Skip Navigation
the_dunk_tank @hexbear.net GarfGirl @hexbear.net

redditors currently discovering that the drawbacks of calling everyone left of bernie a tankie is that people just stop caring about the word tankie

Shot:

they are a legitimate threat to freedom and to anti-authoritarian leftists,

Chaser:

we shouldn't allow these people to exist in the internet free

https://old.reddit.com/r/tankiejerk/comments/197l9ik/tankie_is_not_offensive_anymore/

113

You're viewing a single thread.

113 comments

  • I was literally just now saying to @emizeko@hexbear.net that this is why we need to formalise the tactic rather than just breaking down individual uses of the tactic like "tankie".

    This tactic is in use in so many ways. It's being popularly referred to as "thought-terminating cliche", which might end up the name of the tactic when it's formalised. Things like calling everyone a "terrorist" to stop any thought about what they're doing or why. "Tankie". "Woke". "SJW". Etc etc. This tactic is in significant usage and any time you break down the usage of an individual word they create a new one, so you're always going to fight this battle that way.

    To fight this properly we need to go one step higher, don't attack just the individual usage but attacking the tactic itself too.

    In order to do this we need to formalise this tactic in language and popularise it in order to drastically undercut its ability to be used. By formalising it as a bad thing (like fallacy shit) the libs and debatebros start calling it out when they see it. This way we could weaken its ability to be used considerably.

    We need the technique to be picked up and talked of by orgs and academically. We need some people to write about the phenomenon/tactic itself so that those articles can then be pointed to as sources for its existence, and then wiki and other shit can get made for it to further cement it as a recognised formal language thing. From that point onwards it's just a matter of repeatedly pointing to the articles and shit to spread it more and more and more. It'll take on a life of its own and considerably wreck the tactic.

    I think this is actually really worthwhile doing as it's one of the most common tactics of the US information and thought control system.

    There is a very clear process of steps we can take.

    • As someone with a background in writing (like every other commie), I'd be happy to contribute in some way to this. However, I don't really know what actionable step could be taken.

      I also worry that the technique would be pretty quickly coopted, and the terms "fascist" and "racist" would be defined as thought terminating cliches. It's already started with the "not everyone you disagree with is a fascist" line

      • Actionable steps here are more concretely achieved by orgs or people with current access to existing various published things (blogs, newspapers, etc etc). But I think something like Prolewiki might be able to be a spark point for something like this, depending on whether Prolewiki participants/management are willing to be the creation point of something rather than just a documenting and citing site.

        I see some things pop up on Medium that successfully spread but I'm not sure how often those do that. Could be that's a handful of things among tens of thousands that just waste their time. Likely depends on whether big networks reshare content and that momentum keeps going.

        Generally the point here is to write something that's clear enough for people to link to it frequently, and also potentially inspiring enough for others to also write about the phenomenon. If something can be written that also gets others to write about it then you get momentum.

        Really the most meaningful thing here is to get a few places to write about something like this and then put it on natopedia, where it is then going to gain the automatic credibility of being on natopedia in the eyes of libs and debatebros, those people will then take part in opposing the tactic whenever they recognise it. Once you get those people on board with opposing it because they're rules-perverts and will consider it against the "rules" the whole tactic may effectively collapse, in the online space at least.

        So really the limitation here is access to a resource, that resource being article publishing online.

      • The thing is, if we believe we are on the side of reason, the nature of such an argument should only be considered a nuisance to us rather than catastrophic. If I want to prove that Israel is fascist and someone hits me with the "not everyone you disagree with is a fascist" line, then I can simply ask them to give me a set of criteria and either argue the criteria being incorrect or argue that Israel meets it (depending on the criteria, context, etc.) What our comrade is proposing is a way of opening discussion so that preconceived notions can be challenged more thoroughly.

        Socialism is the ruthless criticism of all that exists; if a socialist can't produce a justification for their ideology, this isn't an argument they should be getting into (they should be studying, whether through reading or investigating the world).

    • Ironically, the person who coined the term "thought terminating cliché" was describing the language used by the CCP.

    • Since the point of this technic is to convince themselves and other to not look at idea that threaten the status quo by convincing them that if they do that they will become part of some nebulous threat to "fundamental values of our society", it should be given a name according to that.

      Something like "Status quo leashing" or "Overton leashing".

    • This is a good plan. Other than Hexbear I do have access to some small commie publications. Its also a topic I've thought about a lot.

      I can probably write a thousand or more words on it. Maybe if other people can do the same, explore the topics and come up with names, etc., we can bring it back here to discuss in more detail.

      Idk you've really inspired me so I'm going to run with it. Maybe you or @RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net or other HBs can get busy with it and start some discussions.

    • Is this actually a new thing because to me this is just a basic ad hominem'ing?

      • It sort of is, but I think it is also distinct from your average ad hominem and widespread enough to deserve it's own name. You don't call someone "tankie", "woke", "SJW" and the likes the same way nor for the same reasons you would call someone an idiot or a pig nor does it have the same kind of implications. It's not just any kind of common name calling, it imply the target is an active part of some nebulous group that is inherently assumed to be a threat to some "fundamental value of our society", it is specificaly reserved for peoples who are a threat (or at least perceved threat) to the status quo.

      • Ad hom isn't intended to specifically thought-terminate people. It's just a thing you sling at people.

        The use of "tankie" or "terrorist" is to define [person speaking or being spoken about] as a "baddy person" and therefore absolutely anything and everything they say can and should be disregarded, otherwise you are also a baddy person and thus not a good person. It's intended to reinforce group-think. The reactionary right use "woke" with the intent of preventing their members from listening to something a "woke" person might say, to make sure that they thought-terminate and do not think about whatever is said. The purpose is to function as a shield against anything that might change their views. It's to shut down their brains to anything people might say to them.

        It has the appearance of ad hom, but it has a specific higher function.

You've viewed 113 comments.