Sorry, no, you even denied Stalin's rule qualified as that. He did a bunch of bad stuff but how dare anyone use blunt terms to describe when one guy in charge until he dies gets to do basically anything and kill his opponents. And nobody better call kneejerk defenses of that hierarchy a kneejerk defense of hierarchy!

Name an actual dictatorship. Tell me what the hell you mean when you use that word, if you mean anything when you use that word.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] mindbleach 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made the blanket statement that tankies are those who “demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient.”

If you notice, I actually made that accusation toward all forms of conservatism, so you're not even doing a good job of this mindlessly rigid literalism. You seem to expect I'm describing unreasonable people who would come out and say "why yes, I am being unreasonable, thank you for noticing." No, genius: I am describing inferred motivation behind visible behavior. Explaining that isn't a moving goal-post, it's how a fucking argument works.

All of your points so far have been pure anticommunist rhetoric, and using the term tankie to avoid actually having to engage with leftist ideas.

You could build a battleship from this much irony.

No, asshole, I don't think you're a tankie, but you are being an asshole by using a lot of their same stupid tactics, including and especially denying there is any such thing as a tankie.

Or a dictatorship.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

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

My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.

'You could call Stalin a dictator,' allows someone previously going to the paint to declare there's no possible way Stalin was a dictator.

Someone now pretending that when I condemn tankies, I must be describing all leftists, and all leftists don't believe what I'm condemning, therefore nuh-uh. Even though that's completely fucking stupid and the opposite of how labels work. Like there's no possible way I am specifically talking about a minority of crazy people, the same way there's no possible way I am specifically talking about the abuses of a by-some-stretch-dictator, even though you freely fucking acknowledge both problems do exist.

and you extend it to anyone on the left

An accusation based on literally nothing. The opposite of everything I've argued here. A fantasy of your own invention.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

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

I wasn’t defending Stalin

Cool, who asked? I'm accusing you of saying Stalin wasn't a dictator, because that was kinda your central objection, several comments in a row, until I guess you forgot.

I am calling you a blithe hypocrite and you don't even understand which claim you just fumbled. This whole conversation started with me saying tankies just like leftist-colored dictatorships and you saying 'that wasn't a dictatorship.' Now you want to casually slip that yeah okay you guess it might be, "by some stretches," and pretend it's my fault for not dragging it out of you sooner?

You've looked straight at comments saying 'I wish Stalin gulag'd more people' and 'the uigher genocide is a de-radicalization program' and go, nope, that can't possibly be defending the evils of allegedly communist countries. That's still not a me problem. You can mumble about critical support, but there's ever any context where genocide is an acceptable... political strategy.

These people are out there.

That crazy bullshit is really what they think.

Loyalist hierarchy is the best model explaining their crazy bullshit.