OBJECTION!

You’re correct, but in the end those same tankies are also the ones that want a fascist state because they’re basically a capitalist state on the brink of collapse – a good ground for revolution that tankies wish for.

This is the dumbest shit ever and not what we believe. Y’all don’t ever listen to the things we actually say, you just make shit up and repeat it to each other until it becomes accepted as obviously true, regardless of any basis in reality.

A fascist state is not “good ground for revolution.” There have been many far-right states that have successfully hunted down and exterminated the left and survived for quite a long while. And the conditions in the US are such that in an armed conflict the right would obviously have a major advantage. Should conditions decline, it’s far more likely that we’d have a right-wing revolution than a left-wing one.

The problem is that conditions are declining under both Republicans and Democrats. Neither party offers any possibility of actually halting or reversing the decline, or averting any of the many, many crises, some of which are looming and some of which are actively happening. Liberals are fully content to accept this state of affairs for some reason - they just want a more gradual decline which will still lead to crises, the far-right gaining strength and power, and the complete extermination of the left and vulnerable populations. As long as that gets pushed back 5 or 10 years, perfectly acceptable to them, and worth sacrificing any attempts to actually fix the problems - which is what us “tankies” would prefer to happen.

If I were an “accelerationist,” looking to bring about a fascist state on the bizarre logic that it would somehow be “good ground” for a left-wing revolution, then why would I have a problem with either side? Conditions will continue to decline regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in charge. What, am I just so impatient that I couldn’t wait a few more years? If that’s what I believed, I’d just disengage from politics and not give a shit what happens, confident in the fact that the inevitable decline will bring about socialism, somehow. Doesn’t really seem worth the effort.

Unfortunately, this “accelerationist” concept doesn’t actually track with history. People have lived - and do, currently live in much, much worse conditions than we have in the US, often for generations. Slavery persisted for centuries, and yes there were slave revolts but they were often disorganized and put down. This idea that bad conditions automatically create successful left-wing revolutions makes no sense to anyone who’s actually capable of thinking beyond a meme level.

“Not just fascists, but also those who oppose fascism and are trying to build an alternative to fascism” got it.

3141 5926 5358 9793; 2/38; 462

Fairly common knowledge. Even portrayed in movies like Kuru and Seven Years in Tibet.

Oh, well if it’s portrayed in movies it must be true.

Here is a link to a PDF

That document lists 100 atrocities, which of them are you referencing with “forcing children to murder their parents?”

It is worth noting that even these claims are impossible to verify.

Mhm.

But the simple fact remains that May Zedong openly opposed religion and claimed that his annexation of Tibet was a “liberation” from what he called “religious oppression.”

Yes, because Tibet was subject to religious oppression. They had an aristocratic system of serfdom with extreme poverty (while the religious rulers lived in luxury), and an average life expectancy in the 30s. It was a cruel, oppressive theocracy, and used religion to justify a caste system similar to India’s history of discrimination towards “untouchables.” After the aristocrats and theocrats were thrown out, the Tibetan people experienced the same massive increases in life expectancy and improvements in material conditions that the rest of China experienced during this period, including doubling of life expectancy.

Tibet emerged along with countless other warlord states following the collapse of the Qing, it was always considered part of China by the KMT and it was never recognized as an independent state by the international community (iirc, it was only ever recognized by like Mongolia). The communists and nationalists fought side-by-side against most of these warlord states with a common understanding that the nation needed to be unified, however, Tibet wasn’t a priority because of it’s remoteness. Had the KMT won they’d have brought it back into the fold eventually too, as evidenced by the fact that Taiwan still maintains a territorial claim over all of Tibet.

Ok, what about Buddhist sects that discriminate based on sex?

It’s really ambiguous what they’re talking about or what they even mean. Here are two things that could both be described as, “Forcing Tibetan children to kill their parents.”

• A Tibetan soldier volunteers to join a war, and through sheer chance, they learn that their parents are fighting on the other side of the battlefield. They ask to leave the front and their CO refuses - technically, they’ve been forced to kill their parents.

• A communist agent abducts a family in the dead of night and hands the child a gun while putting a knife to their sister’s throat and telling them if they don’t kill their parents, they’ll be killed, along with their siblings. This happens systematically across Tibet, and only Tibet.

They could be referencing the Cultural Revolution. A lot of shit happened during this period, including what you described. But to my knowledge, the struggle sessions and such were more the actions of the Red Guards, who were student led paramilitary groups, not the same as the People’s Liberation Army that went into Tibet.

So like, what they said was, “the liberation army forced Tibetan children to murder their parents,” but, what actually happened (so far as it’s possible to connect that claim to anything in reality) was that the PLA failed to maintain control (although they did eventually succeeded in suppressing them) against young radicals denouncing their parents and subjecting them to public humiliation (the Red Guards also committed all sorts of atrocities during this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were cases of children killing parents but I’m unaware of any specific cases). Which happened decades after the PLA went into Taiwan, which wasn’t (to my knowledge) really a main area involved in the chaos.

And that’s why I asked for a source.

Is the defining quality of Christianity a set of political beliefs based on your personal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be accurate to say, “There’s never been a Christian president in the US,” if none of them have lived up to your particular moral standards? Do I, and everyone else, have to consult you specifically any time we want to know if someone is or isn’t a Christian?

No, obviously not.

Unlike veganism, the question of what the defining quality of a Christian is is more debatable. If you want to define it as, “following Christ’s teachings,” then it’s impossible to establish any sort of reasonably objective standard since people have vastly different interpretations of those teachings. Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor? I doubt it. A strict reading of the text might consider that a requirement.

