Technology

Most far-right fascists also make up excuses for the genocides they support - the Nazis said that Jewish people were responsible for the collapse of the Weimar economy (and a lot of other bullshit) for example.

By what definition of fascism are tankies the same?

I’ve seen the term tankie more here in my last week in the fediverse than at any other time in my life so forgive me if I don’t fully understand. From what I’ve gathered, it’s extreme auth-left. Though being authoritarian does not automatically mean fascist.

Which country if you don’t mind me asking?

Calling something orientalism, in a Neo-Marxist context, is, roughly, calling Marx's Eurocentrism problematic, which is 110% fucking fair. Used by a tankie it means "You can't criticise China because you're not Chinese".

I quite doubt you'll see such thing as sane leftists generally simply discount tankie talking points out of hand -- you look for certain patterns and the sources they cite and say "eh, not worth reading", and also "eh, not worth replying to" because talking to a tankie is talking to a TV. They have a closed world-view, are able to bend reality itself to fit their core beliefs in the same way hardcore flat-earthers can.

You'll be able to head over to random socialist places and find people who can readily address points, cut through the historical revisionism and selective reading that tankies do, but you'll have to actually, well, ask questions and things might get egg-headed. If you address tankies directly I recommend going for broad-strokes arguments and questions and refuse to let yourself be dragged into areas that can't be wikipedia'd quickly, say, the status of unions in the USSR. An unprepared tankie is not unlikely to flat-out claim that they were independent from the party. Ask them about whether they think people should be sent to Gulag over their interpretation of Darwin, suchlike: They will either deny it, at which point they disagree with Stalin which means that he did, in fact, do things which were not right, which is inconsistent with what they believe in, or they will support it, outing themselves as batshit crazy plain for everyone to see (and also disagreeing with post-Stalin USSR scientific community, much less the world's scientific community).

Coming to the question of "why are tankies the way they are in the first place" though we come, at least from an Anarchist POV, to vanguardism as a core feature everything hinges on: The idea that for radical change to be possible, the masses must be led by a revolutionary vanguard. Marxist-Leninists all tend to fall into that category in one way or the other (and there's plenty of e.g. Trots who are cringe but perfectly fine human beings) but it's tankies who take it up to 11 by declaring themselves (and of course Stalin etc) infallible, and any opposition to their exalted "infallible" positions as counter-revolutionary. Thus, if you are not of the exact same opinion as them you're the enemy and voila you have a cult going that can justify anything to itself.

This "change is caused by small groups leading broad masses" thing then leads to the "everything is a proxy war" type of thinking you see: It is inconceivable for tankies to think that Ukrainians would have a free will, a desire to decide their fate, and as they were drifting further and further away from Russia of course the CIA must be behind that. It's pure projection.

(And, just for the record, yes, even Anarchists technically form vanguards. From "farming commune doing its thing and writing revolutionary poetry" to "Let's stop right-wing militias from slaughtering native people and then live among the natives and talk about humanism", see Chiapas).

(Also, Tankiedom is a CONTELPRO programme, their purpose is to make lefitsts in general look bonkers and inherently oppressive. Convince me otherwise).

People have a tendency to call anti-trans hate "politics" even when they would never call racism and sexism that. But it's just hate speech.

Giving hate speech free rein does not help anybody, and I'd argue it especially doesn't lead to more actual free speech, because that just leads to the most hateful people taking over a platform while most people, not willing to put up with that, just leave. And voila, you get shit like Voat. It doesn't solve everybody's differences when hate speech is allowed to thrive, it just boosts the hate speech over and above everything else, and creates a hateful echo chamber. This has happened so many times now.

Even choosing to do nothing and not ban the instance would have been a choice based on ideology/politics/whatever you want to call it, imo. "Software should allow any and all speech, including hate speech" is not a neutral or apolitical stance either.

For all I know, he could be trans, or have trans friends or family, and in the current world state, where trans people are being subjected to escalating real world suffering .. If it were me, I wouldn't just step aside and allow my personal project to be used to hurt me or my loved ones, either. I'd be upset if a friend created software, allowed it to become a powerful tool for people who'd wish me dead, and then just handwaved all responsibility and refused to do even attempt to do anything because any attempt at moderation would count as "politics" while creating the software in the first place and freely allowing it to be used for hate... Wouldn't be, somehow?