I just realised, I can’t post anything on lemmy.ml [http://lemmy.ml] So, I
checked https://lemmy.ml/modlog [https://lemmy.ml/modlog], there’s a new
moderator.
[https://lemmy.nz/pictrs/image/9abdd163-6ddc-4433-81f8-3b28c250f37f.jpeg] All
posts and comments talking about China, Jinping, Russia, and Putin have been
deleted and users banned
[https://lemmy.nz/pictrs/image/668c7948-55b4-460d-8bde-d02d2e43cf58.jpeg]
[https://lemmy.nz/pictrs/image/aa543e3c-2b2d-4067-8e53-c61d67fcd3f4.jpeg]
[https://lemmy.nz/pictrs/image/5304967b-9b9e-4f00-a8d4-1322e4bb4b38.jpeg]
“born 50 yrs earlier” (i.e. they are talking about 50 years ago plus the users age)
user is from Germany apparently
To me it looks pretty clear cut that they are referring to the Nazis and are implying that both Tankies and Nazis are authoritarians, which is why they used that word instead of Tankie. You do you though.
Off topic: If you put the appropriate number of > (the space following the > is semantic) on the empty lines between the quotes they will connect. Had me a bit confused for a second there because I divided by paragraphs intuitively.
Back to topic: I don’t see anything supporting your hypothesis in those quotes.
To me it looks pretty clear cut that they are referring to the Nazis and are implying that both Tankies and Nazis are authoritarians, which is why they used that word instead of Tankie. You do you though.
Why do they refer the Nazis and their genocide at all? The comment above it is about “authoritarian” communists. Why would you then write about Nazi genocide after communists are mentioned?
Because they are creating an equivalence between Tankies and Nazis in their mind, viewing both of them as authoritarian, so from their perspective it is related.
Just as a disclaimer, I’m not here to say their statement makes sense, just that I think you misinterpreted their intended meaning.
I think you two were talking past eachother. You both seem aware that the user being quoted was equivocating nazis and communists because muh authoritarianism, but it seems JuneFall interpreted your comments as agreeing that the equivocation is correct. I interpreted your comments in the thread similarly until I got to this one.
To me it looks pretty clear cut that they are referring to the Nazis and are implying that both Tankies and Nazis are authoritarians, which is why they used that word instead of Tankie. You do you though.
Off topic: If you put the appropriate number of
>(the space following the > is semantic) on the empty lines between the quotes they will connect. Had me a bit confused for a second there because I divided by paragraphs intuitively.Back to topic: I don’t see anything supporting your hypothesis in those quotes.
Why do they refer the Nazis and their genocide at all? The comment above it is about “authoritarian” communists. Why would you then write about Nazi genocide after communists are mentioned?
Because they are creating an equivalence between Tankies and Nazis in their mind, viewing both of them as authoritarian, so from their perspective it is related.
Just as a disclaimer, I’m not here to say their statement makes sense, just that I think you misinterpreted their intended meaning.
Which is everything I wrote, including Nazi apologia and diminishing the Holocaust.
I think you two were talking past eachother. You both seem aware that the user being quoted was equivocating nazis and communists because muh authoritarianism, but it seems JuneFall interpreted your comments as agreeing that the equivocation is correct. I interpreted your comments in the thread similarly until I got to this one.