these people remind me of 4chan. idk if they're trolling, and there's definitely a chance that they're not. also yeah most seem like idiots or sadly really brainwashed
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1346 readers
1 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It takes a lot of personal discontinuity to say that either the KKK or the SS would be voting for a black woman.
And yes, personal discontinuity is meant to be a nice way to say: you dumb.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Looks like rage bait/ trolling to me.
The thing is that it is on their own internal instance from which most other instances have defederated, so the audience they are trolling are mainly themselves. That kinda debunks the "they are only trolling/baiting" claims in my view.
load more comments
(2 replies)
seriously kkk! i cant even.
Abortion is on the ballot in ten states that isn't good for Republicans at all. Expect to see way more trolls talking about how they are suddenly voting for the green party despite there being an actual socialist candidate to vote for. Republicans are desperate and know they're in for big losses if they can't pull something out.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't understand why these people who pretend to be supreme leftists are putting alt-right dogwhistles in the Democratic candidate's name. I guess you can just call everyone you don't like a Nazi when everyone who disagrees in your echo chamber gets banned.
The political spectrum is a circle. If you go to far left or right, authoritarian ideas start making sense to you, you parrot authoritarian talking points, everyone who doesn't agree with your extreme ideas about how the world ought to be is either weak or evil, and you end up kissing the boots of some authoritarian leader or other.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Im not even on hexbear but i see it fairly often. Im also not american so maybe that gives me some different perspective, but do you really not get it or are you just being obtuse? Kamala and biden are actively supporting a genocide, and thats not even hyperbole. Theyre sending billions of dollars of weapons. Its not like they just wont publicly condemn israel, theyre explicitly and outright supporting them. Say that trump would be worse all you want, but the nazi association seems obvious when you considee that theyre actively supplying weapons to a genocidal regime.
Oh, you have an answer? Perfect! What should we do instead of voting for Harris?
I probably would vote for her. But i also wouldnt attack people raising legitimate concerns, and i would try to put as much fucking pressure on the democratic party to stop fucking around as i could, which means not unconditionally supporting them no matter what they do.
I get it, but stop pretending that Trump wouldn't be so much worse. Trump has literally said he would give Isreal carte blanche.
That is your alternative. Voting 3rd party is just going to help Trump since he has never won the popular vote.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I mean, they're in there praising nations that are state capitalist and producing hundreds of billionaires, so it clearly isn't the leftist economy part that they like.
They want Donald to win so that China and Russia can gain more global influence. I guess they are bad at propaganda and just forwarding what their MAGA allies invent or something. Makes sense, they all have the same goals this election.
load more comments
(19 replies)
I agree; swing states seem to be the only ones that matter when you vote duopoly and all you care about is "winning."
I, on the other hand, prefer to have standards, so stop wasting your vote on the status quo, be it Harris or Trump, you will be rewarding genocide.
Trump hardly represents the status quo.
I disagree.
Policy wise, more for the owner-class and less for the working class.
Crumbs here and there by both, but ultimately the status quo will continue.
LGBT lives and women's rights are crumbs to you.
These are culture war and identity politics, used to divide the working class again and again.
The duopoly and the owner-class will always have minorities to use as scapegoats.
So let's just ignore the people who would suffer in the immediate future to instead "focus" on the indeterminate #revolution that will totally then deal with it. In the meantime I shouldn't be bothered about the suffering of really any oppressed group and their actual lives. I see, I see. But what if I'd like for my queer folks to not be criminalized back into the closet? Not in the future after the #revolution but instead the immediate future?
If your so willing to sacrifice folks current ability to live their lives for the perceived high ground of not engaging with electoral politics then just go ahead and sacrifice yourself. Or is your immediate suffering too much of a concern?
Didya know you can both vote for Dems knowing the whole duopoly and electoral bullshit and still be a radical leftist? Crazy concept, I know. But let's not forget that while economically and foreign policy wise the Dems and Republicans are the same, they are not the same in all regards. And unless you plan on dismantling the US government in the next few months, I'd like people I care about to be a liiiiiiiittle safer than the alternative.
But hey, the current lives of oppressed groups is just crumbs to you so, empathy is probably not the best way to convey this so let's talk in terms you understand.
Queer folk are overwhelmingly leftist. Maybe you'd like to keep that potentially radicalizeable pop alive and put rather than dead or in the closet.
Or would you rather accelerate their oppression and hope the loss of rights causes a radicalization swing?
Or do you not give a shit either way cause once again, they are just crumbs to you.
I disagree with your framing.
You are bringing in talking points from the duopoly, which I am against and do not support.
Fighting for minorities has always been the role of grass-roots movements and third parties.
Bringing the working class and local communities together to push past the status quo is the long-term goal, instead of being stuck on duopoly talking points that continue to be problems decades later.
Imma double up my post and give you a lil bit of theory since you seem like the kinda person who enjoys that jazz. Intersectionality. Slap that into Google and start doing some reading.
I am for the working class, not the owner-class and their lackeys that help divide us with culture wars and identity politics.
It is interesting, but I still see it as jargon and a distraction for the issues that will unite the working class.
Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight.
If you can't get how that multitudes of oppression also intersects with capitalism then there is no saving you. You are willing to sacrifice crumbs/queer folk in the immediate term for literally no reason and no justification. You just personally don't give enough of a shit about those issues to consider them to be something in the moment worth caring about. Who cares about queer rights in the now when we should be caring about working class! You say as of queer folk and their oppression isn't homousian with the plight of the working class.
