770
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
770 points (82.2% liked)
Political Memes
1585 readers
213 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right. So you said that the reason that you didn't see anti-Trump content on .ml is because he's pro-Putin, but how could I possibly interpret that as you claiming that .ml was pro-Trump?
It's not a "false-equivalence." You can't just drop "false-equivalence" and dismiss any comparison you don't like, you have to actually explain why it isn't equivalent.
People don't say things that don't need to be said, and things don't really need to be said if everyone reading them already agrees with the thing. I don't go around randomly saying things like, "wood comes from trees," or, "the sun is hot," or, "puppy murder is bad." That doesn't imply that I think wood doesn't come from trees or that I think the sun is cold or that murdering puppies is good, and if anyone came around saying any of those things, I would very firmly correct them on it.
What you're trying to claim is that us not circlejerking about Trump being bad - something that's already widely agreed upon in our spaces - means that we're pro-Trump. Oh, excuse me, your claim isn't that we're pro-Trump, it's that we give preferential treatment to Trump because he's pro-Putin, important distinction 🙄. The same logic could be used to argue that we - or .world, or any other instance or community - is pro-puppy murder because there aren't enough posts denouncing it (even though if anyone who was actually pro-puppy murder came around they'd be banned immediately).
Estimated 100 000 In NYC Alone Protesting Today As Part of Nationwide 50501 Protest Against Trump & Musk - 311 upvotes
US stock markets see worst day since Covid pandemic after investors shaken by Trump tariffs - 111 upvotes
Dow drops 1,400 as US stocks lead worldwide sell-off after Trump's tariffs ignite a COVID-like shock - 102 upvotes
China hits back hard at ‘bullying’ Trump tariffs as global recession fears grow - 73 upvotes
All of those were posted within the last 3 days.
Thanks for the links. THAT is something actually substantive that goes against the narrative in the OP. I'll try to explain the errors in your interpretation and expand on the false-equivalence claim tomorrow.
I (*very explicitly and vocally not a communist) left .ml because of all the shit flinging from .world and yes sometimes .ca, among others. It was the only negative experience I had in over a year of keeping my account there that was related to where my account was.
@StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world is exactly correct.
And here we are again, the monthly "Tankies are the bane of Lemmy!!11!!" post, wherein we have:
Fucking A people, you largely control your own experience on the Fediverse, that's one of the things that makes it great.
In addition, when choosing an instance (both times) I made sure to pick one that was defederated from Threads, because that was important to me. I'm sure there are instances that are defederated from .ml. If blocking the entire instance yourself or individual users yourself is somehow not enough, no one is stopping you from picking an instance that is defederated from .ml or asking your instance admin (who may very well tell you to FO as is their right) to defederate.
Edit: And you are welcome to search my username at .ml and see how much of what I posted was anti-Trump. Spoiler alert: nearly all of it.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I never said anything about Tankies, although I can see how offering my observations as a small critique of .ml could be seen as tacitly agreeing with the OP.
First of all, I'm sorry you left ml because of external pressure. That's not right or fair. I guess there's some truth in all the leftist infighting memes.
I agree with practically everything you said, particularly the comparison between 'tankie' and 'woke'. I don't utilize any blocking, though, because I like to be open to all viewpoints.
I hate crawling someone's history, but since you asked I did take a look. It's great to see that kind of content. I should have been more specific, but my .ml observations are older than your history (mainly the run-up to the US election). So, admittedly, I'm a bit guilty of "A lot of assumptions about folks just for being members of .ml" since I haven't been there in months.
I admit it was a general frustration with seeing yet another one of these threads. Thanks for the response!
Edit - also my acct there is older than the election run up unless you are using a very long definition. https://lemmy.ml/u/octopus_ink
Because you became instantly defensive and jumped to a conclusion. I get it. There are a lot of people that are rabidly against ml. I'm offering one small critique based on my observations there. One more time, just to be clear, I saw a ton of anti-Biden/Harris chatter and practically zero anti-Trump. This does not mean ml is pro-Trump. I am not claiming and never claimed ml is pro-Trump. I'm not saying that I saw pro-Trump content. It was just this weird black hole of direct criticism surrounding him. Now, this was all in the lead up to the US election, so I'm happy to see that perhaps this has changed (based on your links).
