search: Cowbee MaghrebiLenin Awoo Guamer LadyCajAsca Flyswat Anarcho-Bolshevik NephewAlphaBravo FunkyStuff Weedian
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
55 points (87.7% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
2015 readers
156 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're kinda proving my point. Whether or not Hamas is antisemitic says absolutely nothing about whether the symbol is.
Let's create our own reality where symbols mean something else so we can demonize the people we hate better! Yay, now we've reached tankie-levels of campism.
... if the symbol has an immediate and visceral connection to historical antisemitism, is used by an antisemitic group, and has little history of use before its use against an enemy perceived as Jewish...
... what exactly do you think the symbol is, if not antisemitic?
This is basic dogwhistle shit. Next will you tell me the iron cross has a history outside of Nazism, so neonazis and their supporters using it means nothing, actually?
No, this is examining context and usage to determine that it is most likely a symbol used by antisemites with antisemitic reasons in an antisemitic context, despite the attempts of other people to adopt the symbol - as used by antisemites, for antisemitic reasons - for non-antisemitic reasons. And, considering that the symbol has been used in real-world attacks on non-Israeli Jews, and that many of the people we're discussing - campist fuckwits - are openly on the record as being pro-ethnic cleansing of Jewish people, specifically, from a one-state solution in the region, I don't really think that "This symbol isn't antisemitic!" holds much water.
Not really. The Nazis had symbols for Jews, this symbol was used for various non-Jewish prisoners as well. And it was used for prisoners, not targets.
And then you just repeated your same argument that Hamas is antisemitic and they use the symbol so it's antisemitic.
And then you add a new argument: that tankies use the symbol and they are pro-ethnic cleansing which is the same as being antisemitic (it isn't) so the symbol is antisemitic
But there's also plenty of people who aren't antisemitic who use the symbol.
Sorry it just doesn't convince me. The symbol may be problematic since it's often used to designate targets, but this connection to the holocaust is just not accurate.
Anyway I don't rlly care that much, I don't use the symbol nor do I like it, I just got triggered by blatant misinformation. Sorry for getting all heated.
And?
"The Holocaust deniers use a symbol from the Holocaust to mark people they characterize as Jews for death"
If it were any other antisemitic group, would you be bending backwards to accommodate their introduction of such a symbol?
"It's not antisemitic to want to ethnically cleanse Jews from a region!"
Holy fucking shit, are you being serious?
Which has all the validity of anti-capitalists deciding to use the swastika in honor of the Strasserists, whilst insisting that they aren't onboard with the whole antisemitism thing, just the anti-capitalism.
I note again
"The Holocaust deniers use a symbol from the Holocaust to mark people they characterize as Jews for death"
Christ, it's like talking to a conservative claiming that MAGA merch being sold for $14.88 means nothing.
Pug can you chill out and try to understand me here? You don't have to agree but no need to argue in bad faith.
I'm not defending Hamas introducing the symbol. I'm defending the many protestors using this symbol as a symbol of resistance, not for their use of the symbol, but against the accusation of antisemitism.
Largely what I see is that tankies want to ethnically cleanse Israelis from the area, not Jews. Your experience may differ, let me know. That doesn't make it okay, but the difference is rather important when discussing antisemitism. Surely you wouldn't equate Israelis with Jews either.
Is it too much to ask for you to see some nuance in this? Wikipedia directly refutes the claims that you and the other person are making, and has a reference. If you provide some evidence to the contrary I'm happy to change my mind.
Being irritable is not 'arguing in bad faith', and I'd thank you not to play fucking tone police when discussing defending ethnic fucking cleansing and antisemitism.
Again, how does that differ from the Strasserist "anti-capitalism" comparison I made? "Yes, I know these people introduced this symbol for most-likely horrific reasons that I (supposedly) don't agree with, but I'm going to use it and I expect you to regard it as legitimate and wholesome"
Jesus fucking Christ, are you being serious here?
Campist fuckwits aren't calling for Arab citizens of Israel to be ethnically cleansed; and even if they were, that holds about as much fucking water as the Trump administration crying "It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban on countries that are majority Muslim 😭" Most Israelis are Jews because Israel's primary form of growth was through the invitation of Jewish immigrants. If I said "I'm not anti-Muslim, I just want all of those filthy Bosniaks out of my good Yugoslavia", would that pass muster with you? Would you say, "Oh, you're just advocating ethnic cleansing of an unrelated group for unrelated reason, definitely nothing to do with anti-Muslim sentiment! 😊"?
It's fucking insane how much you bend over for shit that, rightfully, would not fucking fly in any other context. Israel is a horrific ethnonationalist state; that doesn't mean you have to play fucking defense for ethnic cleansing because they're fucking bad camp.
The only 'refutation' that the Wiki article provides is that the red triangle, used horizontally on the flag as a representation of Arab unity dates back to the early 20th century.
For some reason, a group of Holocaust deniers introducing the use of an inverted red triangle as an independent element to mark Jewish identified targets (not Arabs) seems a bit distinct from that.
I'm not defending ethnic cleansing. That's what I mean with arguing in bad faith, I'm not policing your tone.
I'll say your point abt ethnic cleansing of Israelis actually being thinly veiled antisemitism makes sense I was wrong about that.
All I'm saying is, the modern use of the symbol is not a reference to the symbol used in Nazi concentration camps. Something that is confirmed both by my real life discussions and online research. I'm honestly open to change my mind if you provide a decent source or something. The Wikipedia article I linked only has one source refuting it and maybe my bubble is misinformed.
I'm not defending Israel nor Hamas nor the tankies nor the symbol here I just care way too much about truth
Do you see how "No, it's not actual antisemitism" comes off as playing apologist for ethnic cleansing advocacy?
It's not arguing in bad faith to point out the necessary implications of an argument.
If you follow the source in the Wikipedia article, this is what it has to say:
(note, again, this is in the context of being part of the flag, of being a symbol of Arabs rather than enemy targets, and not an inverted triangle)
... not much of a refutation.
Yes which is why I admitted you're right. Because I'm trying to have a discussion here. You accused me of some pretty vile things long before that already, and willfully misinterpreted my arguments. Rather reminiscent of talking to Cowbee...
... the only accusations I've made in the entirety of this argument are:
"Playing apologist for ethnic cleansing is bad" - a point you've conceded, and thus is not relevant
"Bending over backward to justify an antisemitic group's use of a symbol with antisemitic implications is insane"
"I hate it when people try to fucking play tone police with issues"
What other 'vile things' and misinterpretations are you seeing here?
"All I did was twist your words so I can get all angry and worked up" I'm gonna keep enjoying your posts but I'm never replying to your comments again.
Sounds more like you didn't like the actual implications of your words getting pointed out, especially seeing as you don't have an actual response to the summary of my accusations.