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.
Oh and next time use a meta tag please, by putting a “[META]” at the beginning of the title
What do you mean, “next time?” Submitters can edit their Lemmy posts’ titles at any time. They can even do it now… (One of the many great things about Lemmy over Reddit!)
Huh, true. Eepyposting sometimes makes me miss mental connections
This post e.g. hasn’t been reported.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/70745437If you don’t report, don’t expect action on stuff, but it will now be deleted.
Though it seems more like a rule 6 instead of a rule 2? The DPRK literally doesn’t practice imperialism anywhere. Also western information on it is sketchy at best TBH…
Edit: Saw the other recent posts of jankforlife, deleted them and they got a perma.
None of these posts showed up in the reports just FYI.
OFC moderation can be proactive, but that’s more work. If you want efficient moderation, do your part, read the rules and report accordinglySo if I see something, I should say something?
See it. Say it. Sorted -The Met (the largest police force in England)
That’s the transport police, not the met.
Totally different then. The train cops aren’t bad because train good. Barefoot wine? Trash. Insult to the Napa valley. Barefoot wine on Amtrak cafe car? Majestic depths of flavor you couldn’t comprehend. So train cops? They’re the good cops. We finally found them! ACAB(ETC)
What the fuck are you talking about? Was my comment unclear? Was there something in my correction of which force’s slogan it is that implied literally anything else?
No. It just changes everything.
👍
If you want efficient moderation, do your part, read the rules and report accordingly
this is why i was asking you to help me understand how jankforlife and bubblybubbles were posting “truth nukes” because it all looked like rule 5 & 6 violations to me. but to see some of the most egregious of it getting endorsed by the head mod makes it hard to bother putting in the effort to report when so many of those reports get dismissed, and some of them even get a greenshield big thumbs up
I was only referring to one post as a truth nuke because it challaged a lot of western leftist misconceptions and was based from a Marxist perspective, it was not an endorcement of the user or any other post.
As you can see I did clean up the mess, once being made aware of jankforlife posting stuff like the unreasonable gloryfication of the DPRK and most importantly “ukraine = Nazi” stuff here in this comm…
HOWEVER, what is Ukraine doing on Mali? Why is Ukraine collaborating with Ziohell? Why is Zelensky homaging known genociders? Why was the Communist Party banned in Ukraine?
and i’m glad for it.
So is this instance allergic to good posts or wassup
Does that extend to other countries like Cuba, Vietnam, or China? Also, what does “praise” entail, exactly? If someone posts misinformation about a country to make it look worse, and I correct it, does that constitute “praise?” If I oppose taking military (or economic) action against a country, is that the same as supporting said country?
If I were to say, “The DPRK does not force everyone to get the same haircut,” is that acceptable? How about, “The largest military exercise takes place every year on the Korean DMZ where US forces practice bombing and invading the DPRK, as they did before in an extremely destructive conflict, and so, domestic policies aside, their hostility towards the US is understandable?”
Cuba and China aren’t a right wing neoliberal oligarchy like Russia is.
Is North Korea neoliberal?
The statements in the last paragraph are reasonable, they are just truthful, they are not trying to divert effort towards dictatorship, just contextualise the world, it is easy to note the difference in my opinion
But what benefit does constant refutation have really, the individuals in leninist dominated regions are sufficiently supported by their support under the conception of the international proletariat, they are not intrinsically members of a nation and the support of that nation does not translate into their liberation.
they are not intrinsically members of a nation and the support of that nation does not translate into their liberation.
That is what’s traditionally known as “The National Question” and it’s a lot more debatable and nuanced than you give it credit for.
Let’s take the example of Ireland, which was much discussed by various Marxists historically. The movement for Irish independence was not inherently socialist, and the resulting state was still a capitalist system. It was defined more along the lines of nationality than class. However, under the existing system, Ireland had been horribly exploited and abused by the English, and so, this raises the question of whether socialists ought to lend support to such a movement, even though it is not ideologically pure. This is, of course, not something that is specific to Ireland.
