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?
but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
All one needed was to scroll up.
You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you?
You sure do love referring to fallacies, but you don’t even know what they are.
But regardless I did not say that there are not time where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence.
Okay, and which cases of usage of violence do you disagree with “tankies” on?
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?
Not well informed enough on those to conclude one way or another, and it’s entirely possible that the measures should have been less severe.
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
Those were not my misrepresentations of your arguments. That was me claiming that you were not truthful about those claims. Those were not arguments to be misrepresenting any of yours, so those are not instances of strawmanning.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
Any examples of “tankies” being called so over matters where they were being incorrect?
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?
Here:
All one needed was to scroll up.
You sure do love referring to fallacies, but you don’t even know what they are.
Okay, and which cases of usage of violence do you disagree with “tankies” on?
Not well informed enough on those to conclude one way or another, and it’s entirely possible that the measures should have been less severe.
Those were not my misrepresentations of your arguments. That was me claiming that you were not truthful about those claims. Those were not arguments to be misrepresenting any of yours, so those are not instances of strawmanning.
Any examples of “tankies” being called so over matters where they were being incorrect?
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