“H-ha ha, I’m just joking” is also what alt-right cunts used back in 2015 and 2016.
Turns out, “I support this thing that’s in-line with my ideology! H-ha ha, j-just joking!” is just how chuds communicate their views to each other when they’re too cowardly to face social censure for their abhorrent views.
I think this was from the start an outrageous enough claim that I don’t think it was meant to be serious: Jesus invented the term?
Such phrasing is light-hearted, but that doesn’t mean the broader point isn’t meant sincerely. If someone says, “That’s why Jesus invented alcohol” after someone complains about having a hard day, that doesn’t mean that they literally believe Jesus invented alcohol, but it does mean that they regard alcohol as an appropriate response to the situation.
I’m not a fan of tankies, but I’m not convinced that their philosophy overlaps significantly with the Taliban.
The core of tankieism, as detailed elsewhere on this sub, is a simple tribalism. Thinking of it in terms of ideological consistency is a mistake.
Good point.
I still am not convinced that it’s clearly sympathetic, but I’ll certainly acknowledge I’m not an expert in tankie culture so I should beware this kind of plausibly deniable speech.
If they don’t have a consistent ideology, then determining sarcasm would be nearly impossible, even amongst themselves.
Not even sure that sympathetic is really the right word. “Critical support”, when it’s not just used to mean “I love bootlicking but I realize it looks bad”, means something closer to “I understand these people are bad, but I think the opposition is worse” - ie that they regard weakening America as more important than opposing the Taliban.
As such, personally, I’m not saying that this guy loves the Taliban - but that he probably means ‘critical support’ more seriously than joking.
I finally went ahead and looked up what he linked to, and it was a joke about giving critical support to Trump.
At this point I’m pretty sure it was actually a joke.
Although you still make a very good point about ideological (in)consistency and being cautious of plausibly deniable speech.
Tankies are atheists and the Taliban are religious fundamentalists who oppose everything that modern tankies stand for. If anything they’re closer to the original tankies who had similar social values and who happened to be supported by Russian communist Islamists in the beginning. Islamists and the original Bolsheviks generally uphold the values of the Torah but the Marxists just put an atheist spin on it and called it secular morality.
This is the problem with ironically glorifying extremist groups is that many other people aren’t going to know that you’re joking. At least in places like Jreg’s community you generally have a sense of post irony.
That last post definitely sounds like sarcasm to me, but idk what it’s linking to so idk for sure.
“H-ha ha, I’m just joking” is also what alt-right cunts used back in 2015 and 2016.
Turns out, “I support this thing that’s in-line with my ideology! H-ha ha, j-just joking!” is just how chuds communicate their views to each other when they’re too cowardly to face social censure for their abhorrent views.
I mean… Poe’s law to some extent. And the guy (presumably) came with receipts.
What you’re describing is a real problem, doubly so because it makes actual sarcasm impossible to determine: as evidenced by our discussion here lol.
I think this was from the start an outrageous enough claim that I don’t think it was meant to be serious: Jesus invented the term?
I’m not a fan of tankies, but I’m not convinced that their philosophy overlaps significantly with the Taliban.
Such phrasing is light-hearted, but that doesn’t mean the broader point isn’t meant sincerely. If someone says, “That’s why Jesus invented alcohol” after someone complains about having a hard day, that doesn’t mean that they literally believe Jesus invented alcohol, but it does mean that they regard alcohol as an appropriate response to the situation.
The core of tankieism, as detailed elsewhere on this sub, is a simple tribalism. Thinking of it in terms of ideological consistency is a mistake.
Good point. I still am not convinced that it’s clearly sympathetic, but I’ll certainly acknowledge I’m not an expert in tankie culture so I should beware this kind of plausibly deniable speech.
If they don’t have a consistent ideology, then determining sarcasm would be nearly impossible, even amongst themselves.
Not even sure that sympathetic is really the right word. “Critical support”, when it’s not just used to mean “I love bootlicking but I realize it looks bad”, means something closer to “I understand these people are bad, but I think the opposition is worse” - ie that they regard weakening America as more important than opposing the Taliban.
As such, personally, I’m not saying that this guy loves the Taliban - but that he probably means ‘critical support’ more seriously than joking.
I finally went ahead and looked up what he linked to, and it was a joke about giving critical support to Trump. At this point I’m pretty sure it was actually a joke.
Although you still make a very good point about ideological (in)consistency and being cautious of plausibly deniable speech.
Tankies are atheists and the Taliban are religious fundamentalists who oppose everything that modern tankies stand for. If anything they’re closer to the original tankies who had similar social values and who happened to be supported by Russian communist Islamists in the beginning. Islamists and the original Bolsheviks generally uphold the values of the Torah but the Marxists just put an atheist spin on it and called it secular morality.
This is the problem with ironically glorifying extremist groups is that many other people aren’t going to know that you’re joking. At least in places like Jreg’s community you generally have a sense of post irony.
deleted by creator