I left lemmy.ml because there were too many people defending or denying historical acts of political violence. That’s what we mean when we say tankies are authoritarian.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you'd actually read my post, you'd know my point wasn't about it being used "incorrectly".

people defending or denying historical acts of political violence. That’s what we mean when we say tankies are authoritarian.

Defeating the Nazis was an act of political violence, freeing slaves was an act of political violence, over throwing the feudal system was an act of political believe, driving out colonial empires is an act of political violence, enforcing property rights is an act of political violence, ceasing the means of production is an act of political violence.

See? This is exactly, exactly what I was talking about.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

I mean we both know I’m talking about specific acts of political violence, but you are right in that I should have clarified.

To be clear what makes it authoritarian is when it’s the state/government/leadership that is using acts of violence against citizens with political ideas that would threaten their power.

And tankies get the name specifically from either defending or denying that specifically the Soviet Union used violence to suppress attempts to leave their union. When I was on .ml I also frequently saw defense or denial of China using violence that way such as the infamous Tiananmen Square Massacre.

People from lemmy.ml love to shout that people who want them defederated are “capitalist” and hexbear has decided accusing people of being anti-trans is their move, but those are simply strawmen, and really poorly constructed ones at that.

[–] Carl@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

when it’s the state/government/leadership that is using acts of violence

So when a corporation uses or sponsors acts of violence it's not authoritarianism? I guess Coca-Cola-funded fascist death squads are just smol bean libertarians fighting the oppressive tankie socialists!

You can't even get your talking points in order. The main people on lemmy.ml are anti-capitalist, they would accuse those who would censor them of being anti-communist.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

So when a corporation uses or sponsors acts of violence it's not authoritarianism? I guess Coca-Cola-funded fascist death squads are just smol bean libertarians fighting the oppressive tankie socialists!

Until Coca-Cola is its a government, no, that’s not authoritarianism. That doesn’t mean it’s good. Things can be bad without being authoritarianism.

You can't even get your talking points in order. The main people on lemmy.ml are anti-capitalist, they would accuse those who would censor them of being anti-communist.

Yeah you’re right I was caught between two phrasings and I mixed them up. I edited it to fix it. Thanks for pointing out my mistake!

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

Until Coca-Cola is its a government, no, that’s not authoritarianism.

Which was more authoritarian: slavery or freeing the slaves? Slaveowners were not the government, therefore, according to you, nothing they did could be considered authoritarian, right?

It seems pretty arbitrary to single out one single heirarchy and say that only that heirarchy is capable of being authoritarian.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 minutes ago* (last edited 6 minutes ago)

Idk what you think we’re arguing about but I’m curious where this is going.

It seems pretty clear to me that applying the definition I gave previously of “authoritarian violence” as “state-perpetrated violence against citizens with ideas the state finds threatening”, slavery could be considered “authoritarian violence” but “freeing the slaves” couldn’t.

If you are specifically talking about the US Civil War, I do think that counts as “authoritarian violence” to the extent that the war was about stopping a group of citizens from rebelling against the government.

It seems pretty arbitrary to single out one single heirarchy and say that only that heirarchy is capable of being authoritarian.

To be clear, I’m going off of the Wikipedia definition which defines “authoritarianism” as:

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

I read that as pretty specifically applying to governments, but I could see how you could apply the idea to describe things like anti-union efforts.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Bwah bwah bwah what about coca cola, what about Gaza, what about south America, what about Iraq bwah bwah

The problem with tankies like yourself is that they can't recognise that the CCP is evil, Ukraine was not full of nazis needing to be invaded and not everything is western propaganda.

The US is a fucked up evil empire, Europe has a violent colonialist past and is still doing bad shit around the world, but your Communist Utopias are just misery spreading machines on everything they touch.

[–] Carl@lemm.ee -1 points 1 hour ago

the CCP is evil, Ukraine

Do, uh, do you know which country it was that invaded Ukraine?

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

And tankies get the name specifically from either defending or denying that specifically the Soviet Union used violence to suppress attempts to leave their union.

I fucking knew it, Lincoln was a soviet plant all along, fucking tankies.