Soviet red star and hammer and sickle displayed alongside swastikas during a victory parade, joint Soviet-Nazi Invasion of Poland, 1939
Soviet red star and hammer and sickle displayed alongside swastikas during a victory parade, joint Soviet-Nazi Invasion of Poland, 1939
You're viewing a single thread.
Can't wait for the tankies to show up
I hear people complain about tankies more frequently than I encounter them lol
I know they exist but so many of them have been banned/blocked/defederated from that at this point that I think we just need to move on and stop letting them live rent free in our heads.
They still show up on this community every once in a while to peddle their propaganda, especially on pictures about the Soviets. I generally permaban them if they say anything suss or that veers into outright genocide denial.
And I think that’s a great way to handle it! But people just preemptively commenting about their concern for tankies is almost like bait lol
Ignore and deplatform. By far the most effective way to deal with unwanted groups online
I generally permaban them if they say anything suss
Please elaborate on this. Everyone has an opinion on what constitutes a suspicious action, and also defining tankies on case-by-case basis.
This would be just the right point since it is especially after publicly claiming use of moderation actions on users.
Please elaborate on this.
Things like "The Yankee Dogs(tm) forced North Korea to adopt Juche" or "Soviet secret police torturing people to extract confessions for execution were just acting in self-defense against the bourgeois pigs!"
Things that are both vile and untrue, but don't relate to a singular factual statement (unlike, say, "The Soviets didn't commit the Katyn Massacre", which would be vile and untrue AND relate to a singular factual statement)
Do mean something like ground setting, prior-discussion-terminating stances taken through provable-or-refutable-almost-solely-through-statistics without providing such statistics, or do you also mean a use of particular lingo?
I don't have any questions for the second part.
I would probably take a closer and more critical look at their statements if I saw someone using some of the more distinctively tankie lingo, but that wouldn't be worth a ban or a warning or any sort of action.
"Stalin's big spoon" and other such euphemistic jokes excluded. Those are definitely worth a ban, fuck 'I was just joking' about genocide denial shite.
Thanks for the elaboration. It's always good to know if anyone with any kind of power to do something can explain how they interpret the basic rulesets and what the vague things like common sense or suspicion means to them in a context.
Honestly I find moderation is often too prescriptive and thus leaves openings for bad actors to be disruptive while going “I didn’t explicitly break any named-rule” as they find ways to constantly skirt them deliberately. I am all for moderators going “you’re just disruptive or otherwise bad for this community so I don’t want you around.”
In my experience, moderation rules for unpaid volunteer mods are worthless except as a guideline to users as to what to do or not to do.
The purpose of rule of law in real life is to ensure adherence to it by overlapping systems and oversight. As most moderation groups don't have overlapping systems or oversight, and sometimes don't even communicate with each other when taking action, strict 'rules-based' moderation pretty invariably turns into "moderator roulette" as each mod interprets the rules differently and prejudicially without any mechanism for being called out on it or corrected. So, you know, no different than 'rule by leader' other than the potential of abuse of the proclaimed rules-based system by bad faith actors.
Especially since many moderation teams 'close ranks' or blow it off if any of their's is accused of wrongdoing.
Had a mostly good experience with mods on Lemmy so far, though. I've stayed far away from .ml, so that might have something to do with it.
Your instance might've. But I encounter several from lemmy.ml every so often.
Same for Nazis then, since I have yet to see one here.
OR fuck em both, wherever they are.
Bad historical facts hurt their ideology but let's not pretend like other ideologies don't do the same...
Maybe if people use less ideology and more critical thinking, we would have higher quality discourse on issues that actually matter for working peasants.
What's depicted here in the picture actually is a problem facing communism even today: after the revolution failed during the 20s, with no industrialised nations joining up, communism became basically a tragic religion and ideology for the de-facto Russian imperialist state. They had to do some social democratic and socialist policies to justify it to themselves and the people, but in the end, it was about expanding markets and control of resources through expansion, and extracting value from their populace to reinvest into that project of growth of national capital, and trade on the world market. Engels even warned of that phenomenon in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and Marx made clear what developments would be important for a society developing towards communism in "The Critique of the Gotha Programme", and doing away with the law of value was on top of the necessities.
Communism has to be reborn, and tankies have to accept the Soviet Union and China failed at it, and ideology won't bring it about, but only material action and analysis.
Nah, one side is just tankies and the other is just capitalist dogs. Mental gymnastics for denying stuff vs mental gymnastics for normalizing stuff. Best we can do with our minds, no place left for critical thinking.
I rolled a twenty for my thinking but the DM said I had to confirm it, and I rolled a 1 for the confirm, so now One Side Good, Other Side Bad
*my side good!!!!!
Your side bad!!!!
I'm not getting what you mean. I'm not a D&D player and know just basic stuff about rolls. Would a confirmation roll here mean an outside manipulation of what would have come to pass?
The joke is that a 20 is a 'critical'. However, the rules as written (though I've never actually played in a group that uses this rule), you have to roll a second time to 'confirm' a crit.
The joke here, then, is that I was close to having 'critical' thinking, but I missed it, so now One Side Good, Other Side Bad.
I think I see now. Thanks for the explanation.