Tankie or MAGA?
Tankie or MAGA?
Seriously they make so many of the same arguments sometimes that I question whether or not .ml isnt a poe instance of some kind.
Despite their claims to the contrary, MAGA and tankies are closely related, in the same way that the most dedicated Nazis in East Germany often became the most dedicated Stalinists.
Both are utterly uninterested in serious discussions of policy; identity is what matters to them. Racial identity to MAGA, class identity to tankies, but both share disinterest in data or results, relying on what is 'intuitive' to their axioms. Ultimately, this is why any minority support from tankies is only 'skin-deep'; it only matters to them insofar as it supports or refutes their class-based axioms.
I think you missed the most crucial similarity which is that they both look to mold their views and actions around those of their leaders without any skepticism. This is what leads to the above traits.
While true once they get their
replacement daddyGreat Leader, in the absence of a suitable leader, they create their own groupthink. Tankies mostly lack leaders, instead passing around bad ideas like an STD; likewise, before Trump, the ultra-reactionaries in the US were more-than-willing to turn on their former leaders and idols for not following the stream-of-consciousness groupthink they'd developed, hence Rubio going from a darling of the Tea Party to a RINO in record time, despite becoming no less cretinous in that time.
Very well put.
Intuitive to their axioms
Nice way of saying they are emotional reactionaries led around by their fee fees.
0 to 100 for no reason. No wonder people are sick of the tankies...
Holy reading comprehension Batman! What a strech to misinterpret things so hard to find something to be offended about.
Edit: I mean the .ml poster in the screenshot. Just cut off half the sentece to make it say something completely different, then get offended at the sentence that didn't actually exist without ignoring the back half. It's some gold medal gymnastics there.
So I'm not fan of the tankie trolls, but I can see this one as valid. Someone could be hired for perfectly legit reasons but still have people think it was a mandate just because they fit one of the protected classes. A comment like this one in the middle could readily imply that they wouldn't be hired if not for a DEI policy. It's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't things, you're going to have people making assumptions on why someone got hired or not, with or without a formal policy.
DEI, or as it used to be called affirmative action, is a tricky thing to balance in the business world. Theoretically a given workspace should resemble the community around it. If the applicant pool doesn't match up to the population though that's really hard to do. So when they ask those demographics questions on the app, in theory it should be that if half your applicants (assuming equal qualifications) are group X and half are group Y then so should your hired staff, regardless of the community makeup.
"we should get rid of DEI because our white employees are too stupid to understand that we don't hire unqualified people."
Did I summarize that properly?
There are no quotas. You don't hire unqualified people. This is still capitalism. No one gets a handout.
But the comment in the middle doesn't imply that they wouldn't have been hired without DEI. It only implies that if you ignore the second half of the sentence, like the .ml poster did.
I can see how it's worded a little awkwardly, but the part after the word hired is not a separate piece.
It's not meaning "beacuse she didn't get the job" it's meaning "because the reason she got the job was not for DEI reasons".
I can tell it's not separate, rephrase it though and you can get "they can think she was a DEI hire, or they could not think of her (not know she exists) because she wasn't hired because of some element of her racial background (in the event that they didn't have a DEI policy)".
I'm not seeing how one can read that differently. Is it supposed to be 'they could think that or they could not think that'? Because while true, that's just assuming people would change their thinking spontaneously.
Edit, I think a lack of punctuation is the problem. Two different reads depending on where you put a comma.
"Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn't hired due to some aspect..."
"Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn't hired, due to some aspect..."
The first comma isn't there in the OOP either way, so mentally putting it in makes sense, the second one completely changes the context though if you mentally insert on there. So I'd call it very awkwardly written, heck I'm not attached to this person and I read it in the second way at first brush. Particularly easy to go that route since 'not think of at all' would make it sound like they're not around to be thought of.
Why do people always assume anything related to DEI means a less qualified candidate?
Because racism, sexism, and stupidity, the latter most being strongly linked to the former.
Isn't this conservative/republican? What's "tankie" about it?
They voted for the party for socialism and liberation (at least according to their comments). So I would think they fit.
Tankies obsession with racism feels like they are 10 years too late to the party that already moved on
