Immediately going for their point 3 in their reply. It couldn’t be any funnier.
Most of their grievances with THE LIBS are projections
They want us to debate with them but they ban us when they lose. Typical ML getting rid of people who become dangerous to their belief in their worldview.
As opposed to other spaces, where they don’t ban you.
You tripped the spam prevention bot, which is why you got booted. If you check modlog, I rarely ban users permanently unless they’re trolling nonstop and have raked up many reports
Even then, I don’t need to explain any ban or justify it when you ban first.
The fact you weren’t banned by goat for ban evasion shows that the ban was a false positive by the automod. Ask goat to unban your other account.
It’s an instance ban, can’t do anything about that. If they posted here with their main alt account it’ll be allowed.
The main alt was banned by the automod too though.
Nah, I mean the main alt they use to regularly post in non-tankie threads, not a new account
What’s it called?
i dont know lol thats why im asking them to use it instead
Goat wasn’t banned for winning a debate. Goat was banned for Zionism.
Can you link the removed post? Because in his other posts I can’t recognize said assumed Zionism.
The Zionism in question is with regards to what goat is defending (really, they’re not defending it outright because it appears they were afraid of getting banned). I made a thread about it separately, https://lemmy.ml/post/41587368?scrollToComments=true
Essentially what goat is saying is that Palestinians are not allowed to resist Israel militarily, only by cultural means. This is particularly heinous because Palestinians have been using peaceful means to resist Israel since the Nakba. That’s what BDS is, that’s what the 2018 March of Return was. Palestinians have made tons of efforts to peacefully assert their human rights because they generally don’t even have much to fight with, anyway. They don’t have a state, they don’t have modern military capabilities beyond the things they’re capable of refurbishing after the IDF drops hardware in Gaza, and they’re cut off from their allies by the Israeli blockade around Gaza. What a lot of Zionists don’t understand is that the Palestinian Resistance is the last resort of Palestine because they are being exterminated.
A lot of goat’s argument centered on claims of sexual violence committed against women during October 7th. This is a false narrative that Hamas ordered mass sexual assault, and Israel never presented serious evidence of this. This is the position of the scholars of this conflict, too, it’s generally regarded that there’s no evidence that any mass rape took place that day. That’s why I was saying this was nothing more than Hasbara (i.e. official Israeli propaganda) and why they got banned so quickly.
Also I think you are assuming a bit much of goat’s intentions and meanings. He doesn’t deny that Palestine has a right to defend itself. He is saying that Hamas killing civilians is not a legitimate form of self-defense. Much like the IDF killing civilians must be condemned. It is rather goat critiquing Hamas’ actions.
Well Goat is specifically saying that Hamas ought to use the internet instead of something, right? I can understand criticizing the murder of civilians during October 7th. However, to this day it’s not known how many civilians Hamas killed in their operation. The figure of 1200 dead Israelis has never been broken down into military and civilian casualties. Israel has also admitted there was massive amounts of friendly fire. So even condemning Hamas for “killing innocent civilians” is questionable; after all, how could Hamas actually carry out a military operation against Israel without killing civilians, when Israel has always made strategic use of the combination of the civilian population as settler colonialists, and the military apparatus that can protect them while maintaining a veneer of legality?
The documentary No Other Land did a very good job of showing that latter point, by the way. In Israel the settlers and the military act hand in hand. If you want to do a military operation against them, it’s never going to be fully possible to be discriminate, even if it’s desirable to have a legitimate resistance movement.
There were at least several hundred civilian casualties. Don’t try to play that game. If there were that many soldiers among the dead, they wouldn’t have gotten that far. Additionally a huge portion of the dead were at the techno festival and at the kibbutzim.
I don’t agree with Israel’s actions against Palestinians and them trying to act like many civilian victims were terrorists. You shouldn’t drop to that level though. We are better than that. Don’t try to justify crimes against humanity, regardless who it is.
Additionally a huge portion of the dead were at the techno festival and at the kibbutzim.
That’s right, but that’s also where the friendly fire took place, according to Asa Winstanley’s article that I linked.
