EDIT: for those downvoting me, I would be happy to engage in a civil discussion about why you think I’m wrong, and even change my mind if I’m mistaken.

This is extremely dumb for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it’s very clearly written with a certain bias.

A (the communist) is describing a tankie. But generally someone who identifies specifically as a communist is not authoritarian, they’re closer to anarchocommunism than the reverse.

B (the lefty antifascist) describes them as a subtype of A, but antifascists are diametrically opposed to tankies, ideologically. Also, “antifascist” is a word that has long been used to label a specific group of leftists… calling them “lefty antifascists” implies that there are also “right-wing antifascists,” trying to equivocate the sides by generalizing the word. Also, most importantly, the description is 100% bullshit.

C (the hard right) a single token addition of a very generic “hard” right person, to appear balanced. No making fun of this person like in the rest of the descriptions, just a list of facts… except “always an arsehole” which I would argue most of these people would enjoy reading about themselves because they would think it was funny and kind of true. Clearly the target audience.

D (the contrarian) this is the modern right wing lowest common denominator person, and an accurate description of the archetype, but no mention of left/right in this description. Wonder why?

E (the peacenik) what? Peacenik is just another historically left-wing-associated label. These people do not have a unified view of how to end the conflict, and certainly don’t frequently suggest ceding land to an invader. That’s a really stupid take on pacifism, and it’s just another dig at the left.

This is definitely dumb and probably just plain old propaganda.

[–] Roundcat@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I assuming you mean the post was written from a right wing perspective correct?(that's what I got from your post at least)

I think it's written more from a well meaning liberal perspective. Probably doesn't understand the labels they're using, or at the very least oversimplifying people so that they crunch into the parameters they have created.

A They probably do mean tanky, and I myself have made this association in error. After all "Tanky" in the way it is used now is not as well known as the word communist, and many people who are tankies do describe themselves as communists.

B I've met people like these myself. One of my friends was in this camp until recently. Many of these people still look at Ukraine as it was pre Maidan, and don't realize the majority of people within the country don't support the fascist elements within. Plus there is Russian prop specifically aimed at hitting antifascists. They sold the initial invasion as a "denazification". If you are just listening to the words spoken by the leaders, and not seeing the atrocities the Russians are committing in Ukraine, I can see how one could fall for it.

C Describes a lot of the people in my part of the US actually, though, not all of them support Russia fighting in Ukraine. Rather they are more of a combination of this and E, where they want to get back to admiring Russia without dealing with the cognitive dissonance of Russia committing warcrimes in Ukraine, and also getting their ass handed to them.

D This used to be me until maybe 2014, and God knows where I would be today if I still acted this way. Basically anything that was considered "bad" of "forbidden", I wanted in. The upside is this is what led me into reading the Communist Manifesto, the Quran, and other "forbidden" materials that led me out of my close minded conservatism, but on the otherhand, I also read Mein Kampf, gave the BotD to many fascist and conferderate leaning people, and followed a lot of Russian news uncritically, and even had a Soviet idolization phase of my own. A lot of my mindset at the time was this really weird form of libertarianism combined with unbridled contrarianism.

E I feel this can include a lot of people from any perspective. Leftists who think appose NATO more than Russia's imperialism, Rightist who see the writing on the wall, and think the war should end while Russia is still ahead, to people who associate the increase in costs of living with the war, and simply want it to end no matter what ASAP for their own sake. I feel this could be expanded into several catagories, but then again, everything here is a severe oversimplification.

So are there flaws with this post: absolutely, but I don't think it was written in bad faith.

[–] keegomatic@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I can understand your viewpoint, but I don’t agree with it. I think you’re missing the signs that this was written to promote a right-wing narrative about leftists.

You say you think it’s written by a “well-meaning liberal perspective,” but none of the things you mention point to it being a liberal’s perspective, except for the implication that you are a well-meaning liberal and thus you identify with it. Coming from a liberal who interacts with mostly liberal people, and who has been friends with people on the left and right and talked philosophy with both: A, B, and E are just not written from the normal perspective of a left-leaning person.

By your explanation, you clearly understand the C and D roles best, which are the right-wing descriptions. Could it be that you are projecting a liberal perspective on something that is clearly a right-wing narrative because you are used to seeing this narrative, despite identifying as a liberal now?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (28 replies)