Practically speaking, many struggles for independence have historically been more national in character. Frantz Fanon, for instance, was one Marxist who argued strongly for supporting such national liberation movements, observing that oppressed cultures can be stifled in psychological and cultural development because all they can think of is to be free of foreign control. Furthermore, the disparity between the rich and the poor of a colonized country may be less than that of the disparity between colonizer and colonized, and therefore an alliance along class lines can be permissible. Only after removing the pressing outside problem does internal class conflict emerge (and with it class consciousness), and until then it is unreasonable to expect the proletariat of a colonized country to recognize common cause with the proletariat of a colonizing country, especially if said proletariat does not emphatically support decolonization.
In general, this idea that “everyone is included under the conception of the international proletariat” moves away from practical, materialist questions and towards abstract, idealist principles. The national question is very much a relevant and important question in the modern day. Yes, we can all say, “I support the liberation of the Iranian proletariat just like the proletariat of every country” but one person might “support Iranian liberation” through bombing the shit out of them, while another might support leaving them alone and letting them deal with their government on their own, in their own time.
Eventually and ideally, socialists are broadly agreed that in time national distinctions will fade away and become unimportant and irrelevant. However, this must be done voluntarily. If the oppressed are expected to give up their cultural or national identities in order to receive support from socialists in oppressor countries, than this expectation is, and will be seen as, just another foreign imposition.
( the above comment was edited by “OBJECTION!” and mine was a response to the original)
the national identity is their tie to their local oppressors, they are not close to it one bit There is nuance in many things, even dead ends
That’s not always true. There are plenty of cases where a “wealthy” person from a colonized country is able to get an education, which they then returned with committed to liberation. If you actually look into the histories of former colonies, you will often find such figures. Like I said, in colonized countries, the “rich” may be not so different from the poor, and that difference pales in comparison to the gap between them and the colonizers. In any case, trying to impose the same framework to every country regardless of the actual material conditions doesn’t really make sense.
If Irish independence should not have been supported on the basis that it was a national movement, and therefore only tied the Irish to their Irish oppressors, if decolonization of India was pointless because it only left Indians under the thumb of Indian oppressors, then does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine? If Ukraine wins the war and remains independent from Russia, then will the war have been pointless because it was a nationalist effort rather than an internal class war, and only leaves Ukrainians under the thumb of Ukrainian bourgeoisie instead of Russian bourgeoisie?
Just because the nationalists claim working class aesthetics, it doesnt change anything, this hypothetical educated individual is capable of betraying the working class with nationalist politics, and to say that applying the same brush to different regions is naive is just to provide room for the true naive statement that those “unreported” regions are better suited for nationalism.
And you assumed my position on ukraine without asking, or in fact the general anarchist stance. Anarchists do not support ukranian nationalism despite the common desire between anarchists to prefer to support individuals in the ukranian nationalist supported region.
But it is not always true, and I hope that anarchists develop ties across the nationalist drawn borders. There are clearly wonderful people squandered in the russian region. Please do not mistake the brave individuals in organisations such as “solidarity collectives” for idiots rather than people forced by the ukranian nationalists into allying with the ukranian nationalists under their circumstance. In any case they clearly try to maintain seperation if you follow their efforts and if you would analyse the situation outside of a big money news corp line, it is clear that the choice to shoot and bomb the incoming soldiers is sensical, despite their class interest.
That then does not make those people nationalists, and people in less stressed theoretical circumstance absolutely should not propose nationalism in their name. And I do not like your line of singling out ukraine to this as to slyly construct a racist strawman.
Well maybe they could be less attached to their homes and move, or rally elsewhere and return, but it is not silly to be attached to a loved environment.
Just because the nationalists claim working class aesthetics, it doesnt change anything, this hypothetical educated individual is capable of betraying the working class with nationalist politics, and to say that applying the same brush to different regions is naive is just to provide room for the true naive statement that those “unreported” regions are better suited for nationalism.
Anyone is capable of betraying the working class. Also this isn’t a “hypothetical” individual, examples inclide Ho Chi Minh, Sun Yat Sen, Thomas Sankara, etc. In my opinion, nationalism does indeed have a different character in undeveloped, colonized countries than it does in developed, oppressor countries, because there are legitimate aspects of national development that are important to undergo. Once those things have been accomplished, nationalism becomes nothing but chauvanism.
And you assumed my position on ukraine without asking
I, in fact, asked, “does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine?”
