And yet every “anti USA and anti Tankie” person seems to believe exactly what the US State Department has to say about all of the US’s geopolitical adversaries, so it’s really just a meaningless label for a US bootlicker who’s disingenuous or deeply confused.
Anti-communism in the west has been a cradle-to-grave indoctrination program for nearly 100 years now, affecting everything from schools, media, local and national politics, communications mediums, even religious institutions. Its extremely naive (or disingenous) to pretend to take a centrist stance, yet agree with everything the US empire says about its enemies.
Please explain how you can be both against the people who are against colonialisman empire, but also against the entities engaging in colonialismanother empire.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy. I can be against some subset of people who are against colonialism while still being against colonialism myself. Supporting shared beliefs while not supporting unshared beliefs is a logical position for anyone to take. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very unrealistic and asinine take in most real life situations.
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war, the military industrial complex, and the US being a world police force. But Libertarians would also let this capitalist hellscape chew up and spit out as many people as the market demands in the name of profit. We are not friends.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take), but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and socialists are not one to one with tankies, friend. Some became tankies, yes. But fighting your oppressors and becoming an oppressors are two different things.
I cannot stress enough how the entire structure of this “tankie” narrative is just reheated Christian epistemology about power corrupting, rehashed Marvel slop about how changing anything actually makes you turn evil, capitalist slave ideology about how change leads to bad things and a better world isn’t possible. Better to suffer forever and be a pure lamb in the hopes of being rewarded in the afterlife after a really good election.
Anyway, if I was to ask you what on earth you think is going to happen if we all “go tankie” (just the new snarl word for communist now that communism is becoming popular) you would not be able to give me a coherent, stage-1 stage-2, cause and effect answer. Your answer would look less like a scientific process of cause and effect and more like a religious prohpect, because you and I grew up being conditioned into liberal thought, which means being conditioned into magical thinking.
I have no issue with communists, revolutionaries, fighting oppressors, change, etc. I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
Revolution is violence against political dissenters and is authoritarian, considering that revolutionaries impose their will upon somebody else by usage of force.
But hey, everybody willing can explain why violence against fascists (who are the “political dissenters” in question) and authoritarianism (i.e. having a government and a military) are bad and shouldn’t be done by the Global South.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
Well, “tankies” are simply “people who are correct too early”, but that does, indeed, include being against colonialism.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy.
No dichotomy is presented, other than the implicit “being for/against colonialism” (and, let’s be honest, you are firmly for it).
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war
Yeeah, no. Let’s be honest, you support invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take)
Considering that “tankies” were a major force behind decolonisation in the 20th century, your protestations are rather silly.
but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
Okay, how do you propose the Global South fights against your empire without violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having functioning governments and militaries)?
That expression is interchangeable with the word “tankie”, so it is a definition of that word.
The fact thay you follow that up with an entire field of strawmen
You don’t know what a “strawman” is, either, do you?
It’s pretty clear that you have realised that your “no violence, no governments” position just supports colonialism and nothing more, and have decided to leave while attempting to save face.
Me: “I’m against colonialism”, You: “You are firmly for it”
Me: “I’m against war, the miltiary industrial complex, and the US policing the world with force”, You: “You support the invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq”
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Instead of dealing with what I actually said, you knock down a fake, weaker version of the argument. Strawmanning.
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
And your definition means nothing at. So anyone correct “too early” is, definitionally, a tankie? I’ll inform the historians that Galileo was one of the original tankies then, I guess. Such bullshit.
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
How should the Global South resist your empire?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
This is a classic false equivalence fallacy. You can be both anti - tankie and anti - USA.
And yet every “anti USA and anti Tankie” person seems to believe exactly what the US State Department has to say about all of the US’s geopolitical adversaries, so it’s really just a meaningless label for a US bootlicker who’s disingenuous or deeply confused.
Anti-communism in the west has been a cradle-to-grave indoctrination program for nearly 100 years now, affecting everything from schools, media, local and national politics, communications mediums, even religious institutions. Its extremely naive (or disingenous) to pretend to take a centrist stance, yet agree with everything the US empire says about its enemies.
List of US atrocities
None of that has to be incorrect. The original post is still fallacious.
Please explain how you can be both against the people who are against colonialism, but also against the entities engaging in colonialism
It’s called consistency.
The US empire has over 700+ military bases outside its borders, and has waged wars and coups in nearly every country on the planet.
All other countries combined, have a total of <20 foreign bases.
The empire of global south that’s a new one to me.
Ah yes, “neither Tel Aviv, nor Gaza”.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy. I can be against some subset of people who are against colonialism while still being against colonialism myself. Supporting shared beliefs while not supporting unshared beliefs is a logical position for anyone to take. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very unrealistic and asinine take in most real life situations.
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war, the military industrial complex, and the US being a world police force. But Libertarians would also let this capitalist hellscape chew up and spit out as many people as the market demands in the name of profit. We are not friends.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take), but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and socialists are not one to one with tankies, friend. Some became tankies, yes. But fighting your oppressors and becoming an oppressors are two different things.
Gonna tell me this isn’t the way next?
I cannot stress enough how the entire structure of this “tankie” narrative is just reheated Christian epistemology about power corrupting, rehashed Marvel slop about how changing anything actually makes you turn evil, capitalist slave ideology about how change leads to bad things and a better world isn’t possible. Better to suffer forever and be a pure lamb in the hopes of being rewarded
in the afterlifeafter a really good election.Anyway, if I was to ask you what on earth you think is going to happen if we all “go tankie” (just the new snarl word for communist now that communism is becoming popular) you would not be able to give me a coherent, stage-1 stage-2, cause and effect answer. Your answer would look less like a scientific process of cause and effect and more like a religious prohpect, because you and I grew up being conditioned into liberal thought, which means being conditioned into magical thinking.
I have no issue with communists, revolutionaries, fighting oppressors, change, etc. I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
Revolution is violence against political dissenters and is authoritarian, considering that revolutionaries impose their will upon somebody else by usage of force.
But hey, everybody willing can explain why violence against fascists (who are the “political dissenters” in question) and authoritarianism (i.e. having a government and a military) are bad and shouldn’t be done by the Global South.
Well, “tankies” are simply “people who are correct too early”, but that does, indeed, include being against colonialism.
No dichotomy is presented, other than the implicit “being for/against colonialism” (and, let’s be honest, you are firmly for it).
Yeeah, no. Let’s be honest, you support invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Considering that “tankies” were a major force behind decolonisation in the 20th century, your protestations are rather silly.
Okay, how do you propose the Global South fights against your empire without violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having functioning governments and militaries)?
Removed by mod
That expression is interchangeable with the word “tankie”, so it is a definition of that word.
You don’t know what a “strawman” is, either, do you?
It’s pretty clear that you have realised that your “no violence, no governments” position just supports colonialism and nothing more, and have decided to leave while attempting to save face.
Removed by mod
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
Lol, you fucking baby; “how dare you not just accept my political snarl word!”
What are you even talking about?
Go back to Reddit
Removed by mod
Aw, he confused