• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Please elaborate on this.

    Things like “The Yankee Dogs™ forced North Korea to adopt Juche” or “Soviet secret police torturing people to extract confessions for execution were just acting in self-defense against the bourgeois pigs!”

    Things that are both vile and untrue, but don’t relate to a singular factual statement (unlike, say, “The Soviets didn’t commit the Katyn Massacre”, which would be vile and untrue AND relate to a singular factual statement)

    • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Do mean something like ground setting, prior-discussion-terminating stances taken through provable-or-refutable-almost-solely-through-statistics without providing such statistics, or do you also mean a use of particular lingo?

      I don’t have any questions for the second part.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I would probably take a closer and more critical look at their statements if I saw someone using some of the more distinctively tankie lingo, but that wouldn’t be worth a ban or a warning or any sort of action.

        “Stalin’s big spoon” and other such euphemistic jokes excluded. Those are definitely worth a ban, fuck ‘I was just joking’ about genocide denial shite.

        • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Thanks for the elaboration. It’s always good to know if anyone with any kind of power to do something can explain how they interpret the basic rulesets and what the vague things like common sense or suspicion means to them in a context.