Permanently Deleted
Its almost as if the Ukranians hated the Soviets and wanted to free themselves of Russian oppression........sure signing up with the SS wasn't the most optimal way to do that, but honestly can they be blamed?
Liberals hate socialists more than they hate fascists
the ukranians
ah yes, the ukranians as a whole with their unified ideology. how many ukrainians were in the red army compared to Literally The SS?
It's important to note that
was Ukrainian and that she defeated more than 300 V*ushites in the marketplace of ideas, using her honed argumentum ad MosinAnd yet, where is her statue?
Probably turned into a Mrs. Butterworth or something
oh fuck, that reminded me of the statue of Lenin that they turned into Darth Vader
Perfect intersection of Disney Lib Cringe with Fascist anti-communism
It's probably a crime to put up a statue of Pavlichenko under the anti-communist laws propagating in Eastern Europe.
7 million Ukrainian SSR citizens fought in Red Army, and who knows how many partisans.
Compared to around 250000 in various collaboration formations.
Looks like pretty democratic conclusion who was the traitor back then.
Actually the 7 million were all brainwashed by secret commie mind magic so they don't count.
also the Jewish people living in Ukraine that they massacred were Ukrainian
Very clear that they literally don't view Jews and Poles living there as Ukrainian.
your honor, my client hates Russians, so can he really be blamed for murdering hundreds of Jewish people?
but honestly can they be blamed?
Yeah actually they can, you're signing up with an SS brigade full of fucking nazis you bird brain.
this one HOLY shit
We'd write that as a joke, a strawman of what they think
Signing up for the SS actually was the most optimal way to defeat the soviets. Fascism is rational, it is the most effective tool to destroy communism. Once these radlibs figure this out, most of them will become full throated fascists
Less "become" and more "the fascist inside them will finally shed its lib disguise"
Well yeah. How often do you hear "the nazis were bad but so were the communists" or even "Hitler killed x amount of people but Mao killed 2x amount of people"? The obvious conclusion for them is to hail Hitler.
Ukraine and the Baltics are easily the most cuck nations on Earth
The Ukraine SSR was literally created by the Soviets! The Banderite Ukrainian nationalists were ethno-supremacists which is why they wanted to claim Poland so bad! These people don't know anything!
Yeah, one of the Banderite's issues was that there were too many non-Ukrainians in Ukraine. And since "Ukrainian" as an ethno-nationalist identity was on even sketchier grounds than most entho-nationalist phrenological bullshit that was most of the people in the Ukrainian SSR.
Borrowing from someone else:
Libs in 2017: We need to fight back this widely prevalent fascism. Punch every fascist you see!
Libs in 2023: Actually, being the Waffen SS doesn't necessarily make someone a fascist.
Amazing what a bit of anti-imperialism damaging their empire will do to a lib
I cannot fucking believe we have actually arrived at "not all waffen ss men".
Jesus fucking christ this is a nightmare.
They moved from ironic Anarcho-NATOism to openly supporting NATO to running defence for literal Nazis so fast that I'm pretty sure they have all aged less than the rest of us due to experiencing time dilation.
Anarcho-Bidenism was kind of framed as irony but they always actually meant it.
Like, it was ironic. It was. But the irony was the anarcho part all along.
They weren’t ironically supporting Biden and NATO, they really were doing that and they were smirking at how they were calling themselves anarchists while supporting Biden and NATO because even those fucking morons realized how incompatible those positions are.
But somehow in this 4chan style post post post modernism that online millennials and zoomers have created all that mattered to them was that the irony was there. They didn’t probe what the irony was, somehow they’re just content with the irony being there. That’s where the thought process terminates.
Someone tell me a German philosopher who can help me understand this phenomenon?
I don’t fucking get it. I can see what it is but I don’t fucking get it.
If a bit falls flat in the forum, and no-one is around to downbear, is it still a joke?
The precursor to this was the "not all Wehrmacht" crap. Not surprising this is the next step in libs normalizing fascism again.
a dude got banned on here a while back for pulling that “clean Wehrmach” nazi shit about literal concentration camp guards. he had like a 2 year old account. rest in piss you bozo.
Their hatred for communists aligned with Hitler's, hence why they signed up.
Yeah, its not like Stalin didn't do a little genocide against them previously, no no.
