Imagine you’re talking with someone about science, and after a while they say they believe in a flat earth.
At that point, it’s understandable to end the conversation. Because flat earth discussions have all been had, and anyone who believes in a flat earth in 2025 doesn’t believe in science. You’ve identified a fundamental principal on which you disagree, and there can be no productive discussion.
One of the worst thing the right has done is be so fucking stupid that they make liberals assume anyone who disagrees with them for any reason must also just be stupid.
I get the argument you’re trying to make and I appreciate you doing so, but it sounds like you’re trying to say that being anti-Western capitalist hegemony is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. Is that what you really believe, and if so, why? All evidence completely debunks flat-earth theory, so I understand why someone would disengage from debating with someone who believed that. On the other hand, most evidence makes Western capitalist hegemony look very bad, so why is it invalid to be against that?
You believe that all the anti-West countries are secretly the good guys, and are working together. We believe that’s crazy, and any open-minded read of real history and news will illustrate that.
It’s less crazy than flat earth, but mostly because physics is less fuzzy and easier to pin down. In both case the point seems to be to go against the consensus, not find the truth.
You believe that all the anti-West countries are secretly the good guys, and are working together.
That’s not at all what I believe. What I believe instead is that any entity that counters the Western capitalist hegemony deserves support unless it is proven to be doing the wrong things and/or for the wrong reasons. Consensus sometimes is not the truth. I happen to believe that Western capitalist hegemony is one of the worst things to happen to the world in the last few hundreds of years. That goes against the Western consensus, but it is the truth in my view and in the view of many others around the world, especially in the Global South.
If you consider the entire world, the ideas in the West (that the West is right and good) are the minority opinion. It’s only Westerners who believe those things. If you consider recent and current events, this is evidenced by the fact only the West supported Israel and Ukraine from the start and mostly continues to do so, while most of the rest of the world stayed either neutral (mostly regarding Ukraine) or came out against one side (mostly regarding Israel).
Sure, I recognize that every country and every culture has flaws and bad people, but the West is the principal part of the world which has weaponized their flaws, bad ideas, and bad people against the entire planet. There may be other outlier examples, but the West has outdone them all, by far.
I wasn’t trying to say that being open to tankie arguments is the same as believing in a flat earth. I was only making the comparison to explain the sense of futility and exhaustion many people feel when they encounter an argument they’ve had so many times. There’s a point where you recognize a fundamental difference in worldview, and that any further discussion is pointless.
Personally, I think western capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced. But I also think that anyone who denies the genocides recognized by the majority of the world is being willfully ignorant. Many people seem to have a very limited ideology of “everything western = bad” and believe that brutal regimes elsewhere are somehow perfect utopias, despite well-documented evidence of the contrary.
As I understand it, the term “tankie” specifically refers to people who deny or defend the brutal tactics used by communist leaders, often denying genocide. If someone tells me they agree with tankie ideology, I don’t have much confidence that conversation about it will do anyone any good. So in that regard, I empathize and understand why the person you were talking to went quiet after that.
I wasn’t trying to say that being open to tankie arguments is the same as believing in a flat earth. I was only making the comparison to explain the sense of futility and exhaustion many people feel when they encounter an argument they’ve had so many times. There’s a point where you recognize a fundamental difference in worldview, and that any further discussion is pointless.
That makes more sense, thanks. I feel the same way about some discussions about this stuff.
Personally, I think western capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced. But I also think that anyone who denies the genocides recognized by the majority of the world is being willfully ignorant. Many people seem to have a very limited ideology of “everything western = bad” and believe that brutal regimes elsewhere are somehow perfect utopias, despite well-documented evidence of the contrary.
Without trying to get into a detailed discussion about it, what genocides do you have in mind, so I have a better idea of how to think about what you’re saying? The issue with “recognized by the majority of the world” is that it’s a problematic concept nowadays, and perhaps always was. The West and specifically the people that control the West, very much control the narratives that we receive in the West, to manipulate the people for political purposes. Some things where people start screaming “genocide” are nothing that any average person would recognize as such, or have a much more nuanced story. I think a lot of the heated discussions around this boil down to disagreements about a) the supposed genocide claims being a lot more nuanced and generally less terrible than the narrative that the West tries to push, b) the idea of providing “critical support” for countries that may do some arguably bad things while fighting the Western capitalist hegemony and trying to build actual alternatives. Maybe some people believe that these countries are perfect utopias, but I think that most recognize that those countries and systems have flaws and have made errors (like all countries do), but that they are still worthy of that “critical support” because they represent the only alternative and resistance to the Western system that has any chance of working.
As I understand it, the term “tankie” specifically refers to people who deny or defend the brutal tactics used by communist leaders, often denying genocide. If someone tells me they agree with tankie ideology, I don’t have much confidence that conversation about it will do anyone any good. So in that regard, I empathize and understand why the person you were talking to went quiet after that.