From an academic perspective, it isn’t appropriate to weigh in on one’s own personal interpretation of which sects and which people should be considered heretical. We should use unbiased terminology that’s consistent with common use and can be commonly understood and based on observable things including (but not necessarily limited to) self-identification. When we debate whether or not someone is/was a Christian, trying to match our own personal interpretation of Christ’s teachings with our own personal evaluation of their moral qualities would be an absolute nightmare, and it would be impossible to discuss anything past sectarian lines.

And again, it’s not just Christianity that this comes up with. A Buddhist might argue that the Japanese temples that endorsed the country’s actions during WWII weren’t “real” Buddhists, that if they were actually following Buddha’s teachings they wouldn’t have done that. Should I also consult you personally every time I want to know who is and isn’t a Buddhist? Or do I need to read the whole Pali canon and derive my own interpretation and denounce every Buddhist sect that deviates from it as not being real Buddhists - even if I myself am not one and don’t have a dog in that fight?

The example used to illustrate the No True Scotsman fallacy in no way means that it only covers similarly minor things. That’s not how logic works, you’ve completely missed the point.

The claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” is falsifiable, because we can first determine whether someone is a Scotsman and then check if they put sugar on their porridge or not. But if it’s, “No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” where a true Scotsman is defined as someone who would never put sugar on their porridge, then it’s a truism, it’s just saying, “People who don’t put sugar on their porridge don’t put sugar on their porridge (also, this has something to do with Scotsmen for some reason).” It’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, and it’s just as true for any other group of people defined the same way as it is of Scotsmen. The actual material world has no bearing on the claim and the claim tells us absolutely nothing about the material world.

Likewise, if you’re saying “No true Christian would ever commit mass murder,” then it’s a meaningless claim because you’re defining a “true Christian” as someone who would never commit mass murder. So really the claim is, “People who don’t commit mass murder don’t commit mass murder (also, this has something to do with Christians for some reason).” If I define a true Buddhist or a true Muslim or a true Communist or a true Liberal or a true man or whatever else as being someone of that group who doesn’t commit mass murder, then it’s just as true of any of those groups as it is of Christianity. The claim that “true Christians” or “bible-believing Christians” don’t commit mass murder is a meaningless truism, it’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, even if someone you think is a true, bible-believing Christian and has every appearance of being so goes off and commits mass murder, you only conclude that you were wrong about the person being a true Christian. And that would be equally true of any other group or ideology you apply the standard to.

forcing Tibetan children to murder their parents

Gonna need a source on that one, chief.

Low effort, provocative, sorta correct but kinda not: the perfect formula to get some real low-level, unproductive flame wars going. Excellent shitpost.

That’s just contradiction. An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

That’s the narrative, but it’s centered around middle class white women.

Source

They also purged all the communists as a show of good faith to the government (which, uh, didn’t work). Those communists were likely more prone to class solidarity as an ideological commitment and also more willing to fight with radical actions like strikes, but instead we were left with opportunistic leadership that just wanted to secure the bag for themselves, and at best the other members of the union, but had no interest in any building any kind of broad coalition or promoting equality on a societal level - that would make them sound like a Red.

You know what I’m noticing? Too many vertical borders in the Middle East. I’m just gonna do horizontal borders, top to bottom, devided up so that each country gets an equal area of land. As for which country gets which sliver, let’s just make it simple and do alphabetical order (in English, obviously).

…annnnd done. Looking back over it, I forgot that N comes before Q so Iran and Iraq are switched, but I already drew it up, so, whatever, I’ll just leave it that way and leave it up to them if they wanna switch or not.

Poor guy was probably just born on 1/4/1988 and his real name is just Ayra N Soldier. People these days just call everybody a Nazi smh /s

I looked into it more and the specific phrase was developed by a Neo-Nazi domestic terrorist. It bears a heavy resemblance to the following quote from Hitler:

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.

Idk what you’ll think of that one, but I actually thought the 14 words were a slogan used in Nazi Germany. The fact that it was just some whackjob makes me see it as less professionally crafted.

Also, if you think the 14 words are cringy and poorly written, wait until you hear the often omitted follow up to them:

because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the Earth.

Right wingers be normal about women challenge level: impossible.

It’s the same tactic as the “It’s OK to be white” or “White lives matter” slogans, but more clever because it leaves enough ambiguity such that just about anything can be justified under it. It mentions children to come across as more innocent and to implicitly accuse the opposition of endangering children (also playing into LGBT scaremongering, with the Nazis using the same tropes they use today). “Think of the children!” is a common and effective propaganda line.

Saying “future” instead of “glorious future” suggests that the children wouldn’t have a future at all otherwise. That the white race is under attack and is otherwise on track to be eliminated by Jews and communists and so forth. It’s harder to justify atrocities in the name of “a glorious future” vs “a regular future” as opposed to “a regular future” vs “we are completely exterminated ourselves.”

It is, of course, bullshit, because it’s literally Nazi propaganda trying to frame them as on the “defensive,” but it is carefully and intelligently crafted propaganda. It’s important to understand the enemy and their approaches in order to better counter their movements and defeat them, they should not be underestimated.

Probably couldn’t find that many real unarmed Americans waiting properly for a real picture.

Also, who could afford that many eggs?

It’s not a trained response. The story goes that frogs won’t jump out of a pot of water as long as the heat is raised gradually. There’s no classical conditioning involved at all (and the connection of “classical conditioning is Stalinist” is also quite a leap).

As an aside, I’ve heard that story isn’t actually true, but it makes for a decent metaphor. There are other examples of similar things in nature, like weasels will hunt rabbits by doing a “dance” full of confusing motions all over the place as they gradually inch closer to the rabbit, avoiding the rabbit’s flight of flight response.