Funny how often libs' claims about the Soviet famine of 30-33 are used to engage in Nazi apologia... starting to wonder if that's the whole reason they keep making them
"didn't do any Nazi shit"
Foreign SS (or adjacent) units are probably done "more shit" than the german SS unit because they recruited the locals to do the jobs that even the German SS find it too repulsive to do because counter insurrection and anti-partisan is mostly civilian terrorizing (to put it mildly). You can ask the Balkans about their Nazi collaboes and how even the Waffen SS are like "bro chill".
Fun fact: some of them also ended up in Canada
to do the jobs that even the German SS find it too repulsive to do because counter insurrection and anti-partisan is mostly civilian terrorizing
the regular ss did not have an issue with civilian terrorizing it was more that they couldn't fit as much as they wanted to do into their schedules
Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party is great research on exactly this.
Vaushites are pedophiles and white nationalists, so dipping their toes into neo-nazism isn't surprising, they're 4channers who were alienated by the Trump phenomenon, so they latched on to "leftist" aesthetics to distinguish themselves from other chuds
Vaushites are defined by a suburban "middle-class" malaise, so anti-communist neurosis, racism, establishment and militarized psychopathic mindsets are common
Fuck em
they latched on to "leftist" aesthetics to distinguish themselves from other chuds
LeftyPol: not even once.
without checking i'm pretty sure leftypol hate vaush. they're basically us but more ableist
they're basically us but more ableist
very accurate description of both leftypol and trueanon subreddit, and I lurk regularly in both. Cool people, just need to clean up their acts a bit
Its not like Trueanon itself is particularly great on that front. But if we can be more left wing then our podcast so can they.
What I find low-key hilarious is that Brace is very clearly undiagnosed ADHD, or at least he's not open about being diagnosed ADHD, and yet he loves to sneer at people who are neurodivergent.
Bruh. You are neurodivergent af. Internalised ableism really hits different.
(I know, I know... it's not my business to go armchair diagnosing people based on their media presence and all of that but I'm breaking policy here because once you've heard all about Brace's quirks and personality traits it paints a very clear picture of what's going on with him.)
Yeah it would explain a lot. I wish someone had told me "I think you might have ADHD" when I was younger. I was a grown ass man going around thinking "I am completely neuroptypical", ignoring all the signs being glaringly obvious, and making fun of "spergs", who I definitely totally didn't understand (most of my friends at any given time).
Ironically it was a coworker who had been diagnosed in his 30s and had since experienced his life drastically improving, who approached me. He told me I should get tested, but I was extremely skeptical. He then proceeded to nail me to the fucking wall by listing all the strange behaviors he'd observed, including shit I was shit doing while he was talking to me
In hindsight, it was extremely obvious. But it's so easy to chalk up to personal quirks and the default assumption is neuroptypical. Especially if you're over a certain age or part of an underserved group who didn't have access to mental health services.
He then proceeded to nail me to the fucking wall by listing all the strange behaviors he'd observed, including shit I was shit doing while he was talking to me
Holy shit, that's a bit rough.
I'm late diagnosed autistic and ADHD, and whenever I have someone around me realise that they're neurodivergent I always insist that they be gentle with the people around them who are (suddenly) glaringly obviously neurodivergent themselves.
When I'm around undiagnosed neurodivergent people it just so happens that I often share reflections on my own realisations or my own behaviours which are relevant to what's going on for that undiagnosed ND person and they will either say something like "Shit, I do that too..." or they will be silently thinking it in their heads. Obviously I let them work through it on their own time but, to be honest with you, sometimes it takes a lot of effort not to lock eyes with them while deliberately nodding my head up and down slowly.
You have to go easy on people because being late-diagnosed can really feel like the rug is being pulled from under you.
In hindsight, it was extremely obvious. But it's so easy to chalk up to personal quirks and the default assumption is neuroptypical. Especially if you're over a certain age or part of an underserved group who didn't have access to mental health services.
The worst bit of this is when you're diagnosed at 30+, you ask your parents if they saw the signs or if you were a "good kid" and they're like "oh yeah you were hyperactive as shit lmao"
Brace is very clearly on the spectrum & I’m saying this as someone who is also AuDHD. It’s part of what makes him so fucking powerful & intense. His special interests are socialism & conspiracy theories.
They're problematic in a few other ways too. Case in point: overzealous Russia supporters in the /ukraine/ general thread are often called "z*ggers".
okay more ableist, racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and uglier, if i'm bein quite honest
My grandpa was a tower guard at Auschwitz. Yes he volunteered for the position, but he didn’t do any Nazi shit. He never shot anyone, gassed anyone, talked to anyone, or touch anyone. He just had his scope on any jew walking around the yard. He never committed a single war crime.
