cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/72685299
I discovered this after upgrading our instance yesterday, which also upgraded all frontends to their latest versions as well. After I did, our Tesseract frontend stopped working and I noticed immediately as it’s been my primary for a while. Initially I thought it was an API version mismatch, but no, it was much worse.
Someone pointed out that the developer of the frontend added an explicit hidden and unmodifiably blacklist which includes any and all instances to the left of Kissinger. There’s a commit which also explains their specious reasoning about our instance specifically, as it seems we’ve been on their shit list for a bit longer than that.
This instance and its admin staff encourages identity politics, groupthink, mob mentality, and extremist solutions to societal problems. Users who advocate violence are not moderated so long as the admins agree with the target. Caution and critical thinking are advised when interacting with this instance or its users.
When you use tesseract to connect to one blacklisted such instance , you just get a message informing you that Tesseract is “incompatible with that instance” which leads one to think of a technical issue, like an API mismatch, rather than the dev being an opinionated coward.
Isn’t it funny how all the software developed by turbolibs, like Piefed and Tesseract, end up with hidden control mechanisms from developers who think they know better than everyone else? That they don’t just think they deserve to tell you what you should think, but they should manipulate you to think it? Isn’t it funny how libs go on about how bad it is to support lemmy due to the ideology of the devs behind it, and yet lemmy has 0 opinions as a software? It does make one think…
Anyway, I forked - it as one does - and disabled the blacklist, but since this is a massively ideologically compromised software, I’ll doubt I’ll keep this frontend up after Lemmy 1.0. I think we’ll bring up mlmym again now that someone’s maintaining it again.
The definition you gave is an attempt to understand a colloquially used term that has expanded from it’s original conception, as a term used against British communists that supported the suppression of the Hungarian counter-revolution. Saying tankies are “authleft” is an utterly meaningless term, considering “authoritarian left” is a horrendously ill-defined term in and of itself.
The definition I gave is objective, if someone supports the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba, former USSR, they are almost certainly going to be called a tankie at some point. It’s a clear, objective measure of whether or not someone will be considered a tankie by those who take the term seriously.
I don’t think your crashout accusing me of being illiterate is going to help your point at all, anyone can clearly tell that I’m not illiterate nor stupid.
That’s not a definition though. That’s just an incidental claim. It might be true that, “Anyone who likes Trump will be called a fascist,” but that’s obviously not what a fascist is.
You’re playing silly buggers with this game and I don’t see the point. Just to piss someone off?
Not trying to piss anyone off, the category of “tankie” is occupied by people that defend socialist states. That’s it, in practice. Nebulous conceptions do not actually describe the group we are talking about, while support for existing socialism absolutely does.
It’s also just the correct one.
Lol, you’re just upset that you’re in it and don’t want us to have an easy way to point and laugh at you. It’s not at all hard to anyone not a moron: it’s people with leftists beliefs who act authoritarian.
-ly wrong.
Cute that you’d think that when you’re obviously incapable of basic reading comprehension.
I don’t see where you’re going with this crashout, as much as you say you are “objectively correct” you still haven’t explained why you believe it’s a better definition than what I gave.
What does it mean to “act authoritarian?” Tell me in an objective way.
So now you just wanna forget where I defined it for you despite you bitching in your last comment about my definition?
Retard being retarded, oof
I know how you defined it, I just wanted to know why you think it’s a better definition despite yours being more subjective and incomplete. Being misogynistic and ableist isn’t a substitution for a point.