They’ve gotten very strange in the past year or so. I’ve seen multiple dbzer0 users, including two admins, do complete 180s on tankie bullshit, and it’s rather bizarre.

My best guess is that tankies offer them a sense of community, which is how many terminally online folk get drawn into it. People who have a deep desire for community will overlook moral issues if invited to be a part of that community, and even adopt, consciously or unconsciously, those positions in order to better ‘fit in’ with the community.

In a time when the real world is more recognizably hostile than ever, or at least for as long as most of us here have been alive (insofar as we are both aware of it and noting that it is backsliding rather than improving), online communities probably seem quite tempting to hew closer to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I’ve seen multiple dbzer0 users, including two admins, do complete 180s on tankie bullshit

People can learn when they listen.

Edit: I just read the screenshot. They didn't even do a 180. They said China was being "authoritarian" to the Uyghurs. All they said was that Israel is doing worse.

[–] tricerotops@hexbear.net 40 points 1 week ago

this is what happens when the “we can be mad about two things (but only ever complain about one of those things)” crowd is forced to engage with the other thing i guess

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They said China was being "authoritarian" to the Uyghurs

if i was trying to be maximally charitable to the meaningless buzzword, the UN report is pretty bad... until you remember the superior western alternative these worlders prefer, is mass murder of civilians in unrelated countries. and that's without getting into any amerikkka police state shit.

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's not the worst usage of the word "authoritarian", for sure. I've just grown to hate the word in any context, because it's practically meaningless (as you described). It simply means "wielding power"—it doesn't distinguish between power used to oppress and that used to liberate. Liberals also apply the word inconsistently because they're blind to most oppressive structures of capitalism, and thus fail to label them "authoritarian".

I prefer Awoo's term, "heavy handedness", because that better describes a benevolent strategy which was taken too far.