The Soviet Red Army made sure they met many when they liberated the camps.
molotov-ribbentrop pact: see? those soviets are just like nazis
literally fighting for the nazis: ummmmm they didn't really do nazi stuff..... honestly can you blame them tho
Poland helping Nazis carve Czechoslovakia: whatever
USSR invading Poland after the Nazis did: Never forget
Ukraine joining Nazis to fight USSR: whatever
Hmmm it seems the common denominator is that Russia bad and nothing else
It's not even Czechlosovakia. The Nazis murdered six million Polish citizens and modern Polish fascists are red, mad, and nude that the Soviets stopped them. Half the time it sounds like they would have let Hitler exterminate the entire Polish ethnicity as long as he let them finish off all Polish Jews first. They weigh 40k people killed at Katyn more heavily than the Nazi's murder of 3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews. It's absolutely unhinged, ethnonationalism contorting the world in to an utterly bizarre fever dream of frothing ideological hatred.
This is something that kind of fucks me about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. There were no death camps in Soviet areas of Poland. Didn't this famous "Supervillain Team-up" (in the eyes of liberals) actually save a ton of Jewish people? Would liberals rather the Nazis have taken all of Poland, with the expanded Holocaust that would lead to?
"Would you rather the nazi's have taken all of Poland?" is a point liberals cannot understand. "I'd rather the nazi's have taken none of Poland" yeah, okay, but that's not how they work, so the question comes back to "would you rather they took all of it?"
A video covering Trotsky from a YouTuber who covers dark chapters in history just dropped and some lib was like "I think if Trotsky was in power instead of Stalin that the USSR would have stopped the Nazis earlier"
Bruh. You're really out here claiming that Stalin didn't press the Stop Nazis button early enough?
These clowns have zero grasp of material conditions. Trying to stop the Nazis from taking all of Poland would have been cause for war almost certainly. Attempting to stop the Nazis earlier would have undoubtedly been the defeat of the USSR because, in all honesty, they just barely scraped it in at the last minute and going too hard too soon would have been to their demise.
These are the people who complain that the USSR didn't help the Spanish Republic "enough", despite being just about the only country to provide any significant military aid to the Republic. (Strange how their criticisms of the socialist USSR never seem to stretch far enough to reach the so-called socialist Leon Blum [in effect he was just another example of milquetoast SocDem failsons] and his government who not only refused to provide aid to the Spanish Republic but also refused to enforce the terms of the non-aggression pact to which they were signatories to along with the Nazis and the Italian fascists [to the point where an Italian diplomat openly declared to Blum that there was an Italian regiment operating in Spain and that it "would not be removed under any circumstances"]); the Spanish Civil War was prelude to WWII and the USSR absolutely could not afford for a "national" conflict (putting aside the international involvement and the major influence of Morocco on the war for a vain attempt at brevity here) to spill out into a regional European war or, worse yet, to spiral out into another world war at that time.
They just don't seem to grasp how dire the situation was for the USSR, how close a call it was during WWII, and yet they'll denounce the USSR for ruthlessly sending troops to the slaughter on the frontlines in WWII "with one rifle between two soldiers", without a single moment to consider that an earlier engagement in WWII for the USSR would have meant a far greater death toll because they would have been even more underequipped and less technologically advanced.
These people treat history like dilettantes. They fancy themselves as main characters and they project this attitude back out over history, with all the benefits of hindsight, and they armchair quarterback so they can put on airs of being some sort of historical and geopolitical hotshot.
they'll denounce the USSR for ruthlessly sending troops to the slaughter on the frontlines in WWII "with one rifle between two soldiers"
Which, I cannot stress this enough, never happened and is anti-Soviet propaganda dreamed up post-war. Things were pretty fucking bad but it was never so bad that they didn't have crates and crates of Mosins to hand out.
All the benefits of hindsight without any of the practical application when it comes to current events. "It's obvious this was going to happen" yeah, what were the events that happened prior to the topic of discussion, and how does that relate to it being an inevitablility? Nothing happens in a vacuum, explain how we got here.
What gets me is that these people think that it's just obvious how history was always going to play out (it really isn't) but the also have a tendency to think that some small intervention or minor adjustment would dramatically change the course of world history (most of the time it probably wouldn't have.)
