You know which brand of “leftists” like pull this kind of shit right? Yep, red fash, fucking Tankies. I’d be fucking worried if zoomers are actually acting like this.
If they’re red fash I’ll be worried, but if they’re just going Reign of Terror or Paris Commune or Anarchist Catalonia, I’ll accept my execution with good grace.
The reign of terror french were pretty proto-red-fash tbch, people don’t exactly consider very often WHY it was where the fiercest resistance to this lang d’oil region centered uprising was concentrated in regions like the basque country, bretton country, and the lang d’oc regions. It wasn’t that they yearned for royalist ideals to be reinstated, it was because Robespierre and his even crazier backers were so paranoid by the end that something like movements for language rights were treated as exactly as traitorous as plotting to restore the bourbons to the throne with a counter purge to boot.
Something the modern revolution idealizing french seem to have made fully into one of their “the quiet part” policies with how they implement their version of laïcité.
It wasn’t that they yearned for royalist ideals to be reinstated,
It literally was, though. The language conflict you’re describing didn’t hit full swing until the Third Republic. The revolt in the Vendee was largely a reactionary movement by peasantry who were miffed at the idea of the bourgeois taking the place of the traditional aristocracy and clergy. The Vendee itself spoke lang d’oil and is, in fact, one of the original regions of lang d’oil.
Bullshit it didn’t hit full swing until the third republic the third republic was just when it also picked up the dynamic of the religious and language rights of immigrant communities because of all the colonialism the third republic was doing in Africa and the ME
Immigrant communities btw who were the actual resistance backbone in WWII, and who go unrecognized because the french right were collaborators who wanted their stories stamped out to preserve french nationalist narratives, and the french left were the backstabbing stalinists who sold them out to the Nazis before liberation came so that they’d get to take credit for all the heavy lifting post war and wanted to cover up their own complicity.
Never trust a “leftist” who thinks state sponsored murder is a good idea. They have no interest in anything except to be the executioner, and to feel nice and self righteous when they pull the trigger.
It’s not that in either case the entire movement was especially authoritarian in their time periods and settings, it’s just that you’re willing to let people literally infringe on your right to live if it vaguely is in service of “the people.” If the world was against me, maybe I’m just an asshole, but I still have to fight for what I believe to be my best interest. Do I have any reason to do anything else?
it’s just that you’re willing to let people literally infringe on your right to live if it vaguely is in service of “the people.”
Yeah, that’s normal for people with actual beliefs. Surely you have a few you’d die for?
If the world was against me, maybe I’m just an asshole, but I still have to fight for what I believe to be my best interest. Do I have any reason to do anything else?
Yes. Absolutely. Unless your opinion is that only selfishness is legitimate.
My opinion is that only selfishness is legitimate. Again, give me a reason why not to. I care about my friends and family because I’m alive and get to experience the connection. I care about living in a safe society, and hopefully one that will treat people less fortunate, as I feel I have been given a shitty hand in many regards. This is all self interest. That all goes away when I die.
Edit: Also miss me with this “would die for my principles” shit. You’re literally defending dying for something you don’t agree with.
“ I don’t mind being executed as long as the government that ends my life is weak, ineffective, predisposed to being taken over by a dictator, and will surely fail within 2 years of its inception.”
I dont think I could make a more L take if I tried.
Which Revolutionary France? The one conquered by Napoleon, or the one conquered by Napoleon III. Just because a revolution kills a bunch of people and then gets conquered by a dictator does not classify it as a success.
Not my example, but it’s still literally objectively correct, the only kind of leftist who yearns to send the opposition to the wall is a tankie.
Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass realized trusting the state with the precedent of being able to kill people for any reason at all is the biggest idiot’s bargain save maybe for signing a contract with Donald Trump expecting him to actually pay for something.
Tankie refers to Stalinism, you’re watering down the term to be against any form of violent revolution, which would put EZLN in tankie territory by your own terms despite their being Libertarian Socialists.
I get what you’re trying to do, but I think I’m in agreement, you’re using tankie where it doesn’t belong.
Bruh, if the EZLN is for murder under the color of rooting out counterrevolutionaries then yes they too are tankies, it’s not about the stated ideology, it’s about the authoritarianism they get up to regardless.
