Banned for being a "known tankie"

I saw this post titled "Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds" (https://lemmy.world/post/33320759)

I commented that "harm reduction" apparently means sending billions in weapons to israel while they commit genocide and shutting down campus protests speaking out against that genocide. I said that seemed pretty fascist to me.

Within an instant, they downvoted my post and banned me. Guess it's my fault for posting in a circlejerk community, but I'm still scratching my head on how that makes me a tankie. Something tells me this mod would be calling in the tanks to suppress any dissent if they could.

88 comments

PTB. Libs are obsessed with tankies. Different sides of same imperial coin.
(FWIW: I was really hating on tankies before the genocide of palestinians. At that time tankies were focused on supporting the invasion of ukraine... But in the past two years tankies have really outshined the libs and exposed their support for genocide. That's part of why libs are so mad. They would rather cry about their loser election than admit their complete failure and oppose genocide.)
One of the c/MeanwhileOnGrad mods is a power poster who permabans anyone as a “tankie” for making even the mildest of criticisms. Ironic for someone so vociferous about “authoritarianism.”
- Seems like mods at .ml got some competition on "Who wants to be a power tripping mod?", eh?
I always suspected this guy was continuously posting historical memes and artifacts to, at times, post his own revisionist agenda. No wonder he's a power tripping mod too.
I unsubbed from the "MeanwhileOnGrad" comm because it's getting so repetitive. We get it, those instances are full of psychos who say psycho shit, so there's no point in doing anything else other than blocking or better yet defederating. PugJesus in this case is not much different than those hexbear crazies calling everyone they don't like "liberals". They just call anyone they don't like "tankies"
- PugJesus gets extremely triggered by the phrase "statch a liberal and a fascist bleeds".
  
  He's a vile POS
  
  Literally. He finds that statement inherently incorrect while he defends genocide, transphobia, excuses racism from the party he likes, and hates communists and socialists.
  He's been scratched and wants to make sure everyone knows.
PTB
PTB
PugJesus should not be in charge of anything more than his own diaper.
He accused me of being a "tankie" when I criticised Israeli propaganda lies.
https://lemmy.world/post/33330562
Looks like @PugJesus@lemmy.world has been going on a rampage against people who are critical of Israel lately, PTB for sure.
@goat@sh.itjust.works Might want to kick this mod out of your community since he's poisoning it for others and kicking out people he shouldn't be.
- Looks like @PugJesus@lemmy.world has been going on a rampage against people who are critical of Israel lately, PTB for sure.
  Lately?
  
  This is the second post in a row here about his actions.
- Yeah it's not a good look that Tankie now means "I don't like genocide". Just further dissolves the word's meaning and enables .ml and hexbear to do more things.
  
  Yeah it’s not a good look that Tankie now means “I don’t like genocide”.
  It's what it's meant on lemmy, particularly .world, for a while now. centrists just use it like (other) republicans use "woke."
  It means "this person has an opinion I know I'm morally wrong about. I don't want to change my position but I also don't want to look bad, so I'll pick a term I can't define and use it as a cudgel against them."
  
  What things are we malevolent tankies going to do, aside from voicing our opinions in the fediverse? Enforce authoritarian bedtime?
  
  enables .ml and hexbear to do more things.
  Making us sound so nefarious, and I'm only a little evil. The word tankie has definitely been getting worn out to the point of being the centrist equivalent of chuds calling people "woke"
- Idk, if he didn't kick our pj before why would goat do it now.
PTB, I don't see the tankie connections either.
- Seconded. This is a perfectly normal and reasonable response. anyone who thinks Israel isn't committing a genocide is either ignorant, a troll, or malicious
- Thank you for obtaining my comment! I couldn't find it in the modlog and didn't know how else to get it, so I had to recall what I wrote from memory.
  
  They probably banned you with content removal, that doesn't generate modlog entries (Lemmy 0.19 anyway, 1.0 will generate these)
looks at the op of the post you commented on
Yep, Power tripping Bastard alright. Any criticism of Israeli genocide and the politicians he supports that fund it "Tankie behavior".
Even though most liberals in America are against it.
So we're all agreed at this point in the drama circle that PhilipTheBucket is one of his alts, right?
- Nah, they have very similar worldviews and argument styles but I'm pretty sure they're distinct people. I've pissed off PugJesus and gotten personally blocked by them but I haven't irritated PhilipTheBucket to that point yet___ on this account.
- I got into an argument with pug like 3 days ago (over an admittedly hot take of mine, which he screenshotted and shared in the same community)
  In came Phil to play the good cop but ultimately ended up being the exact same type of troll, as I interpreted it then. At least he had the exact same type of antagonistic bad faith interpretation of my words.
  Good to know I'm not the only one to think something weird was going on with them. If they aren't the same person, they sure share the same online schedule and biases a lot.
  
  Phil has lied for Pug, so they're definitely in some kind of kahoots.
- Possibly. Or at least the same type of idiots.
- I personally see more similarity between philip and cm0002, but who knows.
  
  I find them all fucking tiresome and tell them to their face. Only on the drama shit tho, I love the effort they put into content generally. I should clarify.
- Personally my interactions with the two of them make me doubt this.
  Though with both the conversations did spiral into a huge thread, and although they do share a lot of opinions, the behavior in those conversations was different enough to give me pause on jumping to this conclusion.
  
