this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
50 points (96.3% liked)

Games

21193 readers
215 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I recently asked a simple question in a Gamergate-adjacent space:

"Would you support a pragmatic alliance with sex-positive / liberal feminists against sex-negative / radical feminists?"

I wasn’t asking for ideological agreement — just whether temporary, issue-based alignment was possible.

After dozens of responses, the answer became very clear that They are not open to an alliance, pragmatic or otherwise. Not with sex-positive feminists. Not with liberal feminists. Not with anyone who still accepts the label “feminist.”

Many responses explicitly said any form of feminism is unacceptable, regardless of policy or overlap. Internal distinctions (sex-positive vs sex-negative, liberal vs radical) were rejected outright.

Multiple commenters stated that even if feminists agreed with them on a specific issue, alignment was still impossible. Identity mattered more than outcomes.

Several replies framed alliances as inherently manipulative (“you’d just make us pawns,” “any inch given will be used against us”). Compromise was treated as surrender, not strategy.

Most arguments centered on media aesthetics, DEI, HR departments, and branding

A few commenters acknowledged that different feminist factions exist — but immediately collapsed that distinction again by assuming hostile intent (“they all exploit men,” “it’s all the same underneath”).

TL:DR- this "Expirment" was fruitless

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They linguistically hijacked these terms and turned them into "Thought-terminating clichés" (Lifton's term) - phrases that shut down critical thinking by reducing complex positions to dismissible labels.

Here is a good read about what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Came_from_Something_Awful

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm well aware of the concept. Tankie is the newest one.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah, I don't like that that term has been split from historical contexts. Critique is incredibly important for building stable movements and societies, communist and otherwise. Though I do not identify as a communist, that term means something very specific in my eyes and not every communist is a strict Stalinist unwilling to compromise.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Tankie has nothing to do with "Stalinism" even (which is not a thing). When the USSR sent tanks to Hungary which the term originally referred to, Stalin had already been dead for years.

Tankie originated specifically western Europe as a pejorative for the left that supported the Soviet Union putting down a counter-revolutionary uprising in Hungary in 1956.

[–] InappropriateEmote@hexbear.net 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

not every communist is a strict Stalinist unwilling to compromise.

There is a vanishingly small, insignificant number of those. What people call "Stalinists" are just Marxist Leninists, most of whom don't demonize Stalin as this great evil, but as a an imperfect but still exceptionally good leader that presided over one of if not the greatest mass improvements in the quality of human life in history. There is nothing there that one should be "willing to compromise" on aside from that vanishingly insignificant number who deify him. When you say something along the lines of "those weird uncompromising 'Stalinists' are bad and gross, but I know there are still lots of good commies who aren't like that!" you're still just perpetuating the kind of simplistic, naive, children's story book (Animal Farm) level of red scare cliches.

As for maintaining the term as a "critique" of the historical context it has since been divorced from, I find that highly suspect as well. I doubt you will find any Marxist Leninist who would argue that critique is not incredibly important, but coining and using a pejorative term as a thought-terminating cliche is hardly a valid form of critique. That doesn't mean no one ever should use derisive terms for their ideological enemies, only that it's a significant error to confuse that for critique. And this doesn't even begin to go into the general consensus now of Marxist Leninists that those who sided with the Soviet Union for crushing a fascist-led uprising in Hungary in 1956 were, while not above critique, correct in their support, with the British communists who coined the term tankie ultimately the ones proven to have had the flawed analysis, siding with imperialists.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm aware of the good Stalin did and he did do a lot of good for the people. That being said, we are also able to do better and learn from what did not work. We have a lot of opportunities to do good and it will require flexibility and trial and error.

Edit: For clarity, I meant "Stalinist" colloquially (rigidly authoritarian and anti-critique) rather than a statement about ML ideology specifically. "Tankie" has been generalised for a while based on that event, and the newest wave of "tankie" usage is something else entirely and rather ill defined.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

highly recommend Stalin a History and Critique of a Black Legend

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 points 6 days ago

Neat, will add it to the pile. :)

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 5 points 6 days ago

A link for others who would like it too:

https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Domenico-Losurdo-Stalin-History-and-Critique-of-a-Black-Legend.pdf

Looks interesting. I got a few to go through first, but eventually it'll get there lol.