Lenin proclaimed an ideology that called for basically syndicalism, still used the cheka to kill all the syndicalists for being counter revolutionary.
It wouldn’t have mattered who was running moscow, what mattered was their supporters demanding they send the tanks in to kill the “counterrevolutionaries” in Hungary.
They fight and kill people who attack them, they are revolutionaries, but violent ones.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re conflating violence with Authoritarianism, and therefore violence with both tankies and authoritarianism. It’s not really accurate and goes beyond the scope of stalinism.
Violence is a key tool of authoritarianism, especially in aggression, and again, sending “counterrevolutionaries” to the wall is an act of aggression and authoritarianism.
You keep trying to insist I’m saying something I’m not, I’m very obviously talking about executions and acts of state sponsored terrorism against “enemies of the people”, a revolutionary movement is capable of these things same as a post revolutionary government, but at no point have I implied that defensive warfare itself is authoritarian violence, I’m talking about KGB shit and purges and anything else that looks of using 1984 as a how to manual.
Shooting some guy who’s coming at you with a machete, self defense, not authoritarian violence, shooting the same guy in the back of the head well after he’s already been pacified, detained, and put into whatever state of containment is warranted for his case, far over the line into authoritarian violence, literally wasting ammunition, soldiers, and even possible enemy intel over wanting to feel like you’re sticking it to that counterrevolutionary scum
Just wait until you hear the word “liberal” being used as a slur. It’s quite a bizarre sight to behold when it’s coming from somebody who’s not a redneck.
You know which brand of “leftists” like pull this kind of shit right? Yep, red fash, fucking Tankies. I’d be fucking worried if zoomers are actually acting like this.
If they’re red fash I’ll be worried, but if they’re just going Reign of Terror or Paris Commune or Anarchist Catalonia, I’ll accept my execution with good grace.
The reign of terror french were pretty proto-red-fash tbch, people don’t exactly consider very often WHY it was where the fiercest resistance to this lang d’oil region centered uprising was concentrated in regions like the basque country, bretton country, and the lang d’oc regions. It wasn’t that they yearned for royalist ideals to be reinstated, it was because Robespierre and his even crazier backers were so paranoid by the end that something like movements for language rights were treated as exactly as traitorous as plotting to restore the bourbons to the throne with a counter purge to boot.
Something the modern revolution idealizing french seem to have made fully into one of their “the quiet part” policies with how they implement their version of laïcité.
It literally was, though. The language conflict you’re describing didn’t hit full swing until the Third Republic. The revolt in the Vendee was largely a reactionary movement by peasantry who were miffed at the idea of the bourgeois taking the place of the traditional aristocracy and clergy. The Vendee itself spoke lang d’oil and is, in fact, one of the original regions of lang d’oil.
Bullshit it didn’t hit full swing until the third republic the third republic was just when it also picked up the dynamic of the religious and language rights of immigrant communities because of all the colonialism the third republic was doing in Africa and the ME
Immigrant communities btw who were the actual resistance backbone in WWII, and who go unrecognized because the french right were collaborators who wanted their stories stamped out to preserve french nationalist narratives, and the french left were the backstabbing stalinists who sold them out to the Nazis before liberation came so that they’d get to take credit for all the heavy lifting post war and wanted to cover up their own complicity.
Never trust a “leftist” who thinks state sponsored murder is a good idea. They have no interest in anything except to be the executioner, and to feel nice and self righteous when they pull the trigger.
“Authoritarianism is cool when “the people” are doing it”
Uh, if that’s what you think all of those movements were, then sure.
It’s not that in either case the entire movement was especially authoritarian in their time periods and settings, it’s just that you’re willing to let people literally infringe on your right to live if it vaguely is in service of “the people.” If the world was against me, maybe I’m just an asshole, but I still have to fight for what I believe to be my best interest. Do I have any reason to do anything else?
Yeah, that’s normal for people with actual beliefs. Surely you have a few you’d die for?
Yes. Absolutely. Unless your opinion is that only selfishness is legitimate.