My understanding of the term “tankie” is a little broader than that. I don’t think it’s specific to genocide, but it allows for the idea that socialist and communist leaders have sometimes had to resort to harsh and perhaps heavy-handed tactics to maintain their system in the face of a constant barrage of threats and attacks from every possible direction. From what I understand, it specifically started being used in reference to the USSR sending in tanks to quash a worker revolt in Hungary(?) in the 50s(?). A revolt about which we just recently(?) got evidence that the CIA was involved in.
Thanks for your reply and explanation of your points.
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Imagine you’re talking with someone about science, and after a while they say they believe in a flat earth.
At that point, it’s understandable to end the conversation. Because flat earth discussions have all been had, and anyone who believes in a flat earth in 2025 doesn’t believe in science. You’ve identified a fundamental principal on which you disagree, and there can be no productive discussion.
Objection@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
One of the worst thing the right has done is be so fucking stupid that they make liberals assume anyone who disagrees with them for any reason must also just be stupid.
Cricket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I get the argument you’re trying to make and I appreciate you doing so, but it sounds like you’re trying to say that being anti-Western capitalist hegemony is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. Is that what you really believe, and if so, why? All evidence completely debunks flat-earth theory, so I understand why someone would disengage from debating with someone who believed that. On the other hand, most evidence makes Western capitalist hegemony look very bad, so why is it invalid to be against that?
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
You believe that all the anti-West countries are secretly the good guys, and are working together. We believe that’s crazy, and any open-minded read of real history and news will illustrate that.
It’s less crazy than flat earth, but mostly because physics is less fuzzy and easier to pin down. In both case the point seems to be to go against the consensus, not find the truth.
Objection@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Very imaginative and creative.
Which is to say, you’re lying and making shit up.
Cricket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
That’s not at all what I believe. What I believe instead is that any entity that counters the Western capitalist hegemony deserves support unless it is proven to be doing the wrong things and/or for the wrong reasons. Consensus sometimes is not the truth. I happen to believe that Western capitalist hegemony is one of the worst things to happen to the world in the last few hundreds of years. That goes against the Western consensus, but it is the truth in my view and in the view of many others around the world, especially in the Global South.
If you consider the entire world, the ideas in the West (that the West is right and good) are the minority opinion. It’s only Westerners who believe those things. If you consider recent and current events, this is evidenced by the fact only the West supported Israel and Ukraine from the start and mostly continues to do so, while most of the rest of the world stayed either neutral (mostly regarding Ukraine) or came out against one side (mostly regarding Israel).
Sure, I recognize that every country and every culture has flaws and bad people, but the West is the principal part of the world which has weaponized their flaws, bad ideas, and bad people against the entire planet. There may be other outlier examples, but the West has outdone them all, by far.
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I wasn’t trying to say that being open to tankie arguments is the same as believing in a flat earth. I was only making the comparison to explain the sense of futility and exhaustion many people feel when they encounter an argument they’ve had so many times. There’s a point where you recognize a fundamental difference in worldview, and that any further discussion is pointless.
Personally, I think western capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced. But I also think that anyone who denies the genocides recognized by the majority of the world is being willfully ignorant. Many people seem to have a very limited ideology of “everything western = bad” and believe that brutal regimes elsewhere are somehow perfect utopias, despite well-documented evidence of the contrary.
As I understand it, the term “tankie” specifically refers to people who deny or defend the brutal tactics used by communist leaders, often denying genocide. If someone tells me they agree with tankie ideology, I don’t have much confidence that conversation about it will do anyone any good. So in that regard, I empathize and understand why the person you were talking to went quiet after that.
Cricket@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
That makes more sense, thanks. I feel the same way about some discussions about this stuff.
Without trying to get into a detailed discussion about it, what genocides do you have in mind, so I have a better idea of how to think about what you’re saying? The issue with “recognized by the majority of the world” is that it’s a problematic concept nowadays, and perhaps always was. The West and specifically the people that control the West, very much control the narratives that we receive in the West, to manipulate the people for political purposes. Some things where people start screaming “genocide” are nothing that any average person would recognize as such, or have a much more nuanced story. I think a lot of the heated discussions around this boil down to disagreements about a) the supposed genocide claims being a lot more nuanced and generally less terrible than the narrative that the West tries to push, b) the idea of providing “critical support” for countries that may do some arguably bad things while fighting the Western capitalist hegemony and trying to build actual alternatives. Maybe some people believe that these countries are perfect utopias, but I think that most recognize that those countries and systems have flaws and have made errors (like all countries do), but that they are still worthy of that “critical support” because they represent the only alternative and resistance to the Western system that has any chance of working.
My understanding of the term “tankie” is a little broader than that. I don’t think it’s specific to genocide, but it allows for the idea that socialist and communist leaders have sometimes had to resort to harsh and perhaps heavy-handed tactics to maintain their system in the face of a constant barrage of threats and attacks from every possible direction. From what I understand, it specifically started being used in reference to the USSR sending in tanks to quash a worker revolt in Hungary(?) in the 50s(?). A revolt about which we just recently(?) got evidence that the CIA was involved in.
Thanks for your reply and explanation of your points.