I gave db0 just a smidge of evidence that tankies are coordinating a takeover of Dbzer0, including dbzer0 admins aiding the takeover. Naturally, this is Db0’s reply
He’s kinda given up, sad. He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history. Bizarre how they keep falling for betrayal. Perhaps this time the Authoritarians won’t eat me! Literal insanity.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use … when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches.
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.
Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
Okay, but do you expect them not to know who you are when you’re doing this?
If pointing at the name Diva is self explanatory enough, so is pointing to the name goat. It’s just known users beefing with known users, regardless of content.
Like, he surely knows he is talking to you on an account you made to evade your ban off his instance?
“I don’t care if tankies call us libs, as long as they don’t call me a turbolib! Those damn turbolibs want us to ban tankies, can’t give them what they want!”
Literally “one of the good ones” mentality, just move the overton window a little bit to the other side of yourself. I’m sure the face-eating leopards will accept you as one of their own…
He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history.
Nah, with terminally online cosplayers, the result is almost always “Mask off, actually was aligned with tankies all along” rather than “Principled opposition getting betrayed after alliance of convenience”. That’s more of a real-world anarchist pitfall.
Tankies give them asspats and don’t demand anything of them, while evil liberals and demsocs actually demand some small baseline of action. If one’s interest in anarchism is more the sense of community than ideology, they pitch towards tankies hard. The reverse is rarer, despite tankies also being largely of the same mentality, because anarchism is less inherently tribalistic than ML insanity about orthodoxy and revisionism, making it less appealing to a tribalist mindset already immersed in such concepts.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Authoritarian-minded narcissists don’t care about ideological consistency, ethical reasoning, or contextual realism. They just care about the authoritarian grift that feeds their insatiable egos.
They call the “horseshoe politics” argument “both-sides-ism” when it’s actually the opposite. “Both sides are bad” is an attempt to equate left-wing with right-wing politics to justify doomerism, complacency, and cynical accelerationism while claiming some sort of moral exceptionism (my ends justify my means because both sides are bad).
“Horseshoe politics” on the other hand calls out ideological and methodological extremism on both sides. Its main claim is that authoritarianism is bad, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
It also comes as no surprise that these same types of “leftists” never call out trump, maga, and the actual fascists. No, they focus all their ire on corporate dems (who are deserving of critique within their own contexts, of course, but not to the exclusion of far-right conservatism), calling them “liberal fascists,” whatever the fuck that is, and watering down the term “fascist” so that we all sound like loonies whenever we call out actual fascism (such as maga/trumpism).
For real; I posted a picture (not even a meme but a screenshot of a post I thought made a good point) in an ongoing thread regarding certain viabilities of anarchism and was the only one who got my comment deleted with just a line about bringing up strawmen and fallacies, apparently (it was more in depth with particular examples, compared to the other comments, so maybe it struck a nerve). Not even the tankie comms have deleted my comments over just simply countering me or just down voting.
Felt more like trying to maintain a social club, than anything.
they also are infiltrating the more"neutral" political memes sub too, i noticed it has very tankie postings. after thier tankie instances have mostly been blocked by most fed users, i assume they arnt getting much engagement.
I gave db0 just a smidge of evidence that tankies are coordinating a takeover of Dbzer0, including dbzer0 admins aiding the takeover. Naturally, this is Db0’s reply
He’s kinda given up, sad. He’d rather own the libs than admit he’s being treated like every single anarchist in history. Bizarre how they keep falling for betrayal. Perhaps this time the Authoritarians won’t eat me! Literal insanity.
I find their obsession with the term “libs” fascinating.
It has a very different meaning outside of the US. Which goes to show that their whole “but my global south!!” is fake and performative.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.
Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
Shoutout to Tankie or Conservative
Okay, but do you expect them not to know who you are when you’re doing this?
If pointing at the name Diva is self explanatory enough, so is pointing to the name goat. It’s just known users beefing with known users, regardless of content.
Like, he surely knows he is talking to you on an account you made to evade your ban off his instance?
And who am I to you? Since most of the shit said about me is blatantly false.
The fact that he uses the term “turbolibs” proves he is already infected with tankie brainrot.
“I don’t care if tankies call us libs, as long as they don’t call me a turbolib! Those damn turbolibs want us to ban tankies, can’t give them what they want!”
Literally “one of the good ones” mentality, just move the overton window a little bit to the other side of yourself. I’m sure the face-eating leopards will accept you as one of their own…
The leopards are contracting obesity, it seems
Nah, with terminally online cosplayers, the result is almost always “Mask off, actually was aligned with tankies all along” rather than “Principled opposition getting betrayed after alliance of convenience”. That’s more of a real-world anarchist pitfall.
Tankies give them asspats and don’t demand anything of them, while evil liberals and demsocs actually demand some small baseline of action. If one’s interest in anarchism is more the sense of community than ideology, they pitch towards tankies hard. The reverse is rarer, despite tankies also being largely of the same mentality, because anarchism is less inherently tribalistic than ML insanity about orthodoxy and revisionism, making it less appealing to a tribalist mindset already immersed in such concepts.
On the other hand, I’ve known a number of tankies through the years who pitched hard-right once they found community with online right-wingers.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Authoritarian-minded narcissists don’t care about ideological consistency, ethical reasoning, or contextual realism. They just care about the authoritarian grift that feeds their insatiable egos.
They call the “horseshoe politics” argument “both-sides-ism” when it’s actually the opposite. “Both sides are bad” is an attempt to equate left-wing with right-wing politics to justify doomerism, complacency, and cynical accelerationism while claiming some sort of moral exceptionism (my ends justify my means because both sides are bad).
“Horseshoe politics” on the other hand calls out ideological and methodological extremism on both sides. Its main claim is that authoritarianism is bad, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
It also comes as no surprise that these same types of “leftists” never call out trump, maga, and the actual fascists. No, they focus all their ire on corporate dems (who are deserving of critique within their own contexts, of course, but not to the exclusion of far-right conservatism), calling them “liberal fascists,” whatever the fuck that is, and watering down the term “fascist” so that we all sound like loonies whenever we call out actual fascism (such as maga/trumpism).
Yeah, I had to block so many ‘anarchist’ meme communities that were nothing but hating dems
For real; I posted a picture (not even a meme but a screenshot of a post I thought made a good point) in an ongoing thread regarding certain viabilities of anarchism and was the only one who got my comment deleted with just a line about bringing up strawmen and fallacies, apparently (it was more in depth with particular examples, compared to the other comments, so maybe it struck a nerve). Not even the tankie comms have deleted my comments over just simply countering me or just down voting.
Felt more like trying to maintain a social club, than anything.
But the start of the blurb on leftymemes says
… ???
Who are “turbolibs” and why are they trying to keep them happy? ???
???
Yeah. Mind-blowing.
they also are infiltrating the more"neutral" political memes sub too, i noticed it has very tankie postings. after thier tankie instances have mostly been blocked by most fed users, i assume they arnt getting much engagement.