In any case they clearly try to maintain seperation if you follow their efforts and if you would analyse the situation outside of a big money news corp line, it is clear that the choice to shoot and bomb the incoming soldiers is sensical, despite their class interest.
Huh. So what you’re saying is that it’s sensical to lend support to a common cause of repelling foreign occupation, rather than, or at least before, engaging in internal class conflict.
This flies completely in the face of your dismissive and oversimplified approach to the National Question, which is precisely why I brought this question up. It seems then, that in Ireland, it could by the same logic be reasonable for Irish socialists to have focused on repelling English occupation, in India, for Indian socialists to have focused on the same, etc. Of course, this is not necessarily the case in every circumstance, but this demonstrates very clearly that the topic is complex and deserves critical examination.
That then does not make those people nationalists, and people in less stressed theoretical circumstance absolutely should not propose nationalism in their name.
If an Irish socialist lends support to an Irish nationalist movement for the sake of repelling the English, does that make them an Irish nationalist? The distinction seems somewhat semantic. I have no problem saying that one should only “lend support” to national movements (in some situations), rather than “being a nationalist” if you’re allowing that distinction.
And I do not like your line of singling out ukraine to this as to slyly construct a racist strawman.
I have literally no idea what on earth you’re talking about. What strawman? What racism? This accusation is a complete non sequitor.
Well maybe they could be less attached to their homes and move, or rally elsewhere and return, but it is not silly to be attached to a loved environment.
I don’t recall saying that it was. Nor do I recall calling anyone an “idiot” for that matter. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said that isn’t really there.
Username checks out.
I agree, they should be banned. There’s no reason they should be allowed to share their ideas in leftist friendly spaces.
FR. It’s ridiculous to see violating Rule 2 with impunity and not even getting a slap on the wrist.
But but people who flee the DPRK often describe missing certain elements of community and belonging, finding the capitalist hellscape of south Korea isolating and inhuman for all it’s apparent luxuries.
This means Juche is a true realisation of socialism and everyone critical or sceptical of the DPRK government is a fed.
deleted by creator
Leave DPRK alone, the guys are fighting against incredibly unfair odds and surviving. US murderers who divided the country don’t get the say on how they should live.
I feel so lucky to have come up on the internet when I did. It was the sweet spot of getting unfiltered news and reports before authoritarian governments and think-tanks started censoring and pumping false information. Back in like 2008, Russian influencers were really saying somethings.
Anyway, I agree.
I’ve been on this community for a very long time. I have not seen the thing you’re trying to ban. Prove it’s a problem first before trying to rally people.
Uh, how about this one, and virtually all of the others posted by Jankforlife?
That link doesn’t work for me, but I looked up the user and have an idea of what they post. Explain why you feel like the post is problematic.
It was removed by the mod here. It was the astronaut ‘Always was’ meme saying that the DPRK was the most actually democratic country in the world. Glorifying a dictatorship.
I just scrolled for 2 seconds on the front page, unless they have all been deleted or something in reaction
So you saw it in 2 seconds, but between seeing it and copying the link, the post was deleted?
Stop restricting my freedom to self-medicate by making up people to get mad at /s
Campism is peak leftism (derogatory) wdym
Let’s say advocating in bad faith. The recent ones have been trolling for responses, and the OP is very combative. Not productive or enjoyable at all.
If someone has a good or funny point to make, and isn’t a total POS in the comments, no ban.
I don’t agree.
A wannabe troll that posts really dumb shit that is childishly easy to shoot down is worth their weight in gold.
trolls are never worth engaging with, even to shoot them down. that’s why they exist. they’re the online equivalent to the real life wrecker. they don’t exist for any reason but to make community spaces worse to be in. on a lefty community where the point is to foster and encourage organization, this is especially damaging, and i think that’s the point of those prolific fascist in leftist clothing accounts around here. what’s discouraging, as @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com said, is that they’re allowed to just keep coming back
This is a good point. engagement itself will increase visibility. The best way to win is not to play…
Removed by mod
part of counterprop is not platforming fascist bullshit
Turning every leftist community into a siloed circlejerk is great if all you want is a glorified (and self-enshittifying) social club - but you’re not going to be doing anything that can be called counter-propaganda with a straight face.
