this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15915 readers
7 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

New tagline just dropped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hexbear is fascist. They’re pretending to be tankies, but every single post on there is right-wing and bigoted. It’s so damn obvious.

These people absolutely just make shit up relentlessly.

[–] SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

we're ideologically much, much further away from Putin than they are. if he didn't intervene in Crimea or Ukraine but kept all his policies otherwise intact, including the ones repressing minorities and pro-market ones, he wouldn't be nearly as hated by these people.

libs fall over each other for the esteemed opportunity to lick the boots of the most depraved, most despotic, most comically evil politicians and oligarchs, with three exceptions: when they carry out those acts in a transparent way rather than hiding it behind veils of "we need to cut social security because of X"; when they use the state for economic interventions rather than free market "solutions"; and when they decide to snub America on a certain issue (but are otherwise perfectly willing lapdogs)

e.g.

unhinged rightwinger: "I will kill 100,000 poor people."

libs: "nooooo! we need to register with our local police department to hold a 1 hour march through the city and then get teargassed anyway and then mutter "just a few bad apples" on the way home! but it's important to remember that China does way worse things! stop using whataboutisms by bringing up America!"

unhinged rightwinger: "fine. I will reduce social security spending and cut funding to hospitals and homeless shelters (this will have the effect of killing 100,000 poor people)"

libs: "hm, yes, very wise, for I am also socially liberal but fiscally conservative and I think it's important to reach across the aisle and engage civilly with our opposition so that they will give us policies in return (they won't). the efficiencies in this sector will go up 4.7% according to this think tank's analysis..."

leftwinger: "we should increase funding to hospitals and build more houses in this city to fix the homelessness problem (this will have the effect of saving 100,000 poor people)"

libs: "noooo! you're using state funds which will increase the big magical national debt number! you're not allowing the free market to build the best and most efficient housing! we can't do this while there's inflation! read economics 101! some of those building materials come from Russia and China, you're a tankie!"

[–] axont@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Liberals have no consistency and are totally operating on vibes. I remember liberals used to really like Israel.

They've even somehow rehabilitated George W. Bush even though he's evil incarnate. They also admire literal monarchy? Like they were really into Elizabeth II back when she was around. They'll all trip over themselves to say nice things about Churchill, about Alexander Hamilton (slave owner), and will say war crimes like the atom bombing of Japan are complicated. Other things their heroes did just aren't in their worldview at all, like Clinton bombing Yugoslavia and Sudan, or Obama overthrowing Libya. Those events just vanished into nothingness for liberals. Or if you bring them up you're accused of whataboutism and the conversation stops.

And yet they have the gumption to say we're bootlickers?

And they criticize us for saying otherwise factual things about Russia? Not even bootlicking, just very neutral information like that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and that Crimea is currently administered by the Russian state. That's enough to be called pro-Putin, but more than that, you're not just expressing a political reality, your mind has been infected with Putin and you're a bad person now.

[–] TheModerateTankie@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are fascists for checks notes... not supporting ukrainian nazi militias in their struggle to purge ukraine of the ethnic russians.

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wasn't the fact that "the nazi ukranians with a jewish president are trying to ethnic clean the russians" the same excuse used by Putin to start the invasion?

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Putin said "the sky is blue" would the sky suddenly turn green?

[–] pascal@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Putin (or Trump, or Xi) one day jumps on the news saying the sky is blue, I'd totally look up with prejudice.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol you do realize you're not supposed to say that unironically, usually people say that as a joke

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Am I not allowed to reply to a joke with another joke?

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

lmao "bro I was just pretending to be a dumbass bro, I swear to god bro"

Uh huh sure bud

[–] WhyEssEff@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Jewish people can be nazi collaborators. Of which, Zelensky is all-but-explicitly one, given the kinds of people he materially supports and empowers. Source: I’m Jewish very-smart

[–] LaBellaLotta@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shit like this always reminds me of how a big watershed moment for my baby leftist journey was finally coming to the understanding that these words have meanings that get warped like a fun house mirror in the U.S.

I just casually referred to Stalin as a fascist once in front of a non Anglo and they called me out for it. They weren’t even an overly ideological person they had just grown up in a non Anglo education system and to their ear calling Stalin a fascist was factually incorrect and sounds kinda idiotic to most non western ears. The self awareness this created was the start of a lot of of layers peeling in retrospect.

They were absolutely correct! Obviously! Whatever criticism you may have of Stalin, and I think we all have them, he was not a fucking fascist! Stalin could easily be one of the most pivotal figures in the DEFEAT of fascism in Europe and yet liberalism and propaganda and the myopic political lens that Americans are given to interpret the world drains all texture and greyness from history and leaves you with this shambling nonsense narrative where everyone who was opposed to the U.S. global hegemony post WW2 in ANY capacity is either a “fascist” or a footnote in the history books because whatever shot they had at the wheel was usurped by the State department.

All this is to say never stop bullying and always remember to remind anglos that the western narrative of history is far from universally accepted and full of gaping holes.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I usually just dismiss these goofballs by replying with "Tell me you don't have a functioning definition of fascism without telling me" and maybe I'll challenge them to define fascism in their own words without looking it up.

If, by some miracle, they start invoking the trash-tier Umberto Eco definition of fascism then you have two clear routes:

  1. You demonstrate how the US comfortably fits this definition, point by point

  2. You draw upon a Marxist analysis of fascism which centres the importance of materialist analysis of fascism, such as from the works of Georgi Dimitrov

[–] ZapataCadabra@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you think Eco's definition is trash tier? Ur-fascism is a decent essay that gets frequently misinterpreted.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Because it only considers fascism from an aesthetic and cultural angle without any regards to the material basis of it and the conditions that fascism arises from.

It's a hazy definition that describes the psychology of fascism more than it describes the phenomenon of fascism itself, and I think—like is the case a most pseudo-radical cultural critique—its analysis can be, and has been, misapplied because there's no solid definition underpinning it.

It's a bit like how if you ask a SocDem for a definition of socialism they'll tell you that it's welfare programs and democracy and restricting corporations and anti-authoritarianism etc.; they'll give you a laundry list of characteristics which fails to form a cohesive analysis that strictly defines their concept, thus leading to them to miss the fact that Bernie was not campaigning on a socialist platform or that AOC/the Nordic countries etc. aren't socialist, and if you challenge them on these matters they'll deny your rebuttal outright because these things just feel socialist to them.

I guess in short, it's a question of vibes vs material analysis.