• obre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      17 hours ago

      woah you kind of ate it up with this comment. huge insight/comparisons here i’d never considered.

  • fxomt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    20 hours ago

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

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      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

  • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    20 hours ago

    new accounts

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

      • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.”