The latter actually requires engaging with people who will actively try and find the weak spots in your narratives while you are doing the same to theirs in a place where others can actually witness it and gain understanding through social osmosis, which, to be clear, text-based social media is really great for.
Come now, be honest… how much did you actually learn that way?
a lot actually. that social osmosis is exactly why if you want to run counterprop you have to set some boundaries about that fascist bullshit will not be tolerated. this constant molly coddling of fascists and normalizing them as “the real left” just poisons what the left actually is. social osmosis works through the same concert of presence and verbal confirmation. by giving fascist nonsense presence we shift what the outcome of social osmosis is when people encounter verbal confirmation in space. you’re right that people can be influenced by reading discussion, but that discussion needs to be had in good faith and in order to have good faith discussions we need to have and respect boundaries. trolls, by their nature, do not respect these boundaries. the old age addage of “block and report. do not feed the trolls” stems from this notion
I’m going to have to modify my response to you - when I posted this…
This is a leftist-controlled space, is it not?
…I wasn’t actually aware that this comm has more tankie mods than leftist ones. So there’s no point to my argument, then.
exactly why if you want to run counterprop you have to set some boundaries
…which are already in place. This is a leftist-controlled space, is it not? And the rules there on the right gives the mods more than enough leeway to keep it that way, don’t you think?
What it really comes down to, I’m beginning to think, is our willingness (or lack thereof) to engage the very people we (supposedly) want to expose to leftist thought.
by giving fascist nonsense presence we shift what the outcome of social osmosis is when people encounter verbal confirmation in space.
That only happens when we don’t engage them by siloing ourselves into circlejerks. A good counter-narrative means absolutely nothing if it has no means of leaving said silo - we’re just chucking energy and time at the choir for absolutely zero gain.
but that discussion needs to be had in good faith
No, it doesn’t. You need half of the discussion to be, very obviously, in bad faith. Otherwise, there’s absolutely nothing to shoot down, is there? You don’t get traction from good faith discussion - you get traction from a “bad faith” narrative being demolished with a narrative the casual observer is unlikely to have encountered before. How many movies have you seen where only two protagonists spend the entire movie being nice to each other? There’s a really good reason why they don’t make movies like that - there’d be nothing to see.
the old age addage of “block and report. do not feed the trolls” stems from this notion
Where’s the fun in that?
the context of this entire conversation is that those rules aren’t being enforced
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Go to Hexbear if you want to promote imperialist garbage!
Removed by mod
L take TBH
Also rule 1 violation
Removed by mod
Maybe we have a difference in opinion but those who you consider “cool fucking people” were often liberal trolls or bigots. Hey just a question, are you one of the idiots behind the accounts harassing me? Your behavior makes me think so but I could be wrong.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Rule 1 and slander deletion JSYK
Removed by mod
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
I don’t even know if you can see this since the post was deleted, but thank you for responding and putting real effort into your reply. I don’t have answers for a lot of the world’s problems, and I know I sometimes let my anger speak before I think things through.
I think you’re right that online spaces make it very easy to forget that a lot of people are scared or reacting from limited experience rather than acting in bad faith. I assume bad faith most often because of my lived experience in seeing this toxic rhetoric and division from various interested parties over the last 20 years. Well documented in most cases, the effects of those influencers and systems. It’s difficult not to see them as intentional, even when some entities call them incidental. It’s the optimist in me that believes that they can still be seen for what they are.
I still think some ideas are harmful and worth pushing back on, but I do agree that just treating every person with a bad or extreme take as an enemy usually doesn’t get us anywhere.
I believe it’s important to try to bring discourse back to online spaces and keep discussion alive, both here and in the real world. If I can say that I am one thing, it’s a humanist. We don’t find answers or solutions by just being angry. Sometimes it feels like the internet can’t be salvaged, but there are still some corners where real discussion happens.
I appreciate your outlook, I often think I need to make more time for work in my own community. As much as is happening in the world, the real impact is probably going to be person to person, especially if you don’t have the tools to preach from a podium.
So yeah, thank you.
I can see it, thanks for your response! I also consider myself a humanist. I’m glad we could connect, and that this post opened up such a good discussion.
See ya around!
