I gave db0 just a smidge of evidence that tankies are coordinating a takeover of Dbzer0, including dbzer0 admins aiding the takeover. Naturally, this is Db0’s reply
He’s kinda given up, sad. He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history. Bizarre how they keep falling for betrayal. Perhaps this time the Authoritarians won’t eat me! Literal insanity.
they also are infiltrating the more"neutral" political memes sub too, i noticed it has very tankie postings. after thier tankie instances have mostly been blocked by most fed users, i assume they arnt getting much engagement.
He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history.
Nah, with terminally online cosplayers, the result is almost always “Mask off, actually was aligned with tankies all along” rather than “Principled opposition getting betrayed after alliance of convenience”. That’s more of a real-world anarchist pitfall.
Tankies give them asspats and don’t demand anything of them, while evil liberals and demsocs actually demand some small baseline of action. If one’s interest in anarchism is more the sense of community than ideology, they pitch towards tankies hard. The reverse is rarer, despite tankies also being largely of the same mentality, because anarchism is less inherently tribalistic than ML insanity about orthodoxy and revisionism, making it less appealing to a tribalist mindset already immersed in such concepts.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Authoritarian-minded narcissists don’t care about ideological consistency, ethical reasoning, or contextual realism. They just care about the authoritarian grift that feeds their insatiable egos.
They call the “horseshoe politics” argument “both-sides-ism” when it’s actually the opposite. “Both sides are bad” is an attempt to equate left-wing with right-wing politics to justify doomerism, complacency, and cynical accelerationism while claiming some sort of moral exceptionism (my ends justify my means because both sides are bad).
“Horseshoe politics” on the other hand calls out ideological and methodological extremism on both sides. Its main claim is that authoritarianism is bad, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
It also comes as no surprise that these same types of “leftists” never call out trump, maga, and the actual fascists. No, they focus all their ire on corporate dems (who are deserving of critique within their own contexts, of course, but not to the exclusion of far-right conservatism), calling them “liberal fascists,” whatever the fuck that is, and watering down the term “fascist” so that we all sound like loonies whenever we call out actual fascism (such as maga/trumpism).
For real; I posted a picture (not even a meme but a screenshot of a post I thought made a good point) in an ongoing thread regarding certain viabilities of anarchism and was the only one who got my comment deleted with just a line about bringing up strawmen and fallacies, apparently (it was more in depth with particular examples, compared to the other comments, so maybe it struck a nerve). Not even the tankie comms have deleted my comments over just simply countering me or just down voting.
Felt more like trying to maintain a social club, than anything.
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Okay, but do you expect them not to know who you are when you’re doing this?
If pointing at the name Diva is self explanatory enough, so is pointing to the name goat. It’s just known users beefing with known users, regardless of content.
Like, he surely knows he is talking to you on an account you made to evade your ban off his instance?
The person that runs this community. Both have a reputation, and from what I recall you were banned from db0 a while back. That was somewhere around the time you made the totalanarchy community just to place it in time. So db0 giving a tired response to you about tankies just isn’t wild to me.
Speaking of leopards, I got banned from leopardsatemyface, for not conforming to their very very narrow dogma on one topic. Seems like they’re already well “established”.
Yeah, it was a surprising-shouldn’t-be-surprising situation, seeing them all walk around with planks in their eyes with their faces eaten off, jeering at the flecks in the eyes of others with their faces eaten off. They don’t like threats to the delusions they identify with. Classic social-dominance groupthink stuff.
I hope they enjoy their flavour of totalitarianism. /s
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism.
Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism.
Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
Capitalism emerged in Britain, the Netherlands, and most of today’s high-income countries long before democracy.
Even in the recent past, capitalism has coexisted with undemocratic rule, as in Chile from 1973 to 1990, Brazil from 1964 to 1985, and Japan until 1945. Contemporary China has a variant of capitalism with a high level of state intervention, but its system of government is not a democracy by our definition. In many countries today, however, capitalism and democracy coexist, each system influencing how the other works.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
These differences even among democracies are part of the explanation for governments’ differing roles in the capitalist economy. The Japanese and South Korean governments play a central role in setting the direction of the economy. But the amount of tax collected (both locally and nationally) is low compared with some rich countries in northern Europe, where it is almost half of GDP. In Sweden and Denmark, the tax system is used to reduce income inequality to a far greater extent than in Japan and South Korea.
the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use … when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.
I gave db0 just a smidge of evidence that tankies are coordinating a takeover of Dbzer0, including dbzer0 admins aiding the takeover. Naturally, this is Db0’s reply
He’s kinda given up, sad. He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history. Bizarre how they keep falling for betrayal. Perhaps this time the Authoritarians won’t eat me! Literal insanity.
they also are infiltrating the more"neutral" political memes sub too, i noticed it has very tankie postings. after thier tankie instances have mostly been blocked by most fed users, i assume they arnt getting much engagement.
