You made the blanket statement that tankies are those who “demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient.”
If you notice, I actually made that accusation toward all forms of conservatism, so you’re not even doing a good job of this mindlessly rigid literalism. You seem to expect I’m describing unreasonable people who would come out and say “why yes, I am being unreasonable, thank you for noticing.” No, genius: I am describing inferred motivation behind visible behavior. Explaining that isn’t a moving goal-post, it’s how a fucking argument works.
All of your points so far have been pure anticommunist rhetoric, and using the term tankie to avoid actually having to engage with leftist ideas.
You could build a battleship from this much irony.
No, asshole, I don’t think you’re a tankie, but you are being an asshole by using a lot of their same stupid tactics, including and especially denying there is any such thing as a tankie.
You continue your rant to describe them as conservatives, and other than what I’ve shown you directly saying, you haven’t actually backed up what a tankie is, just a “conservative that uses leftist language.” You haven’t actually backed any of that up, nor pointed out how they are conservative, nor how they back up hierarchy.
It’s not really how arguments work, considering you just virtue signaled without making any actual points.
I’m fine with being an asshole to you, you’ve been nothing but an asshole to me. That’s just how this convo has been, really.
My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.
Here’s the nuance, and my driving, central points: what you describe as a tankie doesn’t fundamentally exist in the quantity you pretend it does. There are always crazy people on any side, but the people you linked don’t fit what you described, except in the most extreme, fringe cases. Meanwhile, the majority of people may be “edgy,” but aren’t supporters of the Katyn Massacre, or the numerous issues in the USSR.
That’s why MLs even have a term they call “critical support,” whereby they recognize leftist movements like the USSR, and recognize the actions resulted from material conditions and responses to said material conditions, rather than out of a moralistic desire to commit evil.
Pretty sure that covers it. There are very, very few people that actually fit your definition, and you extend it to anyone on the left that’s more radical than you as a way to disengage from actual leftist conversation.
Guess I should finish this convo by suggesting you read Marx?
My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.
‘You could call Stalin a dictator,’ allows someone previously going to the paint to declare there’s no possible way Stalin was a dictator.
Someone now pretending that when I condemn tankies, I must be describing all leftists, and all leftists don’t believe what I’m condemning, therefore nuh-uh. Even though that’s completely fucking stupid and the opposite of how labels work. Like there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about a minority of crazy people, the same way there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about the abuses of a by-some-stretch-dictator, even though you freely fucking acknowledge both problems do exist.
and you extend it to anyone on the left
An accusation based on literally nothing. The opposite of everything I’ve argued here. A fantasy of your own invention.
I wasn’t defending Stalin, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, which you continue to double down on. It’s like you’re in a shit pit, making your own shit castle, flinging it everywhere. Nothing you’ve actually said has mattered at all.
The people you’ve described don’t fit your definition. You’ve given a specific definition, then when asked to clarify, you showed people that don’t fit that same definition.
Cool, who asked? I’m accusing you of saying Stalin wasn’t a dictator, because that was kinda your central objection, several comments in a row, until I guess you forgot.
I am calling you a blithe hypocrite and you don’t even understand which claim you just fumbled. This whole conversation started with me saying tankies just like leftist-colored dictatorships and you saying ‘that wasn’t a dictatorship.’ Now you want to casually slip that yeah okay you guess it might be, “by some stretches,” and pretend it’s my fault for not dragging it out of you sooner?
You’ve looked straight at comments saying ‘I wish Stalin gulag’d more people’ and ‘the uigher genocide is a de-radicalization program’ and go, nope, that can’t possibly be defending the evils of allegedly communist countries. That’s still not a me problem. You can mumble about critical support, but there’s ever any context where genocide is an acceptable… political strategy.
These people are out there.
That crazy bullshit is really what they think.
Loyalist hierarchy is the best model explaining their crazy bullshit.
If you notice, I actually made that accusation toward all forms of conservatism, so you’re not even doing a good job of this mindlessly rigid literalism. You seem to expect I’m describing unreasonable people who would come out and say “why yes, I am being unreasonable, thank you for noticing.” No, genius: I am describing inferred motivation behind visible behavior. Explaining that isn’t a moving goal-post, it’s how a fucking argument works.
You could build a battleship from this much irony.
No, asshole, I don’t think you’re a tankie, but you are being an asshole by using a lot of their same stupid tactics, including and especially denying there is any such thing as a tankie.
Or a dictatorship.
It’s not really how arguments work, considering you just virtue signaled without making any actual points.
My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.
Here’s the nuance, and my driving, central points: what you describe as a tankie doesn’t fundamentally exist in the quantity you pretend it does. There are always crazy people on any side, but the people you linked don’t fit what you described, except in the most extreme, fringe cases. Meanwhile, the majority of people may be “edgy,” but aren’t supporters of the Katyn Massacre, or the numerous issues in the USSR.
That’s why MLs even have a term they call “critical support,” whereby they recognize leftist movements like the USSR, and recognize the actions resulted from material conditions and responses to said material conditions, rather than out of a moralistic desire to commit evil.
Pretty sure that covers it. There are very, very few people that actually fit your definition, and you extend it to anyone on the left that’s more radical than you as a way to disengage from actual leftist conversation.
Guess I should finish this convo by suggesting you read Marx?
‘You could call Stalin a dictator,’ allows someone previously going to the paint to declare there’s no possible way Stalin was a dictator.
Someone now pretending that when I condemn tankies, I must be describing all leftists, and all leftists don’t believe what I’m condemning, therefore nuh-uh. Even though that’s completely fucking stupid and the opposite of how labels work. Like there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about a minority of crazy people, the same way there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about the abuses of a by-some-stretch-dictator, even though you freely fucking acknowledge both problems do exist.
An accusation based on literally nothing. The opposite of everything I’ve argued here. A fantasy of your own invention.
I wasn’t defending Stalin, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, which you continue to double down on. It’s like you’re in a shit pit, making your own shit castle, flinging it everywhere. Nothing you’ve actually said has mattered at all.
The people you’ve described don’t fit your definition. You’ve given a specific definition, then when asked to clarify, you showed people that don’t fit that same definition.
Read Marx, I guess.
Cool, who asked? I’m accusing you of saying Stalin wasn’t a dictator, because that was kinda your central objection, several comments in a row, until I guess you forgot.
I am calling you a blithe hypocrite and you don’t even understand which claim you just fumbled. This whole conversation started with me saying tankies just like leftist-colored dictatorships and you saying ‘that wasn’t a dictatorship.’ Now you want to casually slip that yeah okay you guess it might be, “by some stretches,” and pretend it’s my fault for not dragging it out of you sooner?
You’ve looked straight at comments saying ‘I wish Stalin gulag’d more people’ and ‘the uigher genocide is a de-radicalization program’ and go, nope, that can’t possibly be defending the evils of allegedly communist countries. That’s still not a me problem. You can mumble about critical support, but there’s ever any context where genocide is an acceptable… political strategy.
These people are out there.
That crazy bullshit is really what they think.
Loyalist hierarchy is the best model explaining their crazy bullshit.
Removed by mod
‘Nobody says that.’ Proof given. ‘Oh they’re joking.’
Fuck off.
Removed by mod
I wish you meant things when you say words.