• kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    748·
    2 days ago

    “Progressive” Shitlibs when they allow bigots on their platform and Queer people dont like them

    (Im pretty sure eveyone other than world users hate world)

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      545·
      2 days ago

      .world has now moved onto banning people for calling out transphobia. It was bad when they banned users for calling out the Democrats’ involvement with the genocide of Palestinians, but now they ban users for being “aggressive” with transphobes.

      • TheKingBee@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        2 days ago

        That’s concerning… I don’t follow instance drama, but if that’s even half true I’ll switch. Have a source that I can read?

          • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
            2·
            24 hours ago

            I’m sorry, I can’t find any /c/ comm you mod on your profile. So I can’t find your modlog. I also don’t see a reference to anything like what you’re saying on the first page your comments and I don’t feel comfortable digging deeper. Can you provide a link or point me in the right direction?

          • renzev@lemmy.world
            19·
            2 days ago

            Saying that the russians are the ones pushing “gender ideology” on the west is an absolutely senile opinion to hold. For years every russian news channel has been hollering that it’s The West™ poisoning russian society with “LGBT propaganda”. Did that guy really try to pull a “no u” on the entirety of russian state media?

          • unbanshee@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            351·
            2 days ago

            What the actual fuck did I just read?

            “I’m not a transphobe, but more people realising they’re trans is a psyop by h o s t i l e g o v e r n m e n t s and trans people should sit quietly in the corner if they don’t want to get hatecrimed.”

            🤡🤡🤡

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              10·
              1 day ago

              Non-credible defense, basically 4chan but for the millitary, and overwhelmingly loves western millitaries and NATO.

              MeanwhileOnGrad is the other, it’s an anti-communist instance maintained by a “former” gamergater that hasn’t changed their views too much considering they complain about “wokeness” and “forcing equity.” That’s actually where the transphobic admin comments came from.

              The two comms share a lot of users, and form some of the most active right-wing userbases on Lemmy. Both openly maintain that they aren’t right wing, but there’s blatant open transphobia and complaining about DEI from prominent users that gets highly upvoted there, so more than anything that’s telling about what the actual stances are.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                41·
                22 hours ago

                Lemmy mainstream is pro US empire. MAGA tends not to be, even if moderate US politics are. AFAIK, the brainworm supporting US empire is if the DNC supports the most zionist neocon candidate/President with D as a label, that all of his warmongering and oil/weapons industry enrichment must be virtuous, and they adopt it as an identity essential to their lives, because they need to heroize politicians.

              • Tja@programming.dev
                3·
                1 day ago

                I follow NCD mainly for the memes about Russian military, I have never paid enough attention to see any gender discussion or similar…

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    555·
    2 days ago

    You know it’s gotten pretty bad when even the anarchist flag usernames are meming about how ridiculous the anti tankie attitude is.

  • theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world
    301·
    2 days ago

    I haven’t been able to take the word “tankie” seriously in most cases since I asked that to someone on Reddit and they linked a meme praising anarchist Catalonia

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      191·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, it’s kind of lost all meaning. I’ve seen Marxists call Liberals tankies, and I’ve seen Liberals calls Marxists tankies. I’ve seen right wingers call Leftists tankies, and I’ve seen Leftists call Centerists tankies. I know where the word came from, and who the first tankies were but I rarely know what a person’s intent is with that word anymore. Maybe it’s just young people slang now and I’m just too old to get it.

      Because I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it anymore and what’s it seems weird and scary. And it’ll happen to you!

  • Cris@lemm.ee
    13218·
    3 days ago

    That’s not really a thing neoliberals say…

    They definitely complain about the tankies being a big part of the culture of Lemmy, and housing some of the biggest communities, but the statement in the comic isn’t even remotely a thing neolibs or the .world demographic says

    So this comic kinda just feels like a strange, confusing straw man…

  • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
    417·
    2 days ago

    Basically my thoughts are, if you give slight pushback to American talking points you get called a tankie. It’s kind of annoying.

