this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
69 points (83.5% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1261 readers
2 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


What is a Tankie?


Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of bias)


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 or any variation of Tankie Ideology. There is no justifying Genocide.

Revisionism — Downplaying or denying atrocities past and present will result in an immediate ban.

If you're violating instance rules, you'll typically be warned. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last seven days, but repeat infractions will have longer sentences. You may ask to be unbanned.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

“If the capitalists are ok with something it must be bad”

Classic

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Same reasoning that leads to people praising authoritarian regimes like China and Russia.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 weeks ago

That's not what they are saying.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Maybe we can examine issues on their own merits rather than trying to squeeze every round peg into the class struggle square hole?

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yikes. Is there any further context available? Not that it would improve anything, I'm just curious.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

Wow, spread this everywhere dude. Also make note that they're a lemmy dev

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Pretty much the only other time I have seen any transphobia on Lemmy is from a .ml user who called someone a chaser for saying they were married to a femboy. These people don't actually care about LGBT issues - they are just trolls who use it as a cudgel when it is convenient.

[–] r3df0x@7.62x54r.ru 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's pretty shitty but not surprising for tankies.

[–] lulztard -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Can someone explain to someone out of the loop what's transphobic about his post?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Saying that the topic of "caring about transgender and LGBT issues" is promoted by the bourgeois is clearly not intended to indicate they respect those communities concerns.

The "men in women's sports" thing is just straight up transphobic, sexist misinformation.
It shouldn't need to be explained, but using "trans" as a label to attack a woman to delegitimize her sporting victory is just a hot mess of issues.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are taking what they said out of context

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

First, no, I'm not. I said that having read the full context of the comment.

Second, what context do you think would make what they said not transphobic? I don't think there is one, so even if taken out of context, which it wasn't, it would be as I said.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How is what they said transphobic? They said the transgender topic is clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie, which is true: mass media are owned by a bunch of rich people in bed with the government and in the past years the transgender topic has been push all over the news. In case you didn't notice he made an example that they went as far as putting lbgt flags on government buildings. That was a direct reply to someone saying that the bourgeoisie were promoting transphobia. They were answering back and giving their opinion. If you attack this person over this i'm lead to believe that your bad intentions are way worst than his alleged transphobia.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it's being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.
So is the notion that it's in the public discourse only because of big money. I'd argue it's because there's been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups. They run for office on culture was issues, so transphobia is a campaign issue.

When was the last time a civil rights issue was pushed by the bourgeoisie?
When was the last time someone said "this is being pushed by the bourgeoisie and big money" about something they approved of?

Putting up a flag at a government building is an extremely low bar to saying something is backed by powerful money.

allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics.

Just going to skip over that bit? Echoing an entirely fabricated claim that someone is trans as an attack on that person is clearly swinging some transphobia around.

Replying to someone and sharing your opinion doesn't make your opinion not transphobic if it's, you know: "a transphobic opinion".
As I said, I read the context. Saying trans rights are part of a bourgeois conspiracy isn't better when it's in response to someone saying transphobia is part of a bourgeois conspiracy. It's a transphobic opinion regardless of why you're sharing it.

What, pray tell, are my alleged "bad intentions"? Should I ponder what your bad intentions are for jumping in to defend transphobia, unprompted, weeks after the fact?

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it’s being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.

They are not saying that it's the only reason, they are pointing out something and it happens to be true, they are pointing it out because someone else mentioned the argument.

I’d argue it’s because there’s been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups.

This had me to read his original comment again and i have to admit i misunderstood something, i thought he implies that the bourgeoisie were doing both: promoting it and pushing transphobia. (which seem what they are doing)

I guess his reply sounds kinda cold but i still feel like you a bunch of old men yelling at clouds, if you care about the topic and are concerned about it you should go spend your time and resources against actual transphobes and not chasing after people comments like the inquisition.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dude, I replied to a comment on an image post. You're the one who resurrected a month idle conversation to defend transphobia and call recognizing transphobia "the inquisition".

Why do you give a shit what other people talk about?

[–] index@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This thread is pinned in this sub

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay? That doesn't obligate you to res a dead thread or act like anyone in it cares as much as you seem to.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Alright, that's enough.

Index is allowed to comment in old threads, anyone is.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, never said they weren't. But comparing a conversation that stopped a month ago to the inquisition justifies pointing out that the conversation ended a while ago, so maybe people aren't going after someone as they seem to think.

Telling people talking about transphobia that they should spend their time doing something else invites an observation that the conversation had seemingly moved on, and they're the one bringing it up again.

[–] friendlymessage 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The part at the beginning up to the middle

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't also forget the ending as well. The whole FUCKING thing is transphobic

[–] friendlymessage 4 points 1 month ago

The part about the firefox plugin?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now that it's been explained to you, can you explain to us what was so hard to understand that you needed it explained to you?

[–] lulztard -3 points 1 month ago

The "intentions" everyone seemed to be reading into the post. Outsiders can only take the statement on face value.