Sorry, I thought it was fairly obvious. I was speaking about specific anti-Biden/Harris vs anti-Trump content. You tried to generalize it back to puppy murder. Those two things are not equivalent. Let's ditch the analogy. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it's good enough to criticize the bad actions the US is taking without having to denounce each and every bad actor and I mostly agree. What I'm saying is I saw specific (well-deserved) criticisms of, for example, how terrible Harris would for Palestine, but most brushed aside comments about how bad Trump would be. I saw people trying to get commentors to say one bad thing about Trump and they just wouldn't do it. I mean, at that point, it's dance monkey dance so I can understand how they would dig in their heels.
I really wanted to like it there and I think I'll give it another shot. It just seemed, at least during the election, the point was more to destabilize than to actually further leftist ideals.
I don't have a lot of patience for this style of communication. If you have something to say, say it. You're just accusing us of shit while dancing around it and acting all "Who, me? Why, I would never suggest such a thing," while plainly suggesting it. The accusation that you're trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability. So stop trying to split hairs and pretend that you're not accusing us of being pro-Trump and say it to my face.
The analogy is valid, so no, let's not.
No, this isn't what I'm saying. Please read what I said again.
What I'm saying is that our opposition to Trump is already understood so there's not really a lot of reason to just reiterate it over and over, with everyone agreeing with each other. That's not how discourse works. Uncontroversial, mutually understood points are boring and unnecessary to repeat.
We do, of course, denounce Trump. You know, when it comes up. The same way, if you ask me if grass is green, I'll tell you yes, but I'm not just going to walk up to you and go, "Hello, grass is green." I assume that since that analogy doesn't help your conclusion, it's a "false equivalence" and you'll say we should "just ditch it."
Did you now? I'd love to see a link to that. My standard is, "If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying."
I'm not sure how I can be more clear. I will try a more direct, succinct approach. I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU (OR ML) OF BEING PRO-TRUMP. I'm saying I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election RELATIVE to the anti-Harris rhetoric. That is all. Lack of "anti" sentiment DOES NOT EQUAL "pro" sentiment.
Apologies for misrepresenting you. That's why I tried to remove the imperfect analogy and talk actual facts.
That's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. What I don't understand, then, is that MLs opposition to Biden and Harris were also understood, yet it was reiterated again and again.
Being able to remember exactly which approximately 7 month old post it was and dredge up the exact comment is a tall order. I don't bookmark this stuff to use as gotchas months later. It probably involved a couple of you big dogs like brain or flyingsquid.
This has all gotten wildly off base, though. This is my only claim: In the run-up to the US election, I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election relative to the anti-Harris rhetoric. It was extremely frustrating then as those of us that had to deal with his first term saw the danger and now as I have to deal with these fascists dismantling my country.
Now, you can claim I'm full of shit, that I'm wrong, that there was exactly as much anti-Trump rhetoric as anti-Biden/Harris, that I moved the goalposts by not initially stating this was months ago (fair), but that is what I saw and why I left. Obviously, .world has it's own issues, but I've spent entirely too long on this site already.
Edit: I just reread this part and should address it.
You're correct. I've posited a couple theories trying to make sense of the imbalance of critiques and that is one of them. I have no proof of that and should just stick to the facts. Thanks for pointing that out.
This is such an arbitrary distinction that it's not worth acknowledging. Your accusation is that we showed preferential treatment towards Trump, that we were pro-Trump relative to Kamala, that we preferred Trump over Kamala. That is what I mean when I say, "Pro-Trump."
Because while it was understood, there were a lot of people who did not agree.
The general argument happening all over the place was whether Kamala was significantly better than Trump to the point of being worth voting for. Those who said she was focused on how bad Trump was in order to convince people of their thesis, those who said she wasn't focused more on how bad Kamala was in order to prove their thesis. Naturally. Is that really so hard to understand?
If my position is that candidates X and Y are both unacceptable, and a bunch of people are trying to convince me to vote for candidate X, then naturally they're going to focus on criticizing candidate Y to show how much worse they are, and I'm going to focus on criticizing candidate X to show why I don't like either of them. That in no way implies that I support candidate Y, and if a bunch of people tried to convince me to support candidate Y, I'd change the focus of my criticism to that candidate instead.
Then it didn't happen.