Apparently "nationalism is bad" is an uncivil take. Unless there's another reason someone would ban this comment... 🤔
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
395 points (96.5% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1473 readers
273 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not that I needed more historical context to make sense of the information you're providing. The history lesson makes sense. It's that you never drew any conclusion, nor connected it to the original post. Your post was heavy on insinuation, but void of clear meaning, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions on your intent. The only methods to "fill in variables" here are to make assumptions, possibly with the extra context of your post history, or politely ask your intent. I chose the latter. Though I still have to derive your intent from your post to be that I used the word incorrectly, as you've again neglected to actually say what you mean.
"Brainwash" is used to refer to exactly the condition I was referencing: being led to believe falsehoods completely and wholly, through the control of information and repetition of said falsehoods. Its original popuparization in anti-Russian, American political discourse is completely irrelevent to the message the word effectively communicated to those who read my post.
Language changes, and it's the current interpretation of it that gives it meaning. Hilariously, you used the word "propaganda" to refer to falsehoods used to dismiss outside views; the word propaganda simply means information with political intent and its relation to falsehoods was a result of the Third Reich. The Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, founded by Joeseph Goebbels, became famous for its spread of intentionally misleading propaganda, and popularized the connection of the word to lies and falsehoods. So should I suggest then that your use of the word is incorrect, as you've removed it from its context and used it to convey negative connotations that it didn't originally hold?
Again, I genuinely do appreciate the history lesson. The intersection between words and their historical context is exactly in my professional field and I find it to be a fascinating topic. But if the intent was to attack the quality or authenticity of my post through semantic analysis via historical meaning, I think there are better ways we can both spend our time.
It's regularly abused to describe differences in opinion or deficits in trust. Case in point, evangelicals will fling it around regularly when arguing over the practice of teaching Evolution in high school. They'll assert Biblical Infallibility and claim paleontology is a falsehood that children are indoctrinated into.
You get the same out of war time propaganda. Particularly out of the Korean War, when the Red Scare was particularly high pitched.
Do as you please.
I found a certain irony in the poster using the term to describe what is functionally just a reflection on the author's own dogmatic views. I thought the history of the term - itself deeply reflective of an entrenched adversarial worldview that brooked no rebuttal to the point of dropping thermonuclear devices on people who adhered to a different economic philosophy - helped illustrate that.
Apparently I was wrong. The dogged insistence that Chinese people are incapable of thinking for themselves in the aggregate, and only Taiwanese people are true free thinkers, is too deeply baked into the Lemmy zeitgeist.
You don't see the irony in starting from the perspective that the poster (me, btw? Not sure how you missed that) is the one dug into his own views, despite a complete lack of information about what the arguments were, what the discussion was, or what "evidence" was being ignored? Don't get me wrong, you're correct in saying you shouldn't take my opinion as universal truth and it was never stayed as such,bbut assuming the opposite is true is equally fallacious.
Your take on irony fell flat because it required a biased perspective to perceive as ironic. Considering this is an entire community built around shamelessly mocking that particular bias, you surely couldn't have thought that readers would approach the discussion from the same perspective as you.
I believe that those particular Chinese students were, at least in the majority, failing to think critically about the discussion at hand. Perhaps the assumption that they failed to do so was a result of state brainwashing via propaganda was unfair, as I admitted in another post in this thread. To suggest that this means I assume all Chinese citizens are incapable of thinking for themselves, and that all Taiwanese people are free thinkers truly just shows that you started this conversation in bad faith. I initially attempted to assume as little about your intentions as possible and appreciate your comments for what they were, as misplaced as they seemed. It's unfortunate that in this case, I was clearly feeding a troll.
I'm sure you did. In the same way you insist anyone who votes for Trump simply isn't thinking critically.
Only folks with your shared views are recognized as intellectual. You're incapable of accepting any other train of thought.
That's the universe of people you're comment established. And the cavalier attitude is why you were banned.
I don't see any evidence of that
That's why I asked what you meant rather than making assumptions about your intentions. But you even attempted to mock me for that.
I don't need to continue to suffer your unwarranted insults and assumptions. I used my bias to make a statement about my own lived experience without insulting anyone, nor using it as irrefutable evidence of anything. You're using yours to group anyone who disagrees with you together, insult their character and claim intellectual superiority. Go fuck yourself.
The community is definitely better off without you in it
To be fair, with the goals of that community being what it is, I fundamentally agree. I'm not one to sit idly by while people spread lies and misinformation. I'm honestly shocked it took them as long as it did to ban me. It's hilarious that they hit me on such an innoculous offense, though. I actually once just straight called out Yogthos as being a Chinese-bought plant, totally ignorant to their role in .ml, or the fact that most people there tend to agree with their bias'. I figured that's a far worse "rule 1" than this.