Nah, with terminally online cosplayers, the result is almost always “Mask off, actually was aligned with tankies all along” rather than “Principled opposition getting betrayed after alliance of convenience”. That’s more of a real-world anarchist pitfall.
Tankies give them asspats and don’t demand anything of them, while evil liberals and demsocs actually demand some small baseline of action. If one’s interest in anarchism is more the sense of community than ideology, they pitch towards tankies hard. The reverse is rarer, despite tankies also being largely of the same mentality, because anarchism is less inherently tribalistic than ML insanity about orthodoxy and revisionism, making it less appealing to a tribalist mindset already immersed in such concepts.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Authoritarian-minded narcissists don’t care about ideological consistency, ethical reasoning, or contextual realism. They just care about the authoritarian grift that feeds their insatiable egos.
They call the “horseshoe politics” argument “both-sides-ism” when it’s actually the opposite. “Both sides are bad” is an attempt to equate left-wing with right-wing politics to justify doomerism, complacency, and cynical accelerationism while claiming some sort of moral exceptionism (my ends justify my means because both sides are bad).
“Horseshoe politics” on the other hand calls out ideological and methodological extremism on both sides. Its main claim is that authoritarianism is bad, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
It also comes as no surprise that these same types of “leftists” never call out trump, maga, and the actual fascists. No, they focus all their ire on corporate dems (who are deserving of critique within their own contexts, of course, but not to the exclusion of far-right conservatism), calling them “liberal fascists,” whatever the fuck that is, and watering down the term “fascist” so that we all sound like loonies whenever we call out actual fascism (such as maga/trumpism).
Yeah, I had to block so many ‘anarchist’ meme communities that were nothing but hating dems
For real; I posted a picture (not even a meme but a screenshot of a post I thought made a good point) in an ongoing thread regarding certain viabilities of anarchism and was the only one who got my comment deleted with just a line about bringing up strawmen and fallacies, apparently (it was more in depth with particular examples, compared to the other comments, so maybe it struck a nerve). Not even the tankie comms have deleted my comments over just simply countering me or just down voting.
Felt more like trying to maintain a social club, than anything.
But the start of the blurb on leftymemes says
… ???
Who are “turbolibs” and why are they trying to keep them happy? ???
???
Yeah. Mind-blowing.
That’s the old blurb, they changed it a little while ago.
How little a while ago?
*refreshes page again*
Still says
looking at it from here.
Oh sorry, I misread it.
The old blurb was
Okay, but do you expect them not to know who you are when you’re doing this?
If pointing at the name Diva is self explanatory enough, so is pointing to the name goat. It’s just known users beefing with known users, regardless of content.
Like, he surely knows he is talking to you on an account you made to evade your ban off his instance?
And who am I to you? Since most of the shit said about me is blatantly false.
The person that runs this community. Both have a reputation, and from what I recall you were banned from db0 a while back. That was somewhere around the time you made the totalanarchy community just to place it in time. So db0 giving a tired response to you about tankies just isn’t wild to me.
I was banned from dbzer0 after I challenged cowbee posting tankie copypasta. I called dbzer0 out for being a tankie bar.
Right, so this very much isn’t a new thing with you, db0, or tankies. That’s the gist of what I mean.
No, it’s not, dbzer0 has been a tankie bar for quite a while.
Figured that perhaps some evidence of the takeover would sway db0 that tankies aren’t friends with anarchists, but tankie bar will tankie bar.
Someone else posted this yesterday elsewhere. G is only reposting it.
The leopards are contracting obesity, it seems
Speaking of leopards, I got banned from leopardsatemyface, for not conforming to their very very narrow dogma on one topic. Seems like they’re already well “established”.
Ah yes, that’s because leopardsatemyface is run by face-eating panthers, which is completely different!
You can only talk about face-eating leopards eating faces there, but don’t you dare suggest the face-eating panthers might eat faces too…
Yeah, it was a surprising-shouldn’t-be-surprising situation, seeing them all walk around with planks in their eyes with their faces eaten off, jeering at the flecks in the eyes of others with their faces eaten off. They don’t like threats to the delusions they identify with. Classic social-dominance groupthink stuff.
I hope they enjoy their flavour of totalitarianism. /s
I find their obsession with the term “libs” fascinating.
It has a very different meaning outside of the US. Which goes to show that their whole “but my global south!!” is fake and performative.
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
Shoutout to Tankie or Conservative
Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism. Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism. Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
To address your other points, neither capitalism nor liberalism is essential to each other, and capitalism is older than liberal democracy.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
Mhmm.
I sense embrace-extend-extinguish.
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.