My opinion is that only selfishness is legitimate. Again, give me a reason why not to. I care about my friends and family because I’m alive and get to experience the connection. I care about living in a safe society, and hopefully one that will treat people less fortunate, as I feel I have been given a shitty hand in many regards. This is all self interest. That all goes away when I die.
Edit: Also miss me with this “would die for my principles” shit. You’re literally defending dying for something you don’t agree with.
Then we have nothing to talk about.
“ I don’t mind being executed as long as the government that ends my life is weak, ineffective, predisposed to being taken over by a dictator, and will surely fail within 2 years of its inception.”
I dont think I could make a more L take if I tried.
Yes, Revolutionary France very ineffective, First Coalition won that war, right? Or the Royalists in the Vendee?
Which Revolutionary France? The one conquered by Napoleon, or the one conquered by Napoleon III. Just because a revolution kills a bunch of people and then gets conquered by a dictator does not classify it as a success.
Man tankie is this place’s favorite meaningless insult. Y’all use it where it doesn’t even make fuckin’ sense.
Tankies we’re the type to drag “intellectuals” out to cane them, simply for holding a position at a university.
Tankies we’re the type in Cambodia to literally kill those wearing glasses.
Is a “tankie” about to get elected President of the United States?
No? Even if trump wins he’s an authoritarian in the making but isn’t a tankie. Go read about the definition
So, the “tankies” are worse than Trump?
Two things can occur independently.
Maybe address the imminent threat, instead of tilting at windmills.
You’re out of your element, as usual
Referring to people who’d execute “counterrevolutionaries”?
Mao rehabilitated the last Qing emperor, there’s literally no excuse to be ordering state sanctioned murder against anyone else.
I’m not debating the morality of it but in your previous example it was used improperly, as it often is on Lemmy. That was my only point.
Not my example, but it’s still literally objectively correct, the only kind of leftist who yearns to send the opposition to the wall is a tankie.
Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass realized trusting the state with the precedent of being able to kill people for any reason at all is the biggest idiot’s bargain save maybe for signing a contract with Donald Trump expecting him to actually pay for something.
Tankie refers to Stalinism, you’re watering down the term to be against any form of violent revolution, which would put EZLN in tankie territory by your own terms despite their being Libertarian Socialists.
I get what you’re trying to do, but I think I’m in agreement, you’re using tankie where it doesn’t belong.
Bruh, if the EZLN is for murder under the color of rooting out counterrevolutionaries then yes they too are tankies, it’s not about the stated ideology, it’s about the authoritarianism they get up to regardless.
Lenin proclaimed an ideology that called for basically syndicalism, still used the cheka to kill all the syndicalists for being counter revolutionary.
It wouldn’t have mattered who was running moscow, what mattered was their supporters demanding they send the tanks in to kill the “counterrevolutionaries” in Hungary.
They fight and kill people who attack them, they are revolutionaries, but violent ones.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re conflating violence with Authoritarianism, and therefore violence with both tankies and authoritarianism. It’s not really accurate and goes beyond the scope of stalinism.
Violence is a key tool of authoritarianism, especially in aggression, and again, sending “counterrevolutionaries” to the wall is an act of aggression and authoritarianism.
You keep trying to insist I’m saying something I’m not, I’m very obviously talking about executions and acts of state sponsored terrorism against “enemies of the people”, a revolutionary movement is capable of these things same as a post revolutionary government, but at no point have I implied that defensive warfare itself is authoritarian violence, I’m talking about KGB shit and purges and anything else that looks of using 1984 as a how to manual.
Shooting some guy who’s coming at you with a machete, self defense, not authoritarian violence, shooting the same guy in the back of the head well after he’s already been pacified, detained, and put into whatever state of containment is warranted for his case, far over the line into authoritarian violence, literally wasting ammunition, soldiers, and even possible enemy intel over wanting to feel like you’re sticking it to that counterrevolutionary scum
Authoritarian social revolution is absolutely tankie shit, they’re proud of it.
Just wait until you hear the word “liberal” being used as a slur. It’s quite a bizarre sight to behold when it’s coming from somebody who’s not a redneck.
liberal:conservative
republican-lite:republican-right
Because you’re conserving the status quo?