I saw a post that talked about racism towards people and when I talked about it the response I got was very heated and a person even called lemmy.world a community of 'hitlerites'
I have been around for a week or so and this is my first time seeing such explicit vulgar reaction towards another community, is this a one-off or should I block hexbear?
Would you be willing to explain the difference? I don't know and I did do a google on it awhile back and I guess if I learned anything it didn't stick....
Signed: idiot on the internet who wants to know these things.
As far as I am aware, the primary difference is that tankies are authoritarian. They got their name because they supported the USSR sending tanks into Hungary in 1956. I've seen many express positive opinions towards China and North Korea while ignoring or denying things like mass censorship in both countries, China's concentration camps of Uyghur Muslims or the fact that people and their families risk death if they try to flee North Korea.
I typically add a user note to all tankies I encounter or I just block them.
Edit: I originally incorrectly cited that they got their name because they deny the tiananmen square massacre (which they claim was either peaceful or non-existent). It is still true that they deny it, but it is not the origin of their name.
The number of deaths and the extent of bloodshed in the square itself have been in dispute since the events. The government actively suppressed discussion of casualty figures immediately after the events, and estimates rely heavily on eyewitness testimony, hospital records, and organised efforts by victims' relatives. As a result, large discrepancies exist among various casualty estimates. Initial estimates ranged from the official figure of a few hundred to several thousand.
"Tankie" is a derogatory term for Marxist-Leninists. We support AES or "actually existing socialist" states, in contrast to left idealists who support every revolution except the ones that actually succeed, which can always be imagined as perfect because they never had to confront practical reality. We're known for our opposition to war (except class war) and belief in multipolarity, which is the idea that one nation shouldn't be the lone superpower with hegemony around the world, and we treat the media with reasonable skepticism when it tries to tell us who to hate - ironically, these traits cause us to be characterized as militaristic, authoritarian, and blindly gullible.
People who have never read any communist theory beyond the Manifesto (if that) don't think we're real communists because they have no idea what they're talking about.
Someone else already commented how tankies got their name.
Tankies in the comments can generally be recognized by:
Anything that a liberal democratic country does is bad.
Authoritarian regimes such as China, Venezuela, Russia, North-Korea, ... are somehow the good guys, no matter how well documented their transgressions against human rights are. Tankies defend Russia's invasion of Ukraine for example.
Because tankies want to present some atrocious regimes and people as the good guys, they have to twist the truth a lot. So they constantly lie and misrepresent/omit facts to push their false narrative.
Since they're not interested in an actual discussion or non tankie viewpoints, they employ non-constructive discussion techniques to score points and "win" arguments. And this last bullet point is mostly why everyone else hates them.
The last point especially for Hexbear. Holy shit you have to see it. It's like walking into 4chan if it were a highschool with their endless meme train circlejerk and single image replies all the while being shitheads in bad faith.
Tankie was initially someone who didn't have an issue with running over protestors in a tank in support of their beliefs, and has grown to include anyone willing to use violent means in support of communist ideals.
Current examples include supporting Russia or blaming Ukraine for the conflict, or supporting China invading Taiwan.
I don't think it has grown to include that (or I don't think it should have grown, if it actually has and I didn't notice).
Any revolution will require violent means. That doesn't inherently make it bad, just sad. It depends who is the target of the violence.
There aren't many Americans who condemn the American revolution for it's violence against the British, for example.
Revolution varies in the quantity of violence required, but requires at minimum threat of violence. You can't have a revolution by asking politiely and tying your hands behind your back.
That's a coup, not a revolution, and as such has no real historical examples of representing the interests of the Working Class. The point of revolution is that it is a mass movement of an organized working class, not some random hero commanding the masses into a better existence.
So you want a bottom-up, loosely organized revolution but don't think it requires any threat of violence to pull off? Has that ever happened anywhere and lasted more than a year or two? Even Anarchists, who espouse decentralization, recognize the necessity of violence in revolution.
I'm skeptical of that claim, but it's not really important.
To say that any communist that supports violence as a means is a tankie is to say all communists are tankies.
But given that violence alone doesn't make a revolution bad, and that tankie is a perjorative, then that definition isn't fair or even really meaningful.
you don't seem to have an issue when it comes to running over Palestinians with tanks, most 'tankies' seem to actually be opposed to sending in the tanks.
Equal condemnation for unequal sin minimizes the greater and exaggerates the lesser. That ceases to be an answer and becomes a cover for genocidal fascists against a national liberation movement.