• PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Damn, OP is a psycho. Thanks for fighting the good fight; you’re a far more patient person than I.

    These “anti-tankie” folks seem completely incapable of nuance. Either you support everything the west does, or you must be a tankie who doesn’t believe in Tiananmen Square. There’s no third option it seems.

    • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      How is defending calls to massacre innocents ‘fighting the good fight’

      What’s wrong with you? Clearly you haven’t spent much time in the community. Many users are very much opposed to Israel’s actions – I know I am.

    • archomrade [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.

      It’s the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.

      None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they’re defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because ‘that’s just the way it is’. There’s no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don’t know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn’t ban me for the constant pestering.

      We’ll see.