this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
130 points (95.1% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1450 readers
88 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?
(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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In my experience, it's more akin to:
Source: Literally anything! That isn't corrupt and Western!
"Like what?"
Source: Anything!
"Can I use Al Jazeera? Or Wikipedia? Or can you give me a few sources that I can look at?"
Source: No, those are corrupt and Western! You're lying! Look at this UN report!
"This UN report says the opposite of what you said."
Source: That's because the UN is corrupt, and lying! And Western!
"Can you just tell me where you got this information in the first place? Even if it's not 'reliable' per se, surely someone told it to you in the first place. Who was that? Where do you get your news?"
Source: Shut up! You're sealioning! You're being bad! You're lying! Blocked. Cry some more!
Lmfao look at this link yogthos has sent to me before
https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/
cracks me up
This is an uncommonly straightforward take on it. “Sure, they killed hundreds of protestors. But it wasn’t in the square itself, and some other people inflate the number of dead, so it doesn’t count.”
I don’t know whether that claim is even true. But even if it’s entirely accurate, this as the vindication of the CCP doesn’t work. They just want some truthiness they can point to and make it sound like the dead protestors are a lie.
It's my favorite part because the quote they pulled to support it is a journalist rolling their eyes so hard.
he's literally like yes there is no massacre in the square because you chased everyone the fuck away
Massacre ❌ The People's™ Massacre ✅
Obviously you gonna look at the news from a blogpost! Thats the only reliable news source!
Someone told me a few days ago that Israel was striking Syria with nuclear weaponry, and the only reason I didn't know about it was that I only consumed Western news sources.
They sent me an article that proved it! And a video of the explosion. Okay. I stopped talking with them shortly after that, after they said "Thank you for taking the bait. We’ve now come full circle," without explaining what they meant by that.
Israel is already doing so much fucked up shit that there's no reason to make shit up to make them look bad. They're blowing up hospitals and schools, and shooting small children in the head. There's no need to invent lies about nuclear weapons being used.
There always is. Some people just enjoy stirring up more drama. Some get money out of that.
Tearing down the very idea of objective truth, switching out sources and debate for a process based on ever-shifting chaos, yelling, and loyalty to a particular narrative above all else, is it own highly valued goal.
Most of their arguments in conversations rely on strawmanning anyway, so it's expected they don't want you to look up any source except ones that agree with them. Especially ""NATOpedia"" 🙄 but this obscure ML post written 6 years ago on a niche forum is a completely valid source!
And everything needs to be "contextualized." Meaning, they can decide what your sources actually mean, even if it's something different than what they say.
"Can I do that to your sources too?"
"Don't be ridiculous. I don't even have sources. Are you sealioning again?"