Calling someone a liberal is not the same as accusing them of acting in bad faith, of misrepresenting what they believe. If someone comes around talking about gassing the Jews, I’m going to call them a fascist and write them off as such, even if they deny the label, and hopefully you would too. Likewise, if someone says stuff that I perceive as liberalism, I’m going to call them a lib - but I’m not going to assume that they’re paid actors in some secret conspiracy who don’t really believe a word of what they’re saying. Those aren’t the same thing at all.
Yes. I don’t know where the notion that tankies don’t do that sort of thing comes from when they do it all the time in their own way. Sure, they’re not accusing anyone of being a Liberal bot sent by Soros because it’s absurd, but they approximate with what they can to discredit who they don’t like. They’re only human.
Literally just explained the difference. Not valuing someone’s opinion is not the same as saying that they must be lying about what they believe because nobody could ever possibly just believe different things from you.
It’s fine if you want to make a distinction, but the pairing along with the outright dismissiveness is precisely what I mean, though. Being dismissive because of branding someone a label is my point, even though the person they were referring to is not liberal–me.
I’m not going to assume that they’re paid actors in some secret conspiracy who don’t really believe a word of what they’re saying
I’m not about to go hunt down a links from a year ago on a banned account in some other instance I abhor, or comb through petty nonsense to find examples for you. You can believe me or not, I don’t mind, and I will do the same. Besides, you already stated that if someone looks like a lib you’re gonna call it a lib “even if they deny the label”, and that’s what I mean about these personal attacks.
Sorry, but I’m not going to take the word of someone who once said, “I love Donald Trump because he reminds me of Hitler, who did nothing wrong.” Now, I definitely saw you say that once, but I’m not going to comb through a bunch of petty nonsense to find the link to it.
Besides, you already stated that if someone looks like a lib you’re gonna call it a lib “even if they deny the label”, and that’s what I mean about these personal attacks.
Again, I already explained the distinction. I never said that “tankies” won’t write off the opinions of people they don’t respect (everyone does this, as I explained with the example of an obvious fascist), what I’ve said is that we don’t deny that you believe the things you say you do, that you secretly believe something else, the thing that you just explicitly claimed to have seen but can’t provide a single example of.
So your answer to me replying in good faith is to double down and reply in bad faith to drive a petty point because I refuse to do some fool’s errand for you? Yeah, that’s not gonna fly.
I already explained the distinction
You can have your distinction but I’m not making one. I’m not operating under that framework you setup. I’m saying something one thing and you’re trying to shoehorn in the conversation into some other thing.
I got called a lib for saying that we don’t have the progressive foundation necessary to elect a third party candidate to President, and that while I don’t agree with the Democrats, Kamala was less bad than Trump.
That’s far from the only time I was called a liberal (derogatory) by an .ml user despite not being a liberal, and not promoting liberal policies.
Calling someone a liberal is not the same as accusing them of acting in bad faith
Did you respond to the wrong comment? At no point have I ever claimed that people on .ml don’t call people libs, so your comment seems like a complete non sequitor.
No it isn’t. We believe that you believe the things you say, we just classify those beliefs as liberalism. Richard Spencer says he’s not a fascist while expressing beliefs that I would classify as fascism, so I call him a fascist. Everybody does that, as well they should, and I have never denied anyone doing this.
What we don’t do is claim that you don’t actually believe your stated positions at all and secretly believe something completely different and are doing some kind of elaborate coordinated psyop where you pretend to hold beliefs you don’t. That is what’s pretty much unique to liberals.
I know liberalism from leftism. You know nothing of my political beliefs, and yet you confidently say that they are liberalism. How would you know? Someone on .ml said I was so you assume they know my beliefs better than I do? You’re either calling me a liar or an idiot.
You’re trying to equate disagreeing on the definition of terms to accusing someone of being entirely disingenuous about what they believe. I do not make a distinction between someone who believes in unconditionally and indefinitely supporting the democratic party as a lesser evil and someone who believes in doing the same because they agree with what it stands for (since they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing), so based on your expressed beliefs which I accept that you genuinely hold, I consider you a liberal. That doesn’t make you “a liar or an idiot” for disagreeing with that classification, it makes you someone who defines certain terms differently from me.
In the same way, as I said and as you’ve completely failed to acknowledge or address, if Richard Spencer tries to tell me he’s not a fascist based on some distinction that I consider completely arbitrary, them I’m going to call him a fascist anyway (since he is, for all practical purposes, a fascist), as any reasonable person would.
Don’t pretend that you don’t understand the difference between that and accusing us of all being involved in some convoluted psyop conspiracy where we don’t believe anything we say at all.
someone who believes in unconditionally and indefinitely supporting the democratic party
I didn’t say that though. I said to support the Democratic party in 2024 because there was, at that time, no other viable electoral alternative to Trump, and Trump is worse for more people. You extrapolated that “unconditionally and indefinitely” from your own preconceptions. You do realize that that exactly is the problem we’re talking about right?
It’s not about whether you say the exact string of words “you’re acting in bad faith”, it’s the presupposition that the person you’re talking to doesn’t know the meaning of the words they’re using (or that your personal definition is fundamentally more valid), and the extrapolation of their own stated beliefs into the most uncharitable possible interpretation.
Not Russian bots, they like those. Lol I have seen tankies write off people as liberals, funnily enough.
