10
Tankies praising Hamas and the October Massacres (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was not "debunked" btw. Children were murdered during the massacres, including babies.

Of course, Tankies know this, but consider it a good thing, evidently.

If you attempt to contend anything, be sure to provide evidence and reputable sources that can support you. Don't claim anything if you can't back it up. Use this site to help determine what's reputable, aim for High to Very High and least biased.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Holy shit, is this still online?

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The post? Yeah. It's admins, developers of lemmy, endorse this sort of content. You can see their comment in the image.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

MediaBiasFactCheck is a poor quality resource. There's zero reason to accept their armchair analysis as valid.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I see this tossed around occasionally with zero reason or evidence, while the majority of people seem to think it's a respectable resource.

What's the controversy here? What'd I miss?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

There's little scientific rigor to their methodology and there aren't many outside assessments of their work. They have never done anything to establish that they should be accepted. They just became accepted because people did not want to look into things themselves and they were there.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Okay, what do you use then? And what makes MBFC poor? It's used in [email protected]

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I use my own understandings of the media.

MBFC has never done anything to establish that they are reliable and have little rigor to their methods. There's no reason to accept their analysis as having value.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago
[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I read through it and it feels like a bit rubbish to be honest.

They themselves say that what they do only applies to US politics, so reporting on Israel and Palestine is out of scope in the first place. But their definition of bias is also weird.

What is even the "economic system" of a news outlet? What qualifies as "without bias" and "centrism"?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They themselves say that what they do only applies to US politics, so reporting on Israel and Palestine is out of scope in the first place. But their definition of bias is also weird.

While this updated methodology reduces the influence of a strictly U.S.-centric political spectrum, it remains primarily tailored to the political landscape of the United States. This ensures that evaluations are relevant to a significant audience while acknowledging that some biases in the U.S. context may not apply exactly in other countries where terms like “Liberal” may have a different meaning. Readers should consider this when comparing sources with political systems from other countries.

Perhaps it's more apt to say Western than the US, but it's still generally applicable. The part about the US is also relevant to the bias, not the factuality.

They explain the overall definition of bias inside the methodology, where they compare the different kinds of bias to make the final definition.

The economic system of a news outlet depends on whether that news outlet is public, private, or government. For example, the BBC doesn't need to worry about viewership or ad revenue because it gets its funding from the government.

You can view how they rate bias on each outlet's page. Neutral language and fact-based reporting are the key defining factors for their bias.

But if you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

The economic system of a news outlet depends on whether that news outlet is public, private, or government.

That statement does not make sense, given the rubric is:

-10: Communism – Advocates no corporatism, extreme regulation, and full government ownership of industries.
-7.5: Socialism – Supports minimal corporatism, high regulation, and significant government ownership.
-5: Democratic Socialism – Endorses reduced corporatism with strongly regulated capitalism.
-2.5: Regulated Market Economy – Promotes moderate corporatism with balanced regulations.
0: Centrism – Balances regulation and corporate influence without significant bias.
+2.5: Moderately Regulated Capitalism – Leans slightly toward corporatism with moderate government intervention.
+5: Classical Liberalism – Emphasizes moderate to high corporatism with lower regulations.
+7.5: Libertarianism – Advocates low government intervention and high corporate influence.
+10: Radical Laissez-Faire Capitalism – Advocates for minimal to no regulation, with the economy governed entirely by free-market principles and private enterprise.

And even from a Western perspective, "centrism without bias" being right of a regulated market economy sounds like propaganda.

Especially since they use words wrong. Corporatism does not refer to "rule by corporations", but "rule by incorporated elements like trade and industry unions, and collective bargaining". For reference, the Nordics are heavily corporatists. No minimum wage, but strong union presence. Are they radical right?

BTW the word they are looking for is corporatocracy, which is defined as a range between excessive corrupution of a state to totalitarian dictatorships, which is a radical right ideology adjacent to fascism.

I get what they are trying to do, which is to try and bridge the two mainstream US public's thought processes, but in most - arguably more free - countries, politics does not boil down to two parties, two narratives, two publics and two choices. I don't mind that they do what they do, but it makes zero sense to try and apply it to Israel and Gaza, which itself has more than two competing narratives, which such a binary is too basic to cover.

The bigger problem is that it forces thought into a dichotomy, which eliminates conversation and shuts down reason and understanding, and only lets tribalism and rage prevail.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Which means the clock is completely reset and they need to spend years establishing that this new methodology is actually effective. Until they have that there is only more reason to not utilize them as a source.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

i don't think anything will convince you lol.

you don't gotta use it if you don't wanna! but i am curious what you think about the main topic at hand here, with tankies praising hamas and the massacres.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Why is the Financial Times of London seen as a high quality resource for finance and economics? Is it because lots of people use it or is it because they have over a century of high quality publication? It's the latter. MBFC has never had years upon years pf demonstrating they are a good resource and by resetting their methodology they have become momentarily less reliable.

I think the pro-Israel side thinks this was started on 10/7/23 and the pro-Palestinian side recognizes that the war started in the 1940s and has never at any point in time stopped.

The Onion headline is months before the attack but I think is the best version of how the conflict should be framed

"10 Palestinians Dead After Israeli Raid,’ Reads Headline That Could Have Run Any Week For Past 75 Years"

https://theonion.com/10-palestinians-dead-after-israeli-raid-reads-headli-1850145998/

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I think the pro-Israel side thinks this was started on 10/7/23 and the pro-Palestinian side recognizes that the war started in the 1940s and has never at any point in time stopped.

I think you shouldn't make any blanket statements.

But you're skirting the question. You're ignoring the Tankies, Hamas and celebration of the massacres. That is the key topic here.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I think it is safe to make blanket statements and I believe the rest of my post makes my position clear.

I don’t think this post belongs here as this war isn’t as cut and dry as people would like and all sides are inherently dishonest regarding all aspects of the conflict.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

No apologia

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

What's the logical fallacy in the comment about Qatar called? Nobody thinks Hamas fighters are living in Qatar

this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
10 points (63.9% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1754 readers
171 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 as opposed to arguing.

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
[email protected]
[email protected]