  • GenderIsOpSec [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    421·
    2 days ago

    the liberals got the world they fought so hard for when USSR was dissolved, against the will of the people, and they havent stopped crying about it since

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      19·
      2 days ago

      Didn’t it die because everyone including Russia wanted out? Closest to the will of the people for keeping it they got was having the only referendum they ever had be about if USSR should be basically replaced with some other form of union. Which is not great.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        14·
        2 days ago

        It died because after a referendum for its dissolution failed, there was a power struggle as the communists tried to prevent Yeltsin from doing it anyway, and Yeltsin ended up ordering tanks to fire on the parliament building until the communist pro-democracy forces surrendered. Then the soviet union broke up and 7 million people died from capitalist shock therapy aided by bourgeois “democratic” governments.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          19·
          2 days ago

          It died because after a referendum for its dissolution failed, there was a power struggle as the communists tried to prevent Yeltsin from doing it anyway, and Yeltsin ended up ordering tanks to fire on the parliament building until the communist pro-democracy forces surrendered.

          I thought it was a hardliner coup that tried to stop implementation of the New Union Treaty that people voted for. Funny that they wanted to prevent the decentralization and ended up causing a total decentralization by way of making even this new union unpalatable.

          Soviet Union had a single referendum and it immediately caused a coup and destruction of the whole Union. No wonder they didn’t want to have them before lel

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            9·
            2 days ago

            The new union treaty should have been stopped based on the results of the referendum, which overwhelmingly supported the maintaining of the current federal system.

            Soviet Union had a single referendum and it immediately caused a coup and destruction of the whole Union. No wonder they didn’t want to have them before lel

            The soviet union was constantly under siege since its infancy. Its latter years were marked with reforms which took power away from the local level of federated democracy and liberalized many aspects of their society. At the end capitalist viewpoints were being printed and published in state run and paid for media. It died a death of a thousand cuts since ww2 killed so many of their rank and file best-disrupting their lower level democracy-, and Stalin’s re-democratization efforts were cut short by his assassination.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              12·
              2 days ago

              The new union treaty should have been stopped based on the results of the referendum, which overwhelmingly supported the maintaining of the current federal system.

              Huh? People voted for the NUT (heh).

              “The referendum asked whether to approve a new Union Treaty between the republics, to replace the 1922 treaty that created the USSR. […] The referendum’s question was approved by nearly 80% of voters in all nine other republics that took part. However, the August coup attempt by hardliners of the Communist Party prevented the anticipated signing of the New Union Treaty that was due to take place the next day.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum

              People voted for the treaty in the referendum, hardline communists stopped the signing because they didn’t like it.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                5·
                2 days ago

                This was the text (translated):

                Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  12·
                  1 day ago

                  Yes, that renewed federation was what the New Union Treaty was supposed to bring about before being stopped. That’s what they voted for.

                  Did you not read the article? It’s right before that referendum text…

  • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
    3517·
    2 days ago

    THIS is why people have a problem with “tankies.”

    Budapest, 1956.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      373·
      2 days ago

      Whatever you do, don’t look up the numbers of Soviet officials lynched before the tanks were sent in, or who the counter-revolutionaries set free from prison to help with the lynching and rioting (spoiler: literal Nazis).

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        302·
        2 days ago

        I’ve been doing antiwar protests since Iraq- absolutely massive and totally ignored by the government. It was a bit radicalizing.

        I’ve always considered myself an anarchist. These days I get called a tankie just for being opposed to wars and vocally opposing my own governments complicity in genocide. Somehow the meaning of tankie got flipped to mean the people opposed to sending in the tanks. Most ml’s I’ve known are the first people to shit on Khrushchev anyways.

        • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
          22·
          23 hours ago

          Do you support Chinese or Russian imperialism? Do you think Uyghurs are being peacefully integrated into society? Do you think the Ukranian president is a Nazi? Was Assad forcefully ousted by Western powers for merely doing what is best for Syria? Does China have a right to control Taiwan and all territorial waters around Taiwan? Is North Korea the greatest and most transparent democracy?

