There is really not much to be said.
North korea, russia praise is destructive.
The critique of those regions is obviously not “pro west” as is evident to anyone with a cell in their skull.
It just wastes all time.
There is really not much to be said.
North korea, russia praise is destructive.
The critique of those regions is obviously not “pro west” as is evident to anyone with a cell in their skull.
It just wastes all time.
Ban?! Ahh good old freedom I see 🦅 why stop there? Let’s doxx em and teach em a lesson: never force us to think critically.
Too many people, likely including you, use the desire for free and open discussion as a smokescreen to spread misinformation and lies. Worse, we are entering a period of history where well-documented and proven events are being rewritten and erased by bad actors with money. This turns our desire to educate others against us, as the sources of truth are erased and anyone on the fence inevitably ends up finding those new fake sources more credible.
So yes, ban them. After a decent number of warnings about sources and references, they should be banned for spreading bad science. It shouldn’t be instant, but it should happen. You can have an open-door policy without allowing people to scream against your interests.
Do you think old-school socialists, anarchists, and communists just let Pinkertons and FBI agents stay in the meeting and push for bad decisions?
The people I see being the loudest and most visible about how “we need to keep ALL speech allowed in every place ever” are almost always the ones getting removed from places because of the insane, dangerous, or just outright incorrect thing they spout.
The last one was a transphobe who got ejected from an aquarium by cops because he decided to follow some trans people around to yell at everyone with children that “the (slur for trans people) are here to r**e your kids” and was screaming about free speech as three security guards literally dragged him out the doors.
Not sure what he expected to accomplish, but these are the people yelling about how they should be allowed to say things on a platform/in a place because it’s not literally illegal to say them.
Dope name. I will follow you past the Cardies’ lines and back.
They actually did, in many cases. The best defense against infiltration is democratic decision making and deep roots in the lives and activity of members. Obvs if someone was exposed as an infiltrator with undeniable evidence, they were burnt; but most often that doesn’t happen and the infiltrator tries to instigate splits. Infiltrators often move into leadership positions where they can squash dissent. You can’t do anything to prevent infiltrators, you can only educate, develop critical thinking and organize democratically.
Some parties even mockingly welcomed their police infiltrators and informants at the beginning of their meetings, because they managed to neutralize the effect of infiltrators by making it easier for members to speak up, and have the observations and concerns of members lead to tactical shifts in the org. Your approach would shut down dissent because, as you’ve demonstrated here, you reactively paint anyone who voices a dissenting opinion as a bad faith actor. Your whole attitude is a siege mentality that sows division and paranoia, it is a short, straight road to sectarianism and authoritarian leadership.
Guess what? Wreckers can and will always make the case that freedom and democracy aren’t being observed, some entryist tendencies even use this as a tactic, if not a strategy. The answer is to be more open and considerate, so that when such concerns are brought up in bad faith, members shut them down as unproductive and impractical.
Do some practical work rather than fighting ghosts online.
I grant you, I have my walls up more today than I did ten years ago, but if someone proves me wrong with good data, then I accept that. I just scrutinize my opposition more than my allies, which could be a flaw, but if I’m changing my outlook, I want it to be because of facts, not propaganda.
Very cool that some of the old-school meetings let the infiltrators stay. I honestly didn’t know that. But it’s harder to make that tactic effective in an online environment. The stakes are lower and higher at the same time because you can disarm them in person. Here, they can send people down pipelines that they may never come back from.
Its def true what you say about online spaces. And sorry to hear that exposure to these conditions have lead to you putting your “walls up”. Sorry if I was too quick to judge, its so easy to forget that a lot of well-meaning leftists feel really threatened online, esp from aggressive ultralefts, “Tankies”, etc.,
I’m not real concerned with ideological struggle, my reading of history is that this stuff works itself out as conditions become more clear and the class becomes more organized. Like, I def try to educate people, and I think people who are so severely “radicalized” are usually stuck in online echo chambers, which conditions people to experience an ick response when encountering this or that talking point. I think its probably unhelpful to associate everyone who glazes the CCP as a Russian agent or whatever, esp since doing so is a structural advantage to the ruling class capitalists, as it divides workers along lines that are, imo, pretty abstract.
the best way to get people to chill is ask about what kind of work they are doing IRL, like are they in a book club, or a political sect/party, do they go to protests, etc., that will usually tell you whether someone is actually salvageable or not. I know so many people who started off having a lot of “Tankie” sympathies, myself included, who eventually chill, and its because they start doing work in their communities. A random young person who decided that “more left = more good” isn’t doing as much harm as certain youtubers and streamers who have hundreds of thousands of followers and who are basically paid to be left opportunists.
I’m very adamant that ideas don’t spread like “memes”, in the Richard Dawkins sense, like person to person. Most people dont get infected with bad ideas by just being exposed to them. Ideas spread via hegemony, which means people with political and economic power control the systems in which ideas spread, and exert indirect control over the masses via these social structures. So attacking/banning some random tankie online does very little. The fact is, social media algos identify people with left-wing sympathies and then feed us deranged, ultraleft content creators, while the algos also identify political moderates and feed them right wing punditry. People believe ideas that validate their own lived experiences, and the fact that peoples experiences are validated by ultraleftism/Stalinism/left authoritarianism is a structural problem that stems from lack of political education and hegemony.
So imo its better to try and connect with people, which can be hard cuz some people are hostile no matter what, but in that case we just move on and try educating someone else, and try to keep it cool. If someone has a spicy “take,” it could be partially because they, as I think we all tend to do, get some kind of stimulation/validation from having people argue with them. Its usually better to ask questions, take notes, and do a little research. But like you said, this is easier in real life organizing than online where attention spans are nil.
I do think its more interesting to be like “why do you believe that?” Ask for some evidence, and if they provide it, maybe ask where they first encountered it
I believe that a miniscule minority of these ultralefts/Tankies are actual bad actors. There is plenty of valid reason to adhere to certain ideas – some people are a little contrarian, the soviet union and ccp amassed a great deal of influence, both direct and indirect; as well as so many intellectuals who can be very convincing with their arguments. Most tankies are just referencing arguments of Rockhill/Furr/Losurdo, and if you’ve never encountered these academics their ideas can seem totally bonkers. But if you read them, even if we criticize them, and we should criticize everyone and everything, especially ourselves, its clear why their ideas have so much purchase among ultralefts and apologists. imo the key isn’t to win a debate, although I love a good debate, but to initiate new avenues of criticism for people to begin questioning our own ideas.
Or at least thats my take