Look, all in all it’s probably true that Hamas murdered several hundred civilians that day regardless. But I also don’t think there’s a viable way for a paramilitary group based in Gaza to do an uprising against Israel that doesn’t end with several hundred civilians dead, as I explained, because Israel is a settler-colony and the use of settlers as the tip of the spear of the Israeli effort to settle Palestine is a central part of the project.
Moral comparisons between the actions Israel and Palestine take are always apples to oranges. You simply can’t equate violence against the oppressed to violence against the oppressor. A future without violence against anyone is what the oppressed are attempting to build by defending themselves against their oppressors, after all, but you can’t defend yourself without violence.
got banned for pointing out that they can’t pull a revolution when they can’t even handle words like… GASP…
idiot
Mod accidentally revealed his IQ of 80
Goat’s just lying here though, they got banned because of what happened in this thread:
Hmmm… some convincing evidence. Guess there is only one way to resolve this:
goat, what’s your stance on palestine?
Israel should leave it alone, and it should leave Israel alone. They both have the right to exist.
Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is needlessly cruel.
Hamas is evil and a terrorist force that raped and massacred innocents, it also regularly silences Palestinian voices as well. Neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt should do more to help the Palestinians.
My opinion on I/P is the same as any other conflict on the other side of the world, my country is so far removed from the conflict that there’s nothing we can do except send strongly worded letters. I’m rather nihilistic that they’ll ever find peace, considering the region has been in a state of perpetual war for thousands of years.
i also have some cringe ideas for peace if you want to hear them
I always suspected the tankies may have been wrong
For Tankies anyone who doesn’t believe that Israel should face complete and utter destruction are zionists.
They’re just like maga, “Debate me bro.” And then they proceed to reject all the facts and logic that you provide, while getting upset when you dismiss the alternative “facts” that they make up.
Like, what is this? “Argues without insulting us” AND “Argues without tone policing”? So, what, tankies want to be the only ones who can tone police and insult their counterparts in an argument?
Like, pick one or the other and apply the same rules to both sides. Ideally neither side throws insults, and either side can tone police. But don’t say “we can do both, and you can do neither.” That’s the same “rules for thee, not for me” rhetoric that all authoritarians use, whether on the left or on the right.
Tankies are just covert fascists. Prove me wrong.
thats why i offered the baseline lol
There’s no rationally debating them. It’s like trying to rationally debate maga. They’ll ignore everything you say and make up scenarios that would make you the clear loser, and then bludgeon the strawman to death with insults and repeat themselves over and over no matter how many times you point out how irrational they’re being…
“What is not reasoned in, cannot be reasoned out.”
Something all too common with extremists. It’s fruitless to argue with facts and logic™ since they live in a different reality.
The only way to get through to them is playing therapist and figuring out their emotions and getting them to question themselves. Questions like, why does China have a stock exchange? Why can’t you be gay in Russia? Why did Lenin say don’t let Stalin take control? That’s why they band together so much and silence all opposition that ask questions, they can’t risk thinking inwards. They need to affirm each other, while non-extremists don’t need to, since reality is on their side.
I don’t think they’re quite fascist because of the economic difficreneces and social wellbeing policies.
But they are undoubtedly both authoritarian, and that’s pretty much the biggest problem because it practically makes the two identical.
They also don’t really have any “social wellbeing policies”. They spend almost zero time discussing those, and almost all of the time discussing how evil “the libs” are.
It’s because they don’t care for communism or any sort of communist or even socialist values. They only care about “west bad”
Tankies are sometimes called red fash since they argue in support of fascism as opposed to actually caring for the people. I mentioned it before, Tankies don’t operate on the basis of parties or workers. They are authoritarians, so when they mean CCP, they mean Xi. When they mean Russia, they mean Putin. That’s why if you explore their spaces and engage with them, they will almost never actually argue for the workers or people
They love their “strong” leaders and deify them – I mean, really, who has photos of a dead dictator in their room? What is that?
If you take their theory at face value, correct. If you observe their attitudes and actions, you see that they don’t really care about implementing those theories. They only discuss them to give themselves a veneer of moral superiority.