Calling someone a liberal is not the same as accusing them of acting in bad faith, of misrepresenting what they believe. If someone comes around talking about gassing the Jews, I’m going to call them a fascist and write them off as such, even if they deny the label, and hopefully you would too. Likewise, if someone says stuff that I perceive as liberalism, I’m going to call them a lib - but I’m not going to assume that they’re paid actors in some secret conspiracy who don’t really believe a word of what they’re saying. Those aren’t the same thing at all.
“Oh another dumb liberal”
“Liberal opinion disregarded”
Juxtapose the term liberal with tankie for a moment in usage alone.
If being called liberal is interpreted as above, it is likely those are the same sentiments expressed when calling someone or something tankie, no?
Yes. I don’t know where the notion that tankies don’t do that sort of thing comes from when they do it all the time in their own way. Sure, they’re not accusing anyone of being a Liberal bot sent by Soros because it’s absurd, but they approximate with what they can to discredit who they don’t like. They’re only human.
Literally just explained the difference. Not valuing someone’s opinion is not the same as saying that they must be lying about what they believe because nobody could ever possibly just believe different things from you.
It’s fine if you want to make a distinction, but the pairing along with the outright dismissiveness is precisely what I mean, though. Being dismissive because of branding someone a label is my point, even though the person they were referring to is not liberal–me.
I’m glad you don’t, but that’s not what I saw.
If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.
I’m not about to go hunt down a links from a year ago on a banned account in some other instance I abhor, or comb through petty nonsense to find examples for you. You can believe me or not, I don’t mind, and I will do the same. Besides, you already stated that if someone looks like a lib you’re gonna call it a lib “even if they deny the label”, and that’s what I mean about these personal attacks.
Sorry, but I’m not going to take the word of someone who once said, “I love Donald Trump because he reminds me of Hitler, who did nothing wrong.” Now, I definitely saw you say that once, but I’m not going to comb through a bunch of petty nonsense to find the link to it.
Again, I already explained the distinction. I never said that “tankies” won’t write off the opinions of people they don’t respect (everyone does this, as I explained with the example of an obvious fascist), what I’ve said is that we don’t deny that you believe the things you say you do, that you secretly believe something else, the thing that you just explicitly claimed to have seen but can’t provide a single example of.
So your answer to me replying in good faith is to double down and reply in bad faith to drive a petty point because I refuse to do some fool’s errand for you? Yeah, that’s not gonna fly.
You can have your distinction but I’m not making one. I’m not operating under that framework you setup. I’m saying something one thing and you’re trying to shoehorn in the conversation into some other thing.
And, as I’ve already explained, I won’t.
We’ve run our course. Good day.
I got called a lib for saying that we don’t have the progressive foundation necessary to elect a third party candidate to President, and that while I don’t agree with the Democrats, Kamala was less bad than Trump.
That’s far from the only time I was called a liberal (derogatory) by an .ml user despite not being a liberal, and not promoting liberal policies.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? At no point have I ever claimed that people on .ml don’t call people libs, so your comment seems like a complete non sequitor.
I am not a liberal and communicated that fact. I was called a liberal anyway. That is an accusation of acting in bad faith.
No it isn’t. We believe that you believe the things you say, we just classify those beliefs as liberalism. Richard Spencer says he’s not a fascist while expressing beliefs that I would classify as fascism, so I call him a fascist. Everybody does that, as well they should, and I have never denied anyone doing this.
What we don’t do is claim that you don’t actually believe your stated positions at all and secretly believe something completely different and are doing some kind of elaborate coordinated psyop where you pretend to hold beliefs you don’t. That is what’s pretty much unique to liberals.
I know liberalism from leftism. You know nothing of my political beliefs, and yet you confidently say that they are liberalism. How would you know? Someone on .ml said I was so you assume they know my beliefs better than I do? You’re either calling me a liar or an idiot.
You’re trying to equate disagreeing on the definition of terms to accusing someone of being entirely disingenuous about what they believe. I do not make a distinction between someone who believes in unconditionally and indefinitely supporting the democratic party as a lesser evil and someone who believes in doing the same because they agree with what it stands for (since they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing), so based on your expressed beliefs which I accept that you genuinely hold, I consider you a liberal. That doesn’t make you “a liar or an idiot” for disagreeing with that classification, it makes you someone who defines certain terms differently from me.
In the same way, as I said and as you’ve completely failed to acknowledge or address, if Richard Spencer tries to tell me he’s not a fascist based on some distinction that I consider completely arbitrary, them I’m going to call him a fascist anyway (since he is, for all practical purposes, a fascist), as any reasonable person would.
Don’t pretend that you don’t understand the difference between that and accusing us of all being involved in some convoluted psyop conspiracy where we don’t believe anything we say at all.
I didn’t say that though. I said to support the Democratic party in 2024 because there was, at that time, no other viable electoral alternative to Trump, and Trump is worse for more people. You extrapolated that “unconditionally and indefinitely” from your own preconceptions. You do realize that that exactly is the problem we’re talking about right?
It’s not about whether you say the exact string of words “you’re acting in bad faith”, it’s the presupposition that the person you’re talking to doesn’t know the meaning of the words they’re using (or that your personal definition is fundamentally more valid), and the extrapolation of their own stated beliefs into the most uncharitable possible interpretation.