It's a weird sort of doublethink where they believe that history is just so but at the same time they believe that it's also extremely mutable.
I guess that's what zero materialism does to an MFer.
I think it has to do with the drive of needing both the "right" answer and also the "easy" answer. People like us don't derive any pleasure from conclusions such as this, because as we know, history does not particularly enjoy "right" or "easy". That's why we tend to get bogged down into the details, because there's so much nuance in basic historical issues.
I know for myself, I always find myself browsing through obscure historical facts for all hours of the day, because some of them may be relevant to stuff i might be asked. And constantly struggle with my knowledge, because i don't have all of the pieces to a puzzle, i don't feel qualified to respond. I think this is another reason why i have no debate bro tendencies, because i hate walking into situations that i'm not prepared for.
Trotsky couldn't even be arsed to fully give public support to Czechoslovakia forming an alliance with the USSR. He would rather it fall than be saved if it would mean Stalin would look good
to be fair there is definitely a case to be made that Trotsky's permanent revolution would have involved arming Rosa Luxemburg and fighting the nazis before they took over Germany. But this is in the realm of alternate history
That's just ahistorical. Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution was not clearly defined till later, but more importantly, the Bolsheviks did attempt to assist the Spartakus League. Despite negotiating it, Trotsky had been opposed to Brest-Litovsk which created the conditions for a lot of demobilized soldiers as well as Germany focusing on a spring offensive westward now that they had no eastern front. An offensive that caused more discontent in the German people and soldiers and led to the revolution.
When Germany did revolt, it was premature and had various flaws, not helped at all by the fact that the expectation of simultaneous revolutions across developed Europe didn't happen. The permanent revolution required everyone to be on the same page and level of capitalist development leading to a purely class based revolution.
That wasn't reality though. By spring 1919 the major revolutionary outbreaks had been put down. The Soviets had no time or means to actually assist Rosa, and a lack of arms was not really the problem in the first place. The Soviets had no direct means of helping, at this time they had been struggling with Poland invading western Ukraine, the Bolsheviks in the rest of Ukraine being thrown back by a German occupation and then puppet government, and a bunch of other issues. By the time the move was made to spread westward most revolutions had been destroyed, and pushing the war with Poland after its invasion of Kiev proved wasteful.
It's like saying there is a case to be made that they could've assisted the Battle of Blair Mountain.
No I'm just saying it is a coherent belief someone might have not that I agree with it. I also don't think there's much point in talking about what Trotsky might have done because he didn't.
Let the dead bury the dead the living are where the action is
yeah and it's important to understand the past but what might have happened if history in some way changed is not a worthwhile question
Much like their position that Ukraine is perfectly willing to negotiate peace terms, but first Russia has to completely withdraw from Donbass and Crimea. Just a complete disconnect from reality.
"Just withdraw!"
They're fully entrenched, they're not going to. Now what.
socialist Leon Blum
"Crimea is a strategically important warm water port and Russia will never relinquish it" might as well be Martian to them. There was a line on the map and that is literally the only consideration that matters. Try to tell them that Crimea wasn't invaded because the entire Black Sea Fleet was already there when the coup government took over is like trying to teach calculus to macaques.
I know a Pole who solemnly marks the day Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed as the darkest day in Polish history because that was the day the Soviets invaded. They also legitimately believe the Soviets were so bad that they only consider the end of WW2 to be the day the Soviets left in the 80s or whenever it was.
There are few people as absolutely unhinged in their hatred of Russians than Poles.
It's so bizarre. The Soviets are very literally the primary reason a Polish ethnicity still exists. The Nazis would have exterminated them. And preventing that is the greatest crime in human history according to fascists in Poland.
Just terrible optics
That's the issue liberals have with celebrating WW2 nazi soldiers, the "impression" that other people will have of them, jesus christ.
Nobody's forcing you to go on that subreddit, please, stop exposing yourself to this.
im stuck in a maoist cult that keeps saying it's "bad vibes" to order doordashed vegan dunks from "lemmyverse slaves" with my hexbear gold rewards card
yeah I'm pretty tired of hearing about Reddit in general.. i stopped going to that site for a reason
This is the dunk tank. The point is for gathering and exposing and laughing at bad takes. Wherever they may be.
oops lol i didn't realize which, uh... sublemmy? this was
Nazism understander has logged on:
tldr: They signed on just to liberate themselves from soviet oppression and they weren't doing it out of love for nazi ideology.