          The US is currently complicit in a genocide that BiBi and Trump are looking to expand. Australia is expanding and encouraging a genocide in Papua New Guinea for mineral rights on the islands. Germany is flirting with literal Nazis because of energy prices. The Entire West is overlooking slavery in Saudi Arabia for cheap oil.

          If you make apologies for “Communist” imperialism and only decry Western imperialiasm you might be a tankie. That’s the general definition as I understand it. I’m happy to be corrected and learn more.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            12·
            22 hours ago

            Do you support Chinese or Russian imperialism?

            There is none. We used to think that US Canada relationship was mutual out of necessity of being neighbours. US opinion mattered more, but an impression of “pluralism” was maintained, but there were no CIA NGOs in place to subjugate Canadians to US empire. It just seems natural for Canadians to support US pretenses of freedom. That Russia wishes its neighbours to not be subverted to US empire in fanatical hatred towards Russia does not make it an empire. China has neighbours with same CIA antagonism. Taiwan, afaik, is still US official policy to be diplomatically reintegrated,

            Resistance to US empire doesn’t make you one.

            Do you think Uyghurs are being peacefully integrated into society?

            Metrics for the region are very strong. In the history of counter terrorism, education and job creation seem like the most progressive solution. Those Uyghurs part of the US funded Islamist/ISIS coalition ruling Syria are making a new fuss, and US money to destabilize and demonize is always available, without reflecting reality.

            Do you think the Ukranian president is a Nazi? Was Assad forcefully ousted by Western powers for merely doing what is best for Syria?

            100% both are US funded puppet regimes. Global warming related droughts/famine is opportunity to build anger over not feeding everyone, and only job available is a militant.

            If you make apologies for “Communist” imperialism and only decry Western imperialiasm you might be a tankie.

            Hatred of Russia is that they are former communists. The core of Ukrainian nazi resentment, and apartheid ethnostate laws enacted to help provoke war. If the only reason for warmongering on China is their expected invasion of Taiwan, the status quo could be easily negotiated. There is zero evidence based assessment of Uyghur policy, or metrics to befriend China. Complaints about Uyghurs are exclusively made to warmonger through whinning. Obviously, abuse of Muslims is not a principled standard to avoid. Only US propaganda of hatred applies, and you must believe all of it, or you are a tankie.

        • 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴@vegantheoryclub.orgOP
          41·
          1 day ago

          So in your mind this is the reason that there was an Imperial war in Iraq and was worth going in with no plan and collapsing the government and leaving it as an open warzone for over 20 years where over a million people either been killed, wounded or permanently displaced? Who funded Saddam Hussein in that war since 1982? Where did those chemical weapons come from? In what world is the US have a right to be the global police anyway? I think the worst possible way to make up for the Halabja massacre is to completely destroy the country and its economy for multiple generations, but that’s typical of a police mentality. Not actually dealing with a problem just killing more and more people.

          This is such a bullshit troll post from an ignorant person. Your fucking country The US funded BOTH SIDES of this war, one side directly, the other clandestinely by trafficking drugs and weapons in Central America in a major scandal. You posted another outcome of American imperialism.

          You are a deeply unserious clown of a person to just google atrocities of Saddam Hussein as if that makes up for what the Americans did. Iraqis should have had a chance to deal with him themselves, not have their entire country destroyed. Halabja isn’t even why the Americans invaded in 1990, they lied about Iraqis killing babies in hospitals to cover for their Kuwaiti oil interests. Halabja isn’t why Americans invaded in 2003, they lied about evidence of WMD. You don’t know what you are talking about, you are an ignorant Yank fascist dipshit.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            4·
            22 hours ago

            Over 3m Iraqis were killed since Gulf war 1. Over 1m just from Albreight/Clintons proud sanctions on food and medicine. To ensure a destabilized Iraq puppet government, Ian Bremer declared Sunnis (Bathists) ineligible for government jobs as one of the first decrees of his administratorship. That was enough to create ISIS creation motivation by itself, but there are allegations of direct financial support for ISIS by US, and its leaders became leaders as a result of being released from US controlled prisons.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            12·
            1 day ago

            Poland funded neither side, it was busy being occupied by a hostile foreign power.

