They’re just like maga, “Debate me bro.” And then they proceed to reject all the facts and logic that you provide, while getting upset when you dismiss the alternative “facts” that they make up.
Like, what is this? “Argues without insulting us” AND “Argues without tone policing”? So, what, tankies want to be the only ones who can tone police and insult their counterparts in an argument?
Like, pick one or the other and apply the same rules to both sides. Ideally neither side throws insults, and either side can tone police. But don’t say “we can do both, and you can do neither.” That’s the same “rules for thee, not for me” rhetoric that all authoritarians use, whether on the left or on the right.
There’s no rationally debating them. It’s like trying to rationally debate maga. They’ll ignore everything you say and make up scenarios that would make you the clear loser, and then bludgeon the strawman to death with insults and repeat themselves over and over no matter how many times you point out how irrational they’re being…
Something all too common with extremists. It’s fruitless to argue with facts and logic™ since they live in a different reality.
The only way to get through to them is playing therapist and figuring out their emotions and getting them to question themselves. Questions like, why does China have a stock exchange? Why can’t you be gay in Russia? Why did Lenin say don’t let Stalin take control? That’s why they band together so much and silence all opposition that ask questions, they can’t risk thinking inwards. They need to affirm each other, while non-extremists don’t need to, since reality is on their side.
I agree mostly with that but i also, personally, need to keep on top of adequately questioning my own reasoning.
Just because i think reality is on my side doesn’t make it automatically true, I’m not immune to propaganda or fallacious logic.
Even worse (for me personally) is the trap of assuming my subjective (and relatively well reasoned ) correctness in other conversations carries over in to whatever conversation I’m having right now.
A sense of conversational and intellectual superiority can be an insidious path to closed mind.
Well, you’re posting about a thread that went down on Hexbear where goat was engaging with us. I’m curious to know what facts and logic were actually provided that the “tankies” rejected.
And you’re posting in a thread that’s not. Your point? I’m not here to pick up goat’s debate. I’m not even talking about that thread. I’m talking about literally every argument that I’ve ever personally had with a tankie, and I’m not going to summarize them all for you.
Also, you can hardly blame him for engaging with you on a post that literally said “Gee, I wish someone who isn’t a tankie would engage with us.” And it looks like y’all didn’t even get to the debate part, because you just told him to fuck off as soon as he said he would.
We did get to the debate part, you can click the link and see how it went down. Goat was asked to provide a defense for points they made stating that Palestine ought to resist only by adopting Western liberal ideals, and that resistance by military means is illegitimate. They refused to actually elaborate on that point.
When prompted on forming revolutionary organizations in the United States, goat claimed that such an effort is useless because Americans will never amount to anything because they are too distracted.
don’t rape, don’t carry out terrorism on innocent civilians
The right way was using the internet and global attention, which Palestine was doing, raising awareness of how they are suffering and gaining sympathy for it. They should’ve adopted more Western ideals, or maybe liberalism, encourage foreigners to come and stay. The West Bank and Gaza near Rafah were also doing decently well in terms of growth, labelling itself as a trendy tourist destination.
Unfortunately, Hamas decided that raping women and killing innocent civilians was a better method of resistance, even going so far as to film themselves carrying out the massacre and taking hostages – Which incurred the Israeli military and ended up with Gaza being turned to rubble. Sure, people are much more aware of Palestine now, but only the most radical of “progressives” think Israel can be defeated and that Palestine can do no wrong. These people are vocal minorities and hold no power.
The whole relationship between Israel and the US isn’t as buddy-buddy as people think it is. Israel previously attacked US forces and regularly threatens US personnel. No clue what goes on behind the scenes, but clearly Israel has something major on the US, or the US sees Israel as a base for Middle-East operations and considers the chaos that comes with it as a necessary sacrifice. Or maybe it’s both, or maybe it’s neither.
I’d say rather than Western ideals, they should support the human rights some Western ideals are based on. My biggest contentions with Islamist regimes are women’s and queer rights. Sure acceptance of queer people is a long road for such societies, but you can make sure that the government doesn’t persecute them and that the government even enforces non-discrimination regulations.
I never argued for any of my points because I didn’t see why I should bother to argue them, it wouldn’t convince any tankie and hearing the same slogans from the same redsails sources and talking points won’t do much to convince me (perhaps if it was from something more reputable or argued in favour of individual freedoms, such as the workers) – I don’t really bother with any argument unless there’s a baseline we can fall back on, which I offered.
Rape is also not resistance, it’s predation, it’s poison. Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded with raping their oppressors? No. They primarily used non-violence – And if you’re going to argue that violence was what succeeded, know that racists make the same arguments.
And I stand by what I said on the US populace, they are too cowardly, and so are Tankies, as evidently displayed.
