179
Shot:
they are a legitimate threat to freedom and to anti-authoritarian leftists,
Chaser:
we shouldn't allow these people to exist in the internet free
https://old.reddit.com/r/tankiejerk/comments/197l9ik/tankie_is_not_offensive_anymore/
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
179 points (99.4% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15897 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was literally just now saying to @emizeko@hexbear.net that this is why we need to formalise the tactic rather than just breaking down individual uses of the tactic like "tankie".
This tactic is in use in so many ways. It's being popularly referred to as "thought-terminating cliche", which might end up the name of the tactic when it's formalised. Things like calling everyone a "terrorist" to stop any thought about what they're doing or why. "Tankie". "Woke". "SJW". Etc etc. This tactic is in significant usage and any time you break down the usage of an individual word they create a new one, so you're always going to fight this battle that way.
To fight this properly we need to go one step higher, don't attack just the individual usage but attacking the tactic itself too.
In order to do this we need to formalise this tactic in language and popularise it in order to drastically undercut its ability to be used. By formalising it as a bad thing (like fallacy shit) the libs and debatebros start calling it out when they see it. This way we could weaken its ability to be used considerably.
We need the technique to be picked up and talked of by orgs and academically. We need some people to write about the phenomenon/tactic itself so that those articles can then be pointed to as sources for its existence, and then wiki and other shit can get made for it to further cement it as a recognised formal language thing. From that point onwards it's just a matter of repeatedly pointing to the articles and shit to spread it more and more and more. It'll take on a life of its own and considerably wreck the tactic.
I think this is actually really worthwhile doing as it's one of the most common tactics of the US information and thought control system.
There is a very clear process of steps we can take.
As someone with a background in writing (like every other commie), I'd be happy to contribute in some way to this. However, I don't really know what actionable step could be taken.
I also worry that the technique would be pretty quickly coopted, and the terms "fascist" and "racist" would be defined as thought terminating cliches. It's already started with the "not everyone you disagree with is a fascist" line
The thing is, if we believe we are on the side of reason, the nature of such an argument should only be considered a nuisance to us rather than catastrophic. If I want to prove that Israel is fascist and someone hits me with the "not everyone you disagree with is a fascist" line, then I can simply ask them to give me a set of criteria and either argue the criteria being incorrect or argue that Israel meets it (depending on the criteria, context, etc.) What our comrade is proposing is a way of opening discussion so that preconceived notions can be challenged more thoroughly.
Socialism is the ruthless criticism of all that exists; if a socialist can't produce a justification for their ideology, this isn't an argument they should be getting into (they should be studying, whether through reading or investigating the world).