Why is it that when I say something controversial in a normal conversation, that doesn’t happen? It only happens when I say something mean or, god forbid, factual, in a conversation with an .ml user.
Why would the 5 or so disagree so harshly about something factual. How come only they in the universe have the secret knowledge that is unattainable for others
Reading comprehension and organized harassment is such a problem for your community that the entire rest of the fediverse knows and jokes about it. I can appreciate that you might not see most of that because most instances defederate from yours and most users block you after the first interaction.
It’s totally normal and organic that entire groups of tankies show up at the same time to dunk on low-interaction comments in low-interaction posts, often several replies deep in a thread that nobody’s reading anymore, and it’s always the most meaningless shit where they clearly didn’t read the post and formed a cohesive rebuttal to any points but just spew the first vaguely relevant zinger they find in the text file of one-line zingers they seem to share amongst each other.
That was Hexbear’s modus operandi when they federated with other instances to “dunk” on people. Seeing as many HB users have .ml accounts to bypass defederation, it’s no surprise they keep up that behaviour on .ml. I’ve seen numerous threads where the vote count suddenly plummets right when a bunch of tankies show up at once to yell at whoever they consider a shitlib. Which is everyone who isn’t authoritarian.
I think they can’t stand talking to each other unless it’s circle-jerking over how much “theory” they’ve read. So, they love getting a chance to scream at an outsider.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
I was going to tell you to fuck off because I can’t stand talking to people who agree with me and just want to scream at outsiders, but I think this counts as “circle-jerking over how much ‘theory’ we’ve read” so that means we’re cool 😜
it’s so fucking true
Anytime they pull you into an argument, suddenly 5 more show up to try and overwhelm you. There’s no way it isn’t a deliberate tactic.
I had three at once ask me why no one was defending me. I just said i didn’t need anyone to brigade for me. They didn’t seem to like that answer lol
Lol, you’ve got some serious main character syndrome
Why is it that when I say something controversial in a normal conversation, that doesn’t happen? It only happens when I say something mean or, god forbid, factual, in a conversation with an .ml user.
Yeah, you’re right, it couldn’t just be that a lot of people disagree with you, it must be an organised conspiracy
Why would the 5 or so disagree so harshly about something factual. How come only they in the universe have the secret knowledge that is unattainable for others
Reading comprehension and organized harassment is such a problem for your community that the entire rest of the fediverse knows and jokes about it. I can appreciate that you might not see most of that because most instances defederate from yours and most users block you after the first interaction.
It’s totally normal and organic that entire groups of tankies show up at the same time to dunk on low-interaction comments in low-interaction posts, often several replies deep in a thread that nobody’s reading anymore, and it’s always the most meaningless shit where they clearly didn’t read the post and formed a cohesive rebuttal to any points but just spew the first vaguely relevant zinger they find in the text file of one-line zingers they seem to share amongst each other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_stalking
.
.
The answer is not to get dragged into convesrations with idiots. We used to call it “not feeding the trolls” and it’s something of a lost art.
That was Hexbear’s modus operandi when they federated with other instances to “dunk” on people. Seeing as many HB users have .ml accounts to bypass defederation, it’s no surprise they keep up that behaviour on .ml. I’ve seen numerous threads where the vote count suddenly plummets right when a bunch of tankies show up at once to yell at whoever they consider a shitlib. Which is everyone who isn’t authoritarian.
That is a tactic they learned from real life tanks. Argue with one tank, more tanks show up.
Tanks are pack hunters, after all.
its not a conspiracy to overwhelm you.
lemmy is not reddit, as in not a hivemind of 20-30yr old white male westerners.
I didn’t say conspiracy
what did you say then? because from here, you seem to think we are literally organizing targeted harassment.
The three notifications in my inbox before this one were .mls misreading my comment.
Plot twist. All 5 are the same guy using multiple alt accounts.
I think they can’t stand talking to each other unless it’s circle-jerking over how much “theory” they’ve read. So, they love getting a chance to scream at an outsider.
>talk to each other
“These tankies are caught up in an echo chamber, they never expose themselves to outside ideas or engage with criticism!”
>talk to other people
“These tankies can’t stand talking to each other and just want to scream at outsiders!”
Can’t win.
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
I was going to tell you to fuck off because I can’t stand talking to people who agree with me and just want to scream at outsiders, but I think this counts as “circle-jerking over how much ‘theory’ we’ve read” so that means we’re cool 😜
The arrogance of these people passing around their homework as gospel.