Confusing encounter. Did I misunderstand something, or did this person call me a bigot for mentoining China and North Korea have committed atrocities?

In interactions with authoritarians, I'm often reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre's description of anti-semites.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Tankies follow the same underlying basis for their justifications of authoritarianism as every other stripe.

I should post this to every tankie that comes with their BS
woah you kind of ate it up with this comment. huge insight/comparisons here i’d never considered.

Ah yes, the infamously transphobic instance, lemmy.blahaj.zone.

Well, you see, if you criticize a trans person's politics, that's transphobia. Doesn't matter if their politics are orthogonal to their transness, and it doesn't matter if you, yourself, are trans.

Just look at Israel to see how this works.
No I think they’re putting words in OP’s mouth because I recall some drama where Blahaj members accused sh.itjust.works of being a transphobic instance
- Hexbear et co literally have called Blahaj a transphobic instance, numerous times. Lunacy.
Would you say the nazis were socialist because they called themselves "National Socialists"?

Anyways, pretty much any time I see trans people talk about that instance, they complain about all the transphobes that gather there (probably to be transphobic to trans people) and mods/admins do nothing about. If an instance is full of transphobia, seems pretty fair to call it transphobic instance.
- if you have damning evidence of blahaj’s unchecked transphobia, i suggest you post that rather than comparing the largest trans instance to the literal nazi party. otherwise put down the hearsay stick.
- Gotta love the tankies and China, just because the ruling "party" of China has the word "Communist" in their name doesn't mean they're not an authoritarian dictatorship lol
- Is the unopposed transphobia in the room with us right now? I don't see it in the meme communities I'm subscribed to there.
- No, i wouldn't. I was saying that lemmy.blahaj.zone is a trans (and lgbtq in general) inclusive instance.
  
  I must admit, i don't know much about the userbase, so i'm not immediately doubting that it could have issues, or outright transphobia. I was just pointing out that the user in the image immediately accused the OP and the instance in general of being transphobic, despite the instance literally being for trans/lgbt+ people.
- On this day, meds were not taken.
- Did you even read before you posted?

Handy that your client shows that it's a 4 days account

Voyager mobile. Yeah it’s a cool feature.

you are a bigot because you disagree with me on something random

Pretty much this, and yes, I see it a lot too

new accounts

As in they're getting banned a lot or they're trolling/sockpuppeting, or both.

The one true scotsman would never!
- From (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
  
  No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an initial a posteriori claim from a subsequent falsifying counterexample by then covertly modifying the initial claim.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim to definitionally (as opposed to evidentially) exclude the undesirable counterexample.[4] The modification is usually identifiable by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", or "real", which can be used to locate when the shift in meaning of the claim occurs.[2]
  
  Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]
  
  Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The meme I sent in the original pic

What country is that?
- China, North Korea etc
- China, North Korea etc
The longer you live the more you learn all countries are bad in there own right.
- Hence me becoming an anarchist ahah
  
  As someone from Switzerland it pisses me off how some people see our country as a utopia. We still have massive inequalities and suffering. People may not be dying on the streets, but they are sure as hell dying preventable deaths behind closed doors.
- That may be true but that also is not an excuse to commit crimes against humanity
STOP SPREADING LIES CLOWN!

Lololol blocked
- 😂😂

on new accounts

Gotta be a troll... Their name is literally the logical fallacy they are employing in their reply.

Bingo!