I don’t think they’re a tankie, just a tankie apologist. Though one could always look at the “There are 9 fascists sitting at a table” argument, I don’t think they’re ideologically completely aligned. Just enough to be willing to slobber on their boots.
Man, in this very thread the progression I’m bitching about happens with “There aren’t any tankies!” comments.
“Leaves of three, leave it be” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If you’re out in the woods of Appalachia and see some ivy with three leaves, chances are it’s Poison Ivy. “Generally posters claiming there aren’t many tankies on the Fediverse are concern trolls” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If, in the Fediverse, of all places, someone is not merely claiming to have personally not seen many tankies, but firmly saying (or implying through additional statements) that there aren’t many tankies on here, they are generally a concern troll.
As for tankie apologists, I don’t see why a tankie apologist should be regarded differently from a Nazi apologist, or any other fascist apologist. Ardent apologism by people not part of the in-group is a thing, and surprisingly common. Like atheists who praise Christians to high heaven (pun intended), or right-wing minorities playing “They’re not that bad” games about the alt-right.
“You just want to write off anyone who disagrees with you!”
lmao
Sorry for not having a scientific study of Lemmy’s population ready to satisfy you. It’s funny - any time I bring receipts, regardless of how many or how upvoted, it’s always the same story - “It’s just a few bad apples! There’s not a lot of them! They don’t bother you!”
If you make a claim about tankies but never back but beyond the claim of personal experinece, then you at least owe it to yourself to understand that you may be wrong.
Alright, what exactly kind of evidence do you think is possible to gather in this situation? Realistically speaking? Am I to ignore my eyes and (metaphorical) ears because they aren’t a scientific study?
Rigorous studies trump anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence trumps a complete absence of evidence.
I don’t think they’re a tankie, just a tankie apologist. Though one could always look at the “There are 9 fascists sitting at a table” argument, I don’t think they’re ideologically completely aligned. Just enough to be willing to slobber on their boots.
deleted by creator
Do you think the “9 fascists sitting at a table” argument is ‘textbook fascist logic’?
deleted by creator
Man, in this very thread the progression I’m bitching about happens with “There aren’t any tankies!” comments.
“Leaves of three, leave it be” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If you’re out in the woods of Appalachia and see some ivy with three leaves, chances are it’s Poison Ivy. “Generally posters claiming there aren’t many tankies on the Fediverse are concern trolls” isn’t a law, but it’s quick advice. If, in the Fediverse, of all places, someone is not merely claiming to have personally not seen many tankies, but firmly saying (or implying through additional statements) that there aren’t many tankies on here, they are generally a concern troll.
As for tankie apologists, I don’t see why a tankie apologist should be regarded differently from a Nazi apologist, or any other fascist apologist. Ardent apologism by people not part of the in-group is a thing, and surprisingly common. Like atheists who praise Christians to high heaven (pun intended), or right-wing minorities playing “They’re not that bad” games about the alt-right.
deleted by creator
“You just want to write off anyone who disagrees with you!”
lmao
Sorry for not having a scientific study of Lemmy’s population ready to satisfy you. It’s funny - any time I bring receipts, regardless of how many or how upvoted, it’s always the same story - “It’s just a few bad apples! There’s not a lot of them! They don’t bother you!”
If you make a claim about tankies but never back but beyond the claim of personal experinece, then you at least owe it to yourself to understand that you may be wrong.
Alright, what exactly kind of evidence do you think is possible to gather in this situation? Realistically speaking? Am I to ignore my eyes and (metaphorical) ears because they aren’t a scientific study?
Rigorous studies trump anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence trumps a complete absence of evidence.