            • 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴@vegantheoryclub.orgOP
              4·
              1 day ago

              So you have no idea what you are talking about and no idea about the context of the photo you sent and posted it why? You think that absolves Americans or liberals? Saddam Hussein wasn’t a tankie either. You’re so steeped in your fash NCD bullshit you just googled an unrelated atrocity and sent it as if it proves a point? Why to back up your fascist heroes? Thanks for proving ignorance and fash go hand in hand. Don’t bother answering I block fascist clowns.

              • Tja@programming.dev
                12·
                1 day ago

                So only Americans are allowed to have an opinion just so you can disregard it for being American? Seems like iraqis like genocide and strawmans!

        • RangerJosie@lemmy.worldEnglish
          292·
          2 days ago

          Holy shit guys he almost gets it.

          You’re right there dude. Micrometers from figuring it out.

          • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
            221·
            2 days ago

            When you draw the line of Liberal v Conservative so far to the right it includes George Bush, it ceases to lose all meaning.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
              81·
              1 day ago

              Liberals were so proud to have Dick Cheney’s endorsement last election. And they were big mad that GWB didn’t endorse.

        • 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴@vegantheoryclub.orgOP
          274·
          2 days ago

          You do know that the wars spanned multiple administrations including democratic ones right? Also all American politicians of “both” parties are liberals.

          Bill Clinton launched “Operation Desert Fox” to prepare and position the US imperial army ahead of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”

          • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
            315·
            2 days ago

            That is all accurate and I don’t disagree with you. But the picture was of an invasion under Bush, not Clinton, so I responded as such.

            The problem that I take is l:

            Also all American politicians of “both” parties are liberals.

            I’m wondering what your definition of Liberal is. Up until like 2020, it was Liberal v Conservative and when I look it up in the dictionary I get “Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”

            But Liberal on Lemmy appears to be anything to the right of a theoretical Star Trek post scarcity utopia.

            • RangerJosie@lemmy.worldEnglish
              15·
              2 days ago

              The internationally recognized measure of left-right. Not the uniquely American one that’s skewed all to fuck.

              There is no left at all in American politics. The closest we’ve gotten is Bernie Sanders. He’s a moderate everywhere but here.

            • 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴@vegantheoryclub.orgOP
              182·
              2 days ago

              The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the parties of the US and was an imperial war that would have occurred no matter who was the “president” of the US

              Both parties in the US share an ideological commitment to capitalism and function as a uniparty to manage the empire. From the CIA Wikipedia

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

              Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

              This has some good aspects and is an improvement from the monarchies that came before it but he clear problems that Marx brought into question in the 19th century. As capitalists have progressed, liberalism in the US particularly has become neoliberalism which is not something communists want and is a precursor to fascism. Liberals fight socialists and communists to maintain their private property and capitalism.

              If you are talking in the context as an American of that ridiculous farce of a government “liberals” means the Democratic party, to an anarchist outsider, they are all liberals. I do not believe in or support private property or market economies and think they come in direct opposition to economic and political freedom.

            • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
              2·
              2 days ago

              Noe liberal and neo con differences are how you “kiss babies”/comment on social and cultural issues, while electioneering to make the war mongering big bucks from power.

    • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      271·
      2 days ago

      They have a problem with stopping a fascist counter-revolution that did anti-jewish pogroms and elevated the landlord class in Hungary?

    • CutieBootieTootie [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      202·
      2 days ago

      Marxist Leninists are defined primarily by two principles:

      • Anti Imperialism / Internationalism
      • Defense and Construction of Socialism

      It means that the Soviet Union was chiefly responsible for ending the Holocaust and supporting liberation struggles around the world. It means Cuba was able to transform itself from a strip-farmed slave and prostitution hell into a Democratic republic governed meaningfully by the Cuban people with dignity and education for all. All across east Asia it’s secured home rule and governments who meaningfully care and are comprised by regular working and peasant peoples. Marxism Leninism is the historical force which has been shown to be most able to grapple with the complex realities of our world dominated by white supremacy and capitalism, and fought back.