Stalin didn’t lift the proletariat out of poverty; he merely starved and murdered all the peasants who didn’t join his party. He didn’t liberate the masses, he implemented a highly oppressive surveillance/police state.
The average anarchist will be the first to try to bully someone into complying with their preferred systems of social order. They only want there to be no government so that nothing can stop them from forcing everyone else to conform to their will.
That’s what I mean by “covert” fascist. Nominally leftist, practically not.
summed up beautifully.
every commie/anarchist I know IRL, and I’ve known quite a few, are HUGE bullies/assholes, and they tend to only be friends with people they have control over or can intimidate into submission to them. They HATE people who are independent of their mentality and character assassinate them.
It’s the typical use of high minded ideals to justify their shitty and hypocritical personal behavior.
Exactly! I’m sorry a tankie got butthurt and downvoted you.
That’s really more of what I’ve seen in the communist communities rather than anarchists.
But they too have a tendency of being all or nothing.
The ones who demand “social order” truly aren’t anarchist anyway. The whole point of anarchy is to approach an egalitarian community that rejects the idea of unearned authority.
Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people’s appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
they don’t. they, like communists, tend to ignore human nature and think their ideal society will have no scarcity or struggle.
they basically ignore human psychology and social behavior
Why do you reckon that is? Naivety?
Equating anarchists to fascists is genuinely in the top five most stupid fucking political takes I have ever heard in my life. What the fuck do you think anarchists want force on you?
“Fuck these anarchists, they want to get rid of hierarchy and government so I won’t have a boot to suck the polish off of.” Is what you fucking sound like. The comm is for shitting on tankies. Anarchists are not tankies. Tankie does not mean leftist, it means authoritarian communist.
Anarchists aren’t tankies, no. But a shocking amount of them, on Lemmy at least, cosy up with Tankies and even argue in favour of authoritarian states, or defend them. From my experience, the average anarchist hates the liberal more than the tankie, despite the latter being in direct opposition to their principles.
Yes, and I actively distance myself from them. Its why I moved from dbzer0 to quokk.au and from Lemmy to Piefed. Anarchists who cosy up to MLs are naive and fail to learn from a hundred years of history. Anarchism is just as incompatible with statism and authority as it is with capitalism. That is not to say I wont work with liberals and marxists, just that I would never trust them.
that’s actually really respectful to your ideals.
why do you think so many anarchists, like those from dbzer0, cosy up to tankies?
Its scary fighting back. You want allies, and many of them so the odds dont feel so impossible. Its hard not to fall into the thinking that capitalism is the bigger threat, so we should work together against the common enemy. “We’ll figure out which communism is best after the revolution” is what I often hear. Issue is, looking at history, we get backstabbed before we get to see the end of the revolution. In the end though, its hard not to end up trusting those you spend time working with.
Wonderful graphs, thank you. But how can you ensure that the state, which now has unopposed power, didn’t simply lie about how much they have? Personally I find it telling that those in state power never walk the streets of the peasants or live in the same houses, no, they have their palaces and mansions and armed military guards and personal army protecting them, and you’re telling me there’s income equality there?
Not convinced.
I mean you’re like their Cowbee.
Cowbee actually defends his arguments and isn’t afraid to say them when he’s in communities that disagree with him
Here’s goat doing the exact opposite: https://reddthat.com/post/58007592/24065167
Cowbee uses numerous fallacies, biased sources and politician rhetoric by deliberately avoiding strong points and resorting to Mott and Baileys when backed into a corner. He ends up winning the ‘rhetoric’ war rather than the factual one because that’s really all he can afford
I honestly just made the comparison from a perception point of view. Unlike Cowbee who sugar coats and inflates his arguments just to pretend that he can be swayed. He just just overwhelms anyone who tries to point out his lies. Goat on the other hand can be swayed and is honest. He Doesn’t try to overwhelm you, can be short and concise when necessary.
I have infinitely more respect towards a person who sometimes can lose it rather than propaganda mouthpiece who writes so much that he contradicts himself frequently enough to have a schizophrenic debate with himself.