"They did a Nazism but according to my headcanon they did it reluctantly so that makes it okay, guize!"
How does that poser explain the genocide against tens or hundreds of thousand of people assigned to be non Ukrainians? Polish people as example. Genociding them or Jews, Roma* Sinti*, LGBT* does sound very much like Fascist ideologies.
Giving into the oppressive Soviet demand to not commit genocide would mean communism had won.
holy shit the Ukrainian SS literally murdered entire villages of Jewish people. their warcrimes are documented at length. this isn’t forbidden knowledge
This highlights to me more and more that we probably need to be involving ourselves in a massive and organised way in natopedia editing.
Almost everything these people know about the world is learned from natopedia. When they don't know anything about a topic the very first thing they read on that topic is a wiki article on it, they accept it at face value and do extremely little further research under the false assumption that wikipedia editors are a check and balance against one another for bias or incorrectness.
Half of their worldview is derived from it.
This highlights to me more and more that we probably need to be involving ourselves in a massive and organised way in natopedia editing.
We're at least 15 years too late for that. Feds have full-time jobs as Wikipedia editors. All that rules-lawyering bullshit is either something that heavily advantages full-time jobs editors who get paid to memorize those rules or something completely conceived by them in the first place. Plus, I think Jimbo Wales or some Wikipedia higher-up has fed connections, so there's that as well.
At this point, it's better to start a campaign that discredits Wikpedia as a source rather than attempt to change it from within. If you go to /r/askhistorians, they constantly shit on Wikipedia, so it's not just those tankie commies who don't like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has always sucked for anything not related to the hard sciences, and even for that, there's plenty that it gets wrong.
Just call people who link Wikipedia a pseud who doesn't know how to read books.
I don't see how a wikipedia discrediting campaign is going to achieve much. People have discredited wikipedia ever since it started. I recall even teachers in schools discrediting wikipedia. None of it sticks.
Then I guess we're stuck with Wikipedia as an anti-communist weapon because once the rules-lawyering culture was set around the late 00s, it left the door wide open for government agents who can afford to memorize and eventually expand upon Wikipedia's byzantine rules and bylaws. It would be interesting to see whether the non-English Wikipedias have the same rules-lawyering culture although linking Spanish Wikipedia articles to English-speakers isn't going to work for obvious reasons.
I'm just extremely jaded about Wikipedia at this point having been enthusiastic about it during the late 00s. As soon as we even attempt to correct some article, they will reflexively throw some bullshit rules violation that's complete bullshit even by rules-lawyering standards and when we go "aktually, this is a bullshit rules violation even by rules-lawyering standards good sir," they'll throw the real rules violation that we would have to fight over. Now don't get me wrong, it can be done, but it's going to take an extraordinary amount of effort to memorize those rules and bylaws and know the major edit wars and administrative decisions which those rules and bylaws were invoked. We would also have to know how Wikipedia functions as an administrative body as well as suck up to some poweruser or admin because just like real life, a lot of law violations and bureaucratic red tape get overlooked if you know the right people. In short, we would have to become some bureaucratic lawyer, which makes sense why feds have infiltrated Wikipedia since feds are already government bureaucrats irl.
Here's a Wired article about the Herculean effort an editor had to take to undo the deception peddled by cryptofascists on articles related to WWII. She spend half a year fighting against some Aussie cryptofascist over an article about some shitty Nazi medal. She essentially won because she knew to play the rules-lawyering game and for not being a lying cryptofascist. But going up against the NATO consensus is far more difficult than streamrolling a bunch of loser cryptofascists. Just look at the list of reliable sources. RFA and VOA both get listed as reliable sources.
Here's some of the discussion on whether to consider RFA as reliable sources:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#Radio_Free_Asia
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Reliability_of_Radio_Free_Asia
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Views_on_International_Campaign_for_Tibet,_UNESCO,_Tibet_Post_International/The_Tibet_Post,_Tibet_Watch,_Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization,_Free_Tibet,_Radio_Free_Asia
At bare minimum, we would have to speak Wikipedian, which means we would have memorize everything here as well as know when to invoke them:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Principles
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essays
And this is just the front face of Wikipedia. Like government institutions, there's the law and SOP, and there's how things are really done. I do not know which policies and guidelines are de facto ignored and which essays are de facto enforced.
if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground.
They bolded this. They think this is a good point.
