Really? Because I’m always calling for staying out of conflicts and dramatically reducing the military budget and people are constantly calling me a tankie because of those stances.
See, if you don’t want war, it means you support the other side, and however bad “our” side is, the other side is always worse and more aggressive (the media says so, after all) and that means that anyone who’s pro-peace is actually pro-war, freedom is slavery, etc.
So it was when I said we shouldn’t invade Iraq and Afghanistan, it meant that I was “a terrorist sympathizer” and “pro-Al Qaida,” and when I say we should stay out of Palestine, people say I’m “pro-Hamas” and when I say we should stay out of Ukraine people say I’m “pro-Russia” and a “tankie,” and if I don’t think the US has the right to kidnap heads of state I’m “supporting dictators.” Consistently advocating against the use of tanks is essentially the defining characteristic of a “tankie.”
Yes, really! I’ve been called a tankie and a Nazi and worse. Don’t judge what a tankie or Nazi is by insults on the internet, hyperbole and bullshit rule.
Again, your definition is not the standard definition. Tankies love tanks. And Communism. And Stalin. Which is funny, because Stalin wasn’t much of a communist.
I use the standard definition, that’s it. I am not familiar with the tankies you describe, I haven’t met them… Tankies hating tanks seems wrong to me. Back in the day when word originated they loved the T-34 tank and Russia in WW2 and so on.
Where can I find YOUR definition of “tankie”, the peace loving gentle communist who hates tanks? Seriously? And what do you think the “tank” in “tankie” comes from?
Don’t judge what a tankie or Nazi is by insults on the internet, hyperbole and bullshit rule.
Words are defined by common use. If the common use of the word “tankie” is to throw it at people who oppose war, then that’s what it means now. You can say it’s defined as being pro- war, but I’ve never seen it used that way.
Back in the day when word originated they loved the T-34 tank and Russia in WW2 and so on.
Well sure, WWII is basically the go-to example of a necessary and justified war. There was a time in my life when I labelled myself as a pacifist and the counter-example that everyone always brought up was WWII.
At that time, my position was that that was one exception from like 70 years ago and we shouldn’t make a rule from the exception considering how many unjustified wars have been fought since then. Now, my position is a little bit more flexible and moderate to account for that and a handful of other cases: now I say, “no war but class war,” and WWII was a class war.
However, my position hasn’t actually changed much in practice since those days. The vast majority of wars and violence are systemic and fought for bourgeois interests, so I still oppose them. Only very rarely does violence happen in the opposite direction, for example if we compare the death tolls of Luigi Mangione to Brian Thompson.
And what do you think the “tank” in “tankie” comes from?
It comes from accusing people who oppose war of supporting the other side’s tanks, as I just explained to you in my previous comment.
Words are defined by common use. If the common use of the word “tankie” is to throw it at people who oppose war, then that’s what it means now. You can say it’s defined as being pro- war, but I’ve never seen it used that way.
Indeed. And the common use of the word tankie is “authoritarian communist”
Why are you using an uncommon definition?
Why would you call someone who opposes tanks a “tankie”? Kinda silly.
OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.
No no. As a tankie - I support you. Fuck ice. Tankies are internationaliststs, not one country above all ists.
Those in control of the USA are internationalists, too.
They don’t care who “wins”, they profit off of the war itself (and the rebuild for that matter).
They love tankies
Then why would they love tankies, some of the only people who consistently oppose them building and using tanks?
Tankies are “authoritarian communists”, they are not pro peace in any way, they love tanks.
(standard definition, not familiar with the tankies that you describe)
Really? Because I’m always calling for staying out of conflicts and dramatically reducing the military budget and people are constantly calling me a tankie because of those stances.
See, if you don’t want war, it means you support the other side, and however bad “our” side is, the other side is always worse and more aggressive (the media says so, after all) and that means that anyone who’s pro-peace is actually pro-war, freedom is slavery, etc.
So it was when I said we shouldn’t invade Iraq and Afghanistan, it meant that I was “a terrorist sympathizer” and “pro-Al Qaida,” and when I say we should stay out of Palestine, people say I’m “pro-Hamas” and when I say we should stay out of Ukraine people say I’m “pro-Russia” and a “tankie,” and if I don’t think the US has the right to kidnap heads of state I’m “supporting dictators.” Consistently advocating against the use of tanks is essentially the defining characteristic of a “tankie.”
Yes, really! I’ve been called a tankie and a Nazi and worse. Don’t judge what a tankie or Nazi is by insults on the internet, hyperbole and bullshit rule.
Again, your definition is not the standard definition. Tankies love tanks. And Communism. And Stalin. Which is funny, because Stalin wasn’t much of a communist.
I use the standard definition, that’s it. I am not familiar with the tankies you describe, I haven’t met them… Tankies hating tanks seems wrong to me. Back in the day when word originated they loved the T-34 tank and Russia in WW2 and so on.
Where can I find YOUR definition of “tankie”, the peace loving gentle communist who hates tanks? Seriously? And what do you think the “tank” in “tankie” comes from?
Words are defined by common use. If the common use of the word “tankie” is to throw it at people who oppose war, then that’s what it means now. You can say it’s defined as being pro- war, but I’ve never seen it used that way.
Well sure, WWII is basically the go-to example of a necessary and justified war. There was a time in my life when I labelled myself as a pacifist and the counter-example that everyone always brought up was WWII.
At that time, my position was that that was one exception from like 70 years ago and we shouldn’t make a rule from the exception considering how many unjustified wars have been fought since then. Now, my position is a little bit more flexible and moderate to account for that and a handful of other cases: now I say, “no war but class war,” and WWII was a class war.
However, my position hasn’t actually changed much in practice since those days. The vast majority of wars and violence are systemic and fought for bourgeois interests, so I still oppose them. Only very rarely does violence happen in the opposite direction, for example if we compare the death tolls of Luigi Mangione to Brian Thompson.
It comes from accusing people who oppose war of supporting the other side’s tanks, as I just explained to you in my previous comment.
Indeed. And the common use of the word tankie is “authoritarian communist”
Why are you using an uncommon definition?
Why would you call someone who opposes tanks a “tankie”? Kinda silly.
That’s like calling you a “warmongie”.
OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.