that use the aesthetics of socialism
This isn't even a criteria for many
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
651 points (96.0% liked)
The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk
1118 readers
15 users here now
COMM HAS MOVED TO !tankiejerk@piefed.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't worry - this is tankiejerk. We're an anti-tankie comm. Bootlickers aren't tolerated here.
That's why they keep repeating the phrase "critical support". They support oppressive regimes in their fight against the US, but still remain critical of them (any criticism of their favorite dictatorship will get you banned).
It's actually more like "critical hit" in a video game. If they hit a critical support with their internet comment then North Korea gets +5 anti imperialism for 20 minutes. It's the meta bro
"Whataboutism" is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies. It never makes any sense.
If the much worse enemies of the USA have a lot to gain by the USA's downfall and are actively promoting said downfall, then it's not whataboutism to unmask them like a scooby doo villain.
Tankies don't give af about trans rights, Tankies don't give af about any human rights, Tankies don't want you to live and flourish in any capacity at all. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric all over Lemmy.
It's mostly from .ml in my experience, Hell, look at the goons spouting off against tgis post in these very comments. .ml
IMO, self respecting instances need to defederate from .ml so they are not so overrun by tankie clapping sealions... Just like with hexbear, they deserve to be silenced by social forces.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Another top contender is that all things with defects or drawbacks are equally horrible and unacceptable.
However it can be used to point out someone's hypocrisy. If country A is genociding people from country B, while screaming about people from country B genociding people from country C, "what about your genocide" is an appropriate response.
Calling out hypocrisy can be valid but it must further discussion, not shut it down. In your example, if country A is committing genocide while condemning country B for genocide, the problem isn't just country B’s actions. It's that country A is deflecting from its own crimes instead of addressing them.
Saying 'what about your genocide' only matters if it leads to accountability for both. If it's just used to avoid taking responsibility, then it's whataboutism. It shifts the focus without solving anything.
To reiterate, whataboutism is deflection meant to shut down further discussion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Appealing to hypocrisy is a fallacy, full stop. Someone can be a hypocrite but that has no bearing on whether an action is justifiable for both/neither.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But... dichotomy is best omy? Putin can't be lying, because other states bad.
No, sorry, only one thing can be true at once. My working memory is really small.
Also, if we want to make progress in the world and not let billionaires play us against each other, maybe the best judgement process is to evaluate how things are working out overall instead of slapping a black hat on anything that isn't perfect enough for a white hat.
Spoiler: It's waaaay more than three or four.
USA <- old and busted
FSA <- new and even more busted because the F is for Fascist.
Hell, the socialist aesthetics aren't even necessary. Just hating the United States is enough.
Gogogo power rangers
Aesthetics is doing some heavy lifting in that statement.
view more: next ›