Enhancing the credibility of RFA rather than diminishing the credibility of NYT
-
it was always obvious to everyone else, though, that wikipedia does a fine job of interpreting the sources
Read an article on the PRC and this idea falls apart
I don't think vandalism will do it and any concerted attempt to do so would inevitably be discovered and only reinforce people's support for it.
I think a pertinent detail here is that Wikipedia operates by community consensus (except when admins say "fuck you") meaning that, like real-life democracy, it is very in favor of organized groups that have people spending time evaluating and advocating for things who can consistently vote as a bloc in favor of certain positions wherever and whenever such things are relevant. Most people have lives and thereby cannot participate on this level.
The people who devote their lives to editing NATOpedia would never allow any non-Western viewpoints in articles. Just look at the discussion page for the Azov article where they say they aren't Nazis and Radio Free Europe is a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Brigade
The people who devote their lives to editing NATOpedia would never allow any non-Western viewpoints in articles.
They get paid. You're fighting against people who get paid to sit on their asses all day editing Wikipedia articles and rules-lawyering people to block their edits.
Nah it won't work. We don't have editorial control there and any based commie views will get assimilated and mutilated beyond recognition into pro-NATO final outcomes. If we somehow did take over control of NATOpedia through some kind of admin coup (the only way our changes would stick) then the vaushites and radlibs will say "this is a tankie site now" and find another western propaganda slop tube to suck on. They are chauvinists, they like the taste of the western slopaganda - they will seek it out. They aren't reactionary imperialists because they read some imperialist media, it's the other way around. They are imperialists and they seek out slop to confirm their views.
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/#the-bourgeois-proletariat , is that what you're quoting from?
Paraphrasing you mean? I've read it in the past, but the general sentiment is widespread and true. Americans, by in large, benefit from imperialism and like it. They aren't "duped" into being imperialists, it's in their material interest to be imperialists. If anything, our task is to "dupe" them into being socialists because their quality of life is gonna take a short term hit unless they are poor as hell and in the bottom quartile
If I was drafting a strategy for this, I'd suggest:
-
Get a pool of people who have nitpicky expertise in non-political subjects
-
Share potential edits among the group, splitting them up into tiny edits instead of big article refactors. Spread them out among members and time. Use a bug tracking system or something
-
Start mixing in politically sensitive corrections after a given account has been around for a month. Use the same time/person spreading strategies
-
Confront pushback with sources, requests for citation, and as much legalistic paperwork as possible. Be as bland as possible. Pretend you don't understand why the other person isn't reading your sources. Be repetitive and boring in the talk pages until someone snaps, then give them another round of repetitive and boring before calling for administrators.
-
Never touch the hot button topics that the media is currently pressing on. Focus on places where you don't have to fight an entire CIA office. If it's in the news, set a reminder to look at it in a year
Hmm what I had in mind was more like dunk_tank but for wikipedia and somehow teaching the group how to get edits through wikipedia and tactics on how to navigate it all properly. One thing that's missing is obviously that everyone here is highly experienced at reddit-style engagement so dunk_tank works for that, but there's probably very little skill in wikipedia.
In essence the aim would be to build a community of people that are good at this.
Ok, wikipedia shitposters to regularly sabotage it in subtle ways. I can support this, not as praxis but as a good bit
-
There's no fucking way i'm clicking on that link, i'm not gonna do that to myself.
Same
It's like sticking your hand onto a hot stove
We all know what's gonna happen
Browsing reddit while a Bene Gesserit witch holds a deadly needle to your neck
I actually got /r/VaushV recommended to me by the algorithm frequently and I eventually subbed just because I assumed SOME of the content would be good like with 196. Hell, the first Vaush video I saw was one where he was dunking on a Warhammer fascist and I totally agreed with it, so I thought maybe. Like sure I'd be exposed to "anti-tankie" nonsense now and again but I can handle it if there's also some like pro-trans stuff and shit.
But like, every time a VaushV post ended up on my feed (or whatever its called on reddit) it was either anti-tankie garbage or even if it was about another subject, the comments would immediately devolve into "tankie" bashing. They are fucking OBSESSED.
I obviously finally unsubbed and muted the sub.
It really is more important that they be anti-communist over not being fascist for them huh?
I see in which case why was Galicia declared judenfrei because that is the consequence of some serious nazi shit
A Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist's thread on the members of the SS Galicia Division and their involvement in the mass murder of Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians in Ukraine and Poland:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1705739708683128836.html
yep