  Yeah I really don't think they are the same person.
- He's just a shithead who sides with a abusers, not the same but at least a useful idiot.
PTB. That's a pretty standard leftist position, I don't see what's tankie about it.
- Associating anti-genocide with tankies is a tactic.
  The libs don't like to be called tankies so it's used to scare them off anti-genocide comments.
  Very similar of associating anti-genocide with antisemitism.
  Cheap hasbara tricks.
PTB.
Setting aside the question of your true ideology, I don’t think people should be banned for their ideology. Bans should be based on behavior.
Ironically I hate tankies as much as anyone and I’m having a big fight with one right now but I still think they should be allowed to participate on the same footing as everyone as long as they follow the rules.
Edit: after reading further this is even worse because the rules are actually pretty much in line with my position. Tankies are explicitly allowed to participate as long as they follow the rules. So this isn’t even supported by anything other than impotent mod rage.
- And that’s how you end up with a Nazi bar.
  
  Average horseshoe theorist. Previously.
  
  Yeah I’ve heard the proverb but I think it’s not that hard to set behavior based rules that exclude Nazis.
- Ideology to some extent is behavior, or at least helps determine behavior, when people act in a manner consistent with their own ideological positions. I can see an appeal to "allow all ideas as long as they don't make trouble", but when the nature of most ideologies is to include something along the lines of "it is a morally good thing to spread this ideology to other people" to a lesser or greater extent, and some ideologies require harmful behavior for one to act consistently with it, the conclusion that seems obvious to me is that believing in certain ideologies is itself bad enough behavior for it to be justifiable to exclude those people from a given online community, because such a person will either cause trouble or be a hypocrite. And after all, ideology isn't some immutable inherit trait, a person can change one's ideology and people often do.
  All that being said, that particular statement isn't really a clear statement of ideology at all. I disagree with it's implication, but all it really does is demonstrate either a misunderstanding of what harm reduction means, or a viewpoint that is too black-and-white to allow for it, which can be a feature of too many ideological positions to narrow it down.
Are you a "tankie"? Or is that mod just such a turbolib that they think you must be a tankie if you're farther left than blue maga?
- that mod just such a turbolib that they think you must be a tankie if you're farther left than blue maga
  It's that one. Perfect description of pj
- How can the mod be a turbolib when he claims to be “vaguely leftist”? /s
  Maybe he’s simply lying, but I suspect it’s that he’s oblivious to or suppressing his own unexamined political positions.
- The mod never elaborated, but based on their behavior, I assume the latter.
  
  That's a... weirdly noncommittal answer.
- If you call out genocide, you're a Tankie.
  If you defend genocide, you're valid and will win the election now!
How can someone that likes Snatcher be bad?
I have no input about the original ban, but I was curious and glanced at your profile:
I have only one credit card which I charge everything to (credit limit is more than enough at over $10k) and which I pay off in full each month and have no absolutely debt, therefore my credit score is absolute dogshit.
That's not how credit scores and credit cards work. You would already need an excellent credit score to get the $10k limit in the first place, but on top of that having a credit line open in the specific form of a consumer credit card, charging a lot to it, and then consistently paying it off, is pretty much the textbook way to get an excellent credit score. I can't off the top of my head think of a way to get a better one. The reason is that that specific way winds up funneling a pretty significant amount of money to the credit card companies every month, but exposing them to very little risk, and that's precisely their favorite thing in the world.
Why are you lying about this unimportant point? Like I say, it's not related to anything about the original ban, but it's a weird thing to lie about.
- Why are you snooping around in someone's comment history for irrelevant gotchas?
  Oh right. Someone criticized pugjesus and it personally offended you.
  
  Phil recently said he was unaware of Pug being a moderator anywhere, but is active wher Pug mods, and even talks to them about moderation.
  I wonder why...
- Bad faith ad hominems from dirt-digging are obnoxious, and this one especially so, because it’s so blatant and such thin gruel.
- How is it relevant, exactly?
- Hi Philip we've already talked about our policy on bad-jacketing people, and especially so on such flimsy "evidence". It's also completely off topic and ad hominem to boot. Just because you are camouflaging your accusations behind innuendo like this...
  Why would I lie about this?
  You tell me.
  ... doesn't mean that its not bad-jacketing. Please follow the spirit of our instance rules in future.
  
  Please follow the spirit of our instance rules in future.
  Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir.
- This would be more fit as a reply to the original comment, no?
  
  It's more relevant to the conversation here of "are they worth banning because of bad faith behavior" than it is to the conversation about credit scores.
  I don't think the moderator's dismissive language "known tankie" is really accurate or productive, even if the mod has some kind of awareness of a history of bad-faith behavior. But, it's relevant to the ban if they have a history of bad-faith behavior, and whether they're lying about stuff has relevance to that.
  I realize I'm stepping into and increasing a whole tribal "tankie vs liberal" civil war here by weighing in, which maybe isn't a good idea. Banning someone simply because they're a tankie, I don't agree with, if that's the real reason, it's PTB. If that is some kind of careless insulting code for some other behavior which is the actual issue, I think they should say that. But the issue from my comment is just the first thing that jumped out at me looking at the YPTB question, and I thought it definitely might be relevant and so I decided to speak on it.
- You're right in that my credit score was decent enough to get that credit limit, but I've only been charging <$1000 a month (usually <$300) on it and my credit score has only dropped since. I was surprised by the drop and requested a detailed credit report but found no accounts open/delinquent that would indicate someone destroying my credit.
  
  You put everything on the credit card, but also, your usual expenses on the credit card are <$300 per month?
  Also why'd you say the score was now dogshit, if all you meant was that it dropped by the tiny amount that the situation you described would cause it to drop (even if your general expenses had dropped to usually <$300 per month for some reason)?
  It might seem kind of unrelated, but I have to say I'm a little bit leaning towards whatever judgement it was that led to someone banning you, just because of this situation. It seems kind of plausible that you might have other weird posting behaviors if you tend to casually lie about random things... but also I can't really say I understand it fully since I don't understand the reason for the lie really. It's just such a weird thing to lie about. It is objectively impossible for what you said to be true, though...

88 comments