this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
277 points (93.1% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1996 readers
611 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!


Meanwhile On Grad


Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!


What is a Tankie?


Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)


Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia(Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in unrelated arguments.

Brigading — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from voting, commenting or manipulating the post in any way, this includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be permanently banned.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!

And consider donating to individual instances instead.

Check the megathread for more!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 32 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Biased? Yes. They're singing the tune of UK government and whoever pay the bill.

Not credible? As in most of the thing they posted is non-factually correct? Highly doubt it.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

They despise the current government and it shows in their reporting. The BBC are used to getting paid regardless of who is in government, and have been almost overtly right leaning for years now. They're currently headed by a former conservative political candidate. Laura Kuennsberg has had more accusations of bias levied against her than is normal for someone who's job is quite literally to be politically unbiased.

Flick on to BBC News 24 and watch some of their coverage of Charlie Kirk. The final nails are firmly in that coffin.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And again, this only pointed BBC being bias in favour of israel.

And again, let's not mixed up "bias" with "credibility".

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

bias in favour of israel.

It's much worse than this, the article explains it pretty well. If BBC management decides to inject political spin on the topic of Palestine, why wouldn't they do it on another topic as well? That is why they lose credibility in some people's eyes.

[–] hatorade@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"Well they omit truths and lie, so they can't be that bad!"

[–] fort_burp@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

They are biased towards saying things that are untrue, but they are still credible!

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 days ago

I'm not gonna further argue with that, that is bias issue and not credibility issue. That's all. If you guys want to single out that one issue and purposefully mix credibility with bias, so be it.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

No false reporting by repeating false Israel claims.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What about the things they don't post? If they don't post what's really happening in Gaza but post Israel's statements about it that would be factually correct but would you call them a credible source for what's happening in Gaza?

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I will not trust them on israel/palestine conflict, yes, because it's extremely biased in favour of israel, but credibility is about the thing they posted, not on thing they omitted. That's why i said they're biased.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

That makes sense, so credibility is that they don't edit/lie what they report in an instance, and if their reports as a whole don't present the whole picture, it's bias?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You cannot just ignore that single topic knowing they are lying about it. Facts are facts. Lies are lies. A genocide is not a small lie to gloss over

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You cannot focus on that single topic knowing they're bias about it, and then paint them as not credible for all the news.

Again, let's not mix up "bias" and "credible".

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

What about the things they don’t post?

That's the bias vs credibility distinction. Credible = you expect what they say to be factual. Unbiased = you expect them not to favor one side in their reporting. Credible and unbiased should report everything they find that's true, regardless of side in an issue. Credible and biased would underreport one side. Incredible and biased might just make shit up on both sides. Incredible and unbiased is more like a satire website or just incompetent reporters.