992
This is the most insidious yet obvious expression of US propaganda for a hot second
(files.catbox.moe)
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
992 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
5729 readers
3304 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tankies put this one together: china, your favourite little dictatorship, is helping out your most hated almost dictatorship? How is that possible. I thought china was a chad anti usa amd imperialism state. Or maybe theyre also imperalists and just jumped on trumps dick the moment they saw they could profit from it.
Careful with that strawman, breathe on it and it'll fall over
"Tankies are biased towards China and against the US" isn't a strawman, it's part of the core definition of what makes someone a tankie. This is pretty valid criticism of a group with really inconsistently applied values (though it is, perhaps understandably, a little bit smug)
The word "tankie" itself is a thought terminating cliche that allows people to presuppose a complete understanding of another person's worldview, without engaging in the nuance of their actual position.
It should come as no surprise that the term alone clears the bar for "strawmanning" in some people's minds.
This is a ridiculous position to hold. Can you name me a single appellation that isn't used to summarize those thus described? That's kind of the point of using labels, to categorize things together by their common attribute(s). If we spent all of our time engaging with every single person to the point that we fully understood their perspective and worldview, not only would we never get anything done, we'd be utterly at the mercy of anyone who engages in bad faith.
I see this less as a dichotomy and more as a spectrum, with some labels being far more useful to civil discourse than others.
Not all discourse is intended to be (or even should be) civil, though. A hypothetical citizen of Strawmanslund who venerates Mao Zedong as a hero and visionary, who holds the position that his successes more than make up for his failures, is not a person I want to be laboring under the misapprehension that I could ever respect them.
That's certainly your prerogative. Personally, I like to engage with as broad a selection of opinions as possible in an effort to avoid being propagandized. I try to not allow my respect, or lack thereof, for a conversational partner to allow me to retreat to a bubble of like-minded opinions. Only by engaging with a diverse range of opinions can I hope to arrive at a nuanced view of the world. Of course, you do need to be adept at recognizing when you're engaged in bad-faith discussion.
One can listen critically to an argument without having to immediately make up one's mind.
I understand you think this is the clearly the correct view to hold, and I do (sincerely) understand why you'd hold this opinion. On the surface, treating everyone with uniform fairness until you've heard out their argument is clearly the magnanimous way to do things. But this is the fundamental issue of the Paradox of Tolerance - shutting down a conversation with a partner who espouses views like the above Hypothetical Stramandian isn't "retreating to a bubble of like-minded opinions", it's refusing to treat with someone who's opinions are so fundamentally offensive to a peaceful ethos, so personally disgusting, that they absolutely should face social consequences for the opinions they hold.
"Always be polite" as a policy doesn't work in the face of so very many political views or odious personal opinions because the lack of negative reaction can easily be recontextualized as positive reinforcement.
I'm not presenting it as the only correct view to hold. I'm explaining my thoughts, and engaging with you in an effort to expand my understanding while allowing my beliefs to be challenged; I apologize if I came across as attempting to bludgeon you with my righteousness. That was not my intent.
What you've said here is all perfectly fair, and is a great example of the ways in which the paradox of tolerance (something I like to discuss, as is clear to anyone who checks my post history) is so subjective and squirmy.
To use your example and further the discussion at hand, why might someone venerate Mao Zedong despite his many failures, and why does doing so make a person unworthy of respect?
(Apologies, that was poorly worded on my part - I just meant that this is the view you hold, and people don't (okay, rarely) hold opinions that they don't think are the correct opinions to hold.)
It's sadly all too easy to present someone being excluded because of said odious opinions as the exclude-er only being comfortable in a friendly echo chamber. And unfortunately I don't know that I have a solution to that! But to further further the discussion: I so intensely do not understand how a person who can look past the tens of millions of deaths that Mao is directly responsible for, that I don't actually know why there are any people that can forgive him. I suppose claiming they just believe the propaganda would be the easy answer, or maybe it's that they were on the winning side so the innate human tendency towards tribalism is to blame. Anyone who can look past the atrocities he was responsible for isn't someone I want to understand better.
I think I understand where you're coming from, and we're beginning to circle back around to what caused me to engage here in the first place. Someone that breaks with western orthodoxy surrounding Mao's leadership, and discusses any good things that may have come from his reign, is at risk of being labeled a "tankie", which then serves as the justification for dismissal. They have pushed back against a "nonfalsifiable orthodoxy" (to borrow a phrase from Parenti) in an effort to engage with the nuance of history and perhaps expose another's internalized propagandization.
A historian would necessarily want to look at the complete spectrum of Mao's deeds and legacy, without the need to create a dualistic value judgement in the process. Wholly good? Wholly evil? We tread toward the realm of the propagandist in this desire to oversimplify. No lessons are learned in refusing to engage with opposing opinions, we simply affirm of our own self-righteousness and entrench ourselves deeper into nonfalsifiable orthodoxies.
There are people who celebrate ~~Adolph~~ Adolf Hitler. This is absurdity to anyone who values human life. Only through the exchange of ideas, however, will I have any hope of understanding why an individual might believe such a thing; Only through that understanding can I engage with them using the dialectical method. Often it turns out that these people are edge-lords arguing in bad-faith for a laugh, just kids trolling out of boredom. If, however, the person seems willing to engage genuinely, and if I've the time and inclination for such engagement, then perhaps we both might come away with a better understanding of the world and people around us. I do want to understand neo-nazis, because only in that understanding can I formulate persuasive arguments against their specific positions, perhaps in time leading to an attenuation of such beliefs in society.
Perhaps these Mao apologists you've met believe that, as Julie Burchill put it:
As for what I believe... I'm still in the process of pinning that down.
You shouldn't use words you do not understand. You cannot present a strawman argument outside the context of a debate or argument.
Not everything is you disagree with is logically flawed. Sometimes things are untrue and logically consistent. Sometimes you're just wrong. Sometimes the other guy is.
Actually, you can present the fallacy to anyone providing an undistributed middle syllogism, since they've "made an argument". In the post, an undistributed middle is identifiable - "your most hated almost dictatorship". This is almost certainly not the same even among tankies, so the user is putting forth an argument with poor logic from the get-go. You're not actually educated about logic except by youtube videos from people using greek or roman figures as avatars, are you?
Right on, buddy! Logic nerds forever! Screw those "pathos" and "ethos" thingies, what possible use could they be? We, the high and mighty logicians, know that Logos is the only one that matters! Appeal to logos or appeal to death, amirite??
(Just to be clear here, this is a pretty nerdy website. If you're going to pose an argument like this, you should make sure it's sound before throwing down the "bruh do u even see how educated I am" gauntlet...)