You just don't care. It's that simple and you've made that clear. You actively give 0 shits. Just crumbs to you.
I disagree with your framing and talking points.
You seem to be going back to the circle jerk of the duopoly, smearing and lying to push your moral high horse and victimhood.
I am not for sacrificing scapegoats and the like; I am for the struggles of the working class; we do that by building up grass roots movements and uniting, not by diving ourselves.
"I disagree with the framing" is a fun cop out for ignoring the consequences of your inaction. Just pretend it's the frame that you don't like. Dance around your crumb comment and stand on nothing.
You are for sacrificing scapegoats. You called them crumbs my comrade. You made it very very clear you do not care about the immediate social consequences of folks targeted by fascists. That's your "framing" and I'm telling you that it lacks empathy and completely betrays the ideals you think you are advocating for.
You are effectively telling targeted minorities to suck it up and suffer the next 4 years hoping that they are still alive to do it again the next 4. That's your frame. Your frame sucks. Fuck your frame.
I disagree again with your framing and smearing.
I don't think we will agree on this; our experiences and world views differ when it comes to culture wars and identity politics.
I say to continue building the working class grass roots movement so as to destroy the status quo and push for a better society for Americans and the working class of the world.
Thanks for the chat, and I hope we may unite on other topics!
"fighting for minorities" ahem. The word you used earlier was crumbs. Don't forget that. Your trying to appear pro minority whatever but when faced with the immediate future of those folks you summed their existence and problems up with the word "crumbs". I do not believe you give a shred of a shit outside economic considerations. You got so econ brained that you lost your empathy.
Crumbs are crumbs for the working class.
That is why I have this as my banner:
Fighting for minorities is not a monopoly that the Democrats hold; similar to their support for the working class, it is all an act so as to fearmonger and fundraise.
Some learned this from the Obama failures, others from the Bernie Sanders Era failures, and some learned before and others will learn after another status quo president is elected.
Raise your standards and check out third parties so we may continue to fight against the status quo.
"crumbs", such as reproductive rights?
I suggest checking out how many times Roe v. Wade could have been codified by the Democrats over the past couple of decades.
Caution: you may not like what you learn in that rabbit hole as well, though.
I don't think it's relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
So with that caveat, when was there congressional support? Enough votes in both the house and Senate? With president ready to sign?
Ooh, I remember this one when some other snot tried claiming the could have so many times, the answer is 1 (one) time between 77 & 79 when Carter was president just 4 years after the original scouts ruling.
Other than that, there hasn't been a 60 vote Democrat super majority in the Senate since.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
hahaha, wow.
Anyway, here ya go:
@russelldobular
[Image, image to text below]
Screenshot: 
History of Democrats Refusing To Codify Roe v Wade when they could have:
Jimmy Carter: Supermajority 1977-1979, Majority 79-81
Bill Clinton: Full Majority 1993-1995
Barack Obama: Supermajority for 72 days, Majority from 2009-2011. (plus independents who agreed to vote for the Freedom of Choice Act Obama promised to codify "first thing" after winning the election. But, Obama quickly said after winning, it's not his "highest legislative priority.")
Joe Biden: Full Majority 2021-2023
When Democrats say "we didn't have enough votes" and then fundraise for anti-abortion dems over pro-choice dems, they are telling you they don't support choice.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Read and digest both, then explain how your list stacks up to 'multiple opportunities'.
edit suggesting the edit Carter or Clinton era is appropriate comparison to the appetite for, or viability of abortion legislation today, as relates to the supreme court ruling and what should be done now is silly.
So did they have the votes or not? Looks like not.
Edit edit just having dems in seats is not a vote, automatically. To be clear, I acknowledge your points about supermajority, and move no goalposts as my original reply said "support".
Last edit: I edited several times to clarify. I understand if you are already replying and don't see em.
You can continue helping the duopoly fundraise with these culture war and identity politics talking points, but I don't like to keep my head in the sand when I already when down the rabbit holes.
Uh, alright.
I mean trying to deploy a "gotcha" on democrats as a monolith doesn't make sense when just achieving supermajority does nothing to guarantee either an appetite, or a true ability to pass a given legislation.
I agree with your message that it should be codified into law. I believe the appetite for roe law has never been higher, or more viable as legislation.
I don't know what you mean by talking points, youre the one who showed up with a poster board lol.
Further, if I'm helping the duopoly by talking about getting roe passed, then so be it. Roe isn't a "culture war" topic. It's a human dignity and bodily autonomy topic.
I see it as just another culture war and identity politics talking point so as to divide the working class.
I am more for focusing on the class war, and we start that by stopping ourselves from falling for the duopoly talking points and excuses by being their apologetics.
The working class needs bodily autonomy, or what else do they have?
I acknowledge the stain on the soul of the democratic party, but I also acknowledge that if roe becomes durable law in my lifetime, a Democrat will do it.
roe becomes durable law in my lifetime, a Democrat will do it.
It raises too much money for them, so I am doutful on that part.
I have gone through many rabbit holes since the Bernie Sanders Era, lies, and failures.
I don't see how anyone else will.
Republicans aren't interested, third parties aren't viable.
Well, if you fear change from the status quo, nothing will ever be viable.
We need to be willing to fight for what we demand; that means getting over the fearmongering pushed by the duopoly.
I demand roe.
Democrats are the most viable way to get it.
All is well.
We all go down the rabbit holes on our own time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)