• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

    • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.