They’re just like maga, “Debate me bro.” And then they proceed to reject all the facts and logic that you provide, while getting upset when you dismiss the alternative “facts” that they make up.
Like, what is this? “Argues without insulting us” AND “Argues without tone policing”? So, what, tankies want to be the only ones who can tone police and insult their counterparts in an argument?
Like, pick one or the other and apply the same rules to both sides. Ideally neither side throws insults, and either side can tone police. But don’t say “we can do both, and you can do neither.” That’s the same “rules for thee, not for me” rhetoric that all authoritarians use, whether on the left or on the right.
Tankies are just covert fascists. Prove me wrong.
thats why i offered the baseline lol
There’s no rationally debating them. It’s like trying to rationally debate maga. They’ll ignore everything you say and make up scenarios that would make you the clear loser, and then bludgeon the strawman to death with insults and repeat themselves over and over no matter how many times you point out how irrational they’re being…
“What is not reasoned in, cannot be reasoned out.”
Something all too common with extremists. It’s fruitless to argue with facts and logic™ since they live in a different reality.
The only way to get through to them is playing therapist and figuring out their emotions and getting them to question themselves. Questions like, why does China have a stock exchange? Why can’t you be gay in Russia? Why did Lenin say don’t let Stalin take control? That’s why they band together so much and silence all opposition that ask questions, they can’t risk thinking inwards. They need to affirm each other, while non-extremists don’t need to, since reality is on their side.
I agree mostly with that but i also, personally, need to keep on top of adequately questioning my own reasoning.
Just because i think reality is on my side doesn’t make it automatically true, I’m not immune to propaganda or fallacious logic.
Even worse (for me personally) is the trap of assuming my subjective (and relatively well reasoned ) correctness in other conversations carries over in to whatever conversation I’m having right now.
A sense of conversational and intellectual superiority can be an insidious path to closed mind.
Absolutely, that’s why introspection is so important
Yeah, all extremists do that. It’s such a shame.
Fortunately Tankies are extremely passive and weak, they’re not at all like MAGA, who are full-blown fascists.
Unfortunately tankies haven’t realized that yet. They still think they have a chance in hell of waging a successful revolution 🙄
Oh they realise it, that’s why they larp about violence and their fantasies of it.
I don’t think they’re quite fascist because of the economic difficreneces and social wellbeing policies.
But they are undoubtedly both authoritarian, and that’s pretty much the biggest problem because it practically makes the two identical.
Which facts and logic were provided?
In which context? I’m not gonna summarize every argument I’ve ever had with a tankie for you. Be reasonable.
Well, you’re posting about a thread that went down on Hexbear where goat was engaging with us. I’m curious to know what facts and logic were actually provided that the “tankies” rejected.
And you’re posting in a thread that’s not. Your point? I’m not here to pick up goat’s debate. I’m not even talking about that thread. I’m talking about literally every argument that I’ve ever personally had with a tankie, and I’m not going to summarize them all for you.
Also, you can hardly blame him for engaging with you on a post that literally said “Gee, I wish someone who isn’t a tankie would engage with us.” And it looks like y’all didn’t even get to the debate part, because you just told him to fuck off as soon as he said he would.
We did get to the debate part, you can click the link and see how it went down. Goat was asked to provide a defense for points they made stating that Palestine ought to resist only by adopting Western liberal ideals, and that resistance by military means is illegitimate. They refused to actually elaborate on that point.
When prompted on forming revolutionary organizations in the United States, goat claimed that such an effort is useless because Americans will never amount to anything because they are too distracted.
When universal human rights are denounced as “Western liberal ideals”, we know that you have no interest in an actual debate.
Those were Goat’s words. Goat said the following:
I’d say rather than Western ideals, they should support the human rights some Western ideals are based on. My biggest contentions with Islamist regimes are women’s and queer rights. Sure acceptance of queer people is a long road for such societies, but you can make sure that the government doesn’t persecute them and that the government even enforces non-discrimination regulations.
That wasn’t a debate at all lol
I never argued for any of my points because I didn’t see why I should bother to argue them, it wouldn’t convince any tankie and hearing the same slogans from the same redsails sources and talking points won’t do much to convince me (perhaps if it was from something more reputable or argued in favour of individual freedoms, such as the workers) – I don’t really bother with any argument unless there’s a baseline we can fall back on, which I offered.
Rape is also not resistance, it’s predation, it’s poison. Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded with raping their oppressors? No. They primarily used non-violence – And if you’re going to argue that violence was what succeeded, know that racists make the same arguments.
And I stand by what I said on the US populace, they are too cowardly, and so are Tankies, as evidently displayed.
(This was removed by automod, I’ve gone ahead and restored the comment)