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.
Besides, I’m not wholly an isolationist. I have no problem with trade or foreign aid, so long as it isn’t military aid. More accurately, I’m a dove. But “dove” doesn’t exactly work as an insult. Some liberals even like to imagine that they’re doves, unbelievably.
But again, liberals don’t recognize that perspectives like “doves” or “isolationists” exist. You either follow the narrative of the media and politicians, or you get thrown into this big lump of Bad People™ with zero distinctions regarding why you disagree with them.
Tankies seek to use state violence to coerce and terrorize the working class into unquestioning obedience to the state. Sometimes that violence is directed at the working class in other states so it’s hard to argue they oppose war.
Ok, fine, Tankies are a variant (ostensibly) of communists that seek to use state violence to coerce and terrorize the working class into unquestioning obedience to the state.
Yes, that’s why “tankies” are generally opposed to building and deploying tanks, moreso than just about any ideology short of pacifism. Certainly moreso than liberals are.
Actually, I do. That’s completely consistent with my point.
The people who coined the term wanted to take a more aggressive approach to dealing with the USSR. They were particularly concerned that tensions might deescalate due to the change of leadership from Stalin to Khrushchev and the explicit foreign policy approach of “peaceful coexistence” with the West (contrary to some strains of communist thought that had called for expanding the revolution to other countries). Those in the West who supported deescalation and refused to take a hard line in support of the Cold War were labelled as “tankies” for their insufficient hawkishness.
The Western leftists and peace advocates the term was created to condemn obviously had no control over the policies over the USSR. To the extent that they could influence the policies of their home countries, they pushed for deescalation, for building fewer tanks. It was the “anti-tankies” who wanted more tanks, as they always do.
Not everyone the term was or has been applied to supported them. But regardless, they still used whatever influence they had to push for fewer tanks.
If I’m an American and I’m out protesting the Vietnam War, and I say that we should end the war and stop building tanks, and that the Vietnamese communists were justified in rising up against the colonizers, does that make me pro-war? Does it make me pro-tank? Is the “peaceful” stance the one that says the Vietnamese were not justified so the US should stay in the war? That’s nonsense.
But that’s the exact same logic you’re applying here and everywhere else. If someone supported peace and deescalation with the USSR during the Cold War, then they’d be accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning how they handled the Hungarian uprising. If someone opposes the war in Ukraine, they’re accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning Russia. If someone opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning 9/11 and Al Qaida. And so the peace advocates are always depicted as being violent, and it works the exact same way every single time. War is Peace.
At this point, I accept that it’s always going to happen that way and that I’ll always be “the bad guy” for opposing war. I used to be a “terrorist sympathizer,” now I’m a “tankie” in another ten or twenty years, I’m sure I’ll be some other horrible thing. Who cares.
Then why would they love tankies, some of the only people who consistently oppose them building and using tanks?
can’t have war if everyone surrenders too soon.
Exactly.
There’s only one war worth fighting and that’s the class war. Everything else is just throwing lives away for nothing.
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)
Bedtimes are authoritarian, your parents are dictators
My parents are dead! (runs out of room crying, slams door)
did they head out on a guilt trip and never come back
One day you’ll be an adult and you can set your own bedtime. Now who wants to go out for Ice Cream 🍨?
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.
You sound much more of an isolationist than a tankie. Lol.
The word “isolationist” doesn’t exist in the vocabularies of most people around here. It doesn’t really matter why I disagree with US military interventions, the fact that I do means that I will inevitably be labelled tankie or a Russian bot. So you might as well ignore it, or love the word instead, cause you ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red.
Besides, I’m not wholly an isolationist. I have no problem with trade or foreign aid, so long as it isn’t military aid. More accurately, I’m a dove. But “dove” doesn’t exactly work as an insult. Some liberals even like to imagine that they’re doves, unbelievably.
But again, liberals don’t recognize that perspectives like “doves” or “isolationists” exist. You either follow the narrative of the media and politicians, or you get thrown into this big lump of Bad People™ with zero distinctions regarding why you disagree with them.
War makes money
But tankies oppose nearly all wars.
Tankies seek to use state violence to coerce and terrorize the working class into unquestioning obedience to the state. Sometimes that violence is directed at the working class in other states so it’s hard to argue they oppose war.
You’re thinking of liberals.
And as usual, you’re not thinking at all
Ok, fine, Tankies are a variant (ostensibly) of communists that seek to use state violence to coerce and terrorize the working class into unquestioning obedience to the state.
You’re thinking of social democrats.
You’re living in denial my dude
Do you know what tanks are for?
Yes, that’s why “tankies” are generally opposed to building and deploying tanks, moreso than just about any ideology short of pacifism. Certainly moreso than liberals are.
You don’t even know the origin of the word “tankie”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Actually, I do. That’s completely consistent with my point.
The people who coined the term wanted to take a more aggressive approach to dealing with the USSR. They were particularly concerned that tensions might deescalate due to the change of leadership from Stalin to Khrushchev and the explicit foreign policy approach of “peaceful coexistence” with the West (contrary to some strains of communist thought that had called for expanding the revolution to other countries). Those in the West who supported deescalation and refused to take a hard line in support of the Cold War were labelled as “tankies” for their insufficient hawkishness.
The Western leftists and peace advocates the term was created to condemn obviously had no control over the policies over the USSR. To the extent that they could influence the policies of their home countries, they pushed for deescalation, for building fewer tanks. It was the “anti-tankies” who wanted more tanks, as they always do.
But supported them
Not everyone the term was or has been applied to supported them. But regardless, they still used whatever influence they had to push for fewer tanks.
If I’m an American and I’m out protesting the Vietnam War, and I say that we should end the war and stop building tanks, and that the Vietnamese communists were justified in rising up against the colonizers, does that make me pro-war? Does it make me pro-tank? Is the “peaceful” stance the one that says the Vietnamese were not justified so the US should stay in the war? That’s nonsense.
But that’s the exact same logic you’re applying here and everywhere else. If someone supported peace and deescalation with the USSR during the Cold War, then they’d be accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning how they handled the Hungarian uprising. If someone opposes the war in Ukraine, they’re accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning Russia. If someone opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were accused of supporting or not sufficiently condemning 9/11 and Al Qaida. And so the peace advocates are always depicted as being violent, and it works the exact same way every single time. War is Peace.
At this point, I accept that it’s always going to happen that way and that I’ll always be “the bad guy” for opposing war. I used to be a “terrorist sympathizer,” now I’m a “tankie” in another ten or twenty years, I’m sure I’ll be some other horrible thing. Who cares.