      It’s the reason that the supposed atrocities commuted by socialist countries are minor compared to the grand historic crimes of empires like France, Britain, the US, Germany, Japan, etc. Mistakes are made and have been made by socialist countries, sure, of course; but they were the first nations to attempt to meaningfully house people for the sake of housing. They were the first projects to successfully overthrow colonialism, and to raise literacy rates to an absurd degree even higher than in the United States today. These socialist projects need to defend themselves because very few other historical forces have shown anywhere near the potential to make a better world.

      So call it whatever you like, it’ll never erase the monumental good it’s done for the world.

      THIS is why people have a problem with Anti-Communists

      Statistics from 80 days into a ~460 day genocide, Gaza, 2025

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      21·
      2 days ago

      Were you aware that Russia agreed to USSR’s/CIS liberation? All of it was peaceful.

  • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
    34·
    2 days ago

    in order to combat leftist propaganda lemmy.flatearth is now forcing disinformation onto its communities. The red scare runs deep.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      148·
      2 days ago

      Who told you not to trust anything the US said?

      This is meme is for people who are incapable of forming their own thoughts but have been told they are, aka, tools of propaganda.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        161·
        2 days ago

        Who told you not to trust anything the US said?

        Living in the US is sufficient cause to distrust its government.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            112·
            2 days ago

            Idk I like it when the proletariat is able to dictate the course of society

            Also your reply contradicts your statement that I first replied to.

            • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              64·
              2 days ago

              Not at all.

              Someone told you not to trust either. Presumable not the same person, presumable American government told you not to trust China but that begs then question who told you not to trust the American government.

              Further the meme implies one should trust the Chinese government presumably because an untrustworthy source told you not to which is a mentally stunted view.

              Not being trapped under the direct influence of the Chinese government, there are clearly many of reasons not to trust that government either.

              There is no reason to trust any government. A basic understanding of history should make it clear that this is true of any government that has ever existed.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                61·
                2 days ago

                who told you not to trust the American government.

                You don’t have to be told not to trust it. Even deluded Chuds who guzzle US corporate propaganda all day don’t trust it.

                Further the meme implies one should trust the Chinese government presumably because an untrustworthy source told you not to which is a mentally stunted view.

                No, the meme implies that your distrust isn’t justified, not that trust is justified.

                Not being trapped under the direct influence of the Chinese government, there are clearly many of reasons not to trust that government either.

                Okay, have you talked to any recent(as in the last 10 years) immigrants from China who don’t make way over the median US income? Or hell, earlier immigrants mostly only complain about the liberalization period under Deng.

                There is no reason to trust any government. A basic understanding of history should make it clear that this is true of any government that has ever existed

                This doesn’t really acknowledge the class character of the state.

                • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  13·
                  2 days ago

                  Why would immigrants be trusted source?

                  People have personal biases, good and bad. People have confirmation bias. It sounds like the immigrants biases have confirmed your biases.

                  Even if I were to ignore all of that, your experience is an anecdotal data point for me so my opinion that no government should be trust remains.

                  Given that I’m not attempting to replicate or advocate for any specific form of government this seems prudent.

                  For anyone still reading and is really bored, my personal belief is that the only path forward is an society that is governed by immutable mathematical agreements.

                  It’s hard to describe what I have in mind in a comment as there are many interacting pieces that together create a system that requires no government, no leaders, no fake money and no ambiguity.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              77·
              2 days ago

              The government that actively tries to censor elements of news from their citizens. Yeah buddy, sure thing.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                122·
                2 days ago

                I said

                “Living in the US is sufficient cause to distrust its government.”

                You replied:

                “I can say the same for China”

                I replied:

                “Except you literally can’t.” Meaning you don’t live in China so you can’t make the claim with similar level of authority

                And then you made the comment I replied to, and I don’t see at all how it is connected to the line of conversation.

                • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                  77·
                  2 days ago

                  I guess I can’t because i don’t live in China, but you understand the point of my argument yet choose to play semantics. It’s fine