded differently from a Nazi apologist, or any other fascist apologist. Ardent apologism by people not part of the in-group is a thing, and surprisingly common. Like atheists who praise Christians to high heaven (pun intended), or right-wing minorities playing “They’re not that bad” games about the alt-right.
I don’t understand people who comfortably deal in their own generalizations or absolutes. They’re comforting because they’re simple but they’re rarely correct because they’re colored by the random chance of your personal experience and your innate biases. This is why science education is so important: it teaches you that whichever observations you non-systemically generate are probably at least somewhat bullshit. They might make sense on a personal basis until you challenge the assumptions they’re based on.
Your experience is entirely different than mine. I’m very active on Lemmy and I rarely see tankies as defined. Guess I’m a concern troll! Or am I a tankie apologist? I also see you calling others that don’t meet your criteria concern trolls or tankie apologists. I guess we’re all concern trolls, apologists, or whatever else you want to say we are so you can write off whole cloth anyone that disagrees with you. On the bright side, you proudly proclaim your biases and assumptions are facts, so it’s easy enough to know it’s probably best just to block you.
“You just want to write off anyone who disagrees with you!”
lmao
Sorry for not having a scientific study of Lemmy’s population ready to satisfy you. It’s funny - any time I bring receipts, regardless of how many or how upvoted, it’s always the same story - “It’s just a few bad apples! There’s not a lot of them! They don’t bother you!”
If you make a claim about tankies but never back but beyond the claim of personal experinece, then you at least owe it to yourself to understand that you may be wrong.
Alright, what exactly kind of evidence do you think is possible to gather in this situation? Realistically speaking? Am I to ignore my eyes and (metaphorical) ears because they aren’t a scientific study?
Rigorous studies trump anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence trumps a complete absence of evidence.
A collection of posts, perhaps already deleted and in the mod log? Any users you have personally seen and reported simping for China that the mods continue to have around anyway? Mod policies publicly making this okay? A meme page in love with toltalitarianism?
It doesn’t have to be a scientific study… just any kind of evidence other than “trust me bro”.
Don’t ignore your eyes, but also don’t be so damn pretentious. Show us what you are seeing.