EDIT: The difference between Reddit and Lemmy is that here I can still see the downvotes as opposed to enjoying the obliviousness of a positive score. Here I know there are 7 pro-Russia degenerates who saw this comment. I’d rather know.
Whatever your beliefs are, we should all agree that nobody deserves to suffer. Even people who have done terrible things, I wish for them to be swiftly and mercifully removed from power or brought to justice with minimal suffering.
Most people in Ukraine are just powerless nobodies going about their lives. They don’t deserve to be subjected to a war. They have no real choice in how that war is waged, or if it is at all.
If anyone deserves comeuppance, it’s the ruling class who actually choose to let these events play out.
Who? This isn’t happening to the fascists in control of Ukraine, most of the randos who got conscripted by force and are now getting got by drones and missiles while trying to hide in a swamp are just normal ass people who didn’t ask for this.
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.
Isolationists would want to stay out of Ukraine to mind our own business, this guy wants to stay out of Ukraine because .ml is notorious for giving modern day Russia a free pass with their Imperial nonsense.
Case in point: Anyone who wants to stay out of conflicts automatically supports Russia. My actual reasons and motivations are totally irrelevant. Thank you for proving my point.
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.
I agree with you! And as we speak, they are selling weapons to the Taliban, and selling weapons to whoever is fighting Taliban at the moment.
After there’s nothing left but smoking rubble, the IMF (controlled by the same concerns) will give the winner a “loan.” The winner won’t be able to pay off those loans, so what will they do? Provide them with more loans to cover those loans. The interest is all profit, and the “loan” is never actual printed money in circulation and is “virtual money”, so it costs them nothing. They collect all of that interest with no cost to themselves.
I’m simplifying, it’s actually much worse than I describe. The more you investigate it, the worse it gets…
Right or left, all are getting screwed , “The Bank” doesn’t care about politics.
If you’re ever bored, check out JP Morgan, the man and the bank… just one cog in the machine.
No no. As a tankie - I support you. Fuck ice. Tankies are internationaliststs, not one country above all ists.
This dude thinks Ukraine “was asking for it”
EDIT: The difference between Reddit and Lemmy is that here I can still see the downvotes as opposed to enjoying the obliviousness of a positive score. Here I know there are 7 pro-Russia degenerates who saw this comment. I’d rather know.
Yes they 100 percent deserve what is happening.
Whatever your beliefs are, we should all agree that nobody deserves to suffer. Even people who have done terrible things, I wish for them to be swiftly and mercifully removed from power or brought to justice with minimal suffering.
Most people in Ukraine are just powerless nobodies going about their lives. They don’t deserve to be subjected to a war. They have no real choice in how that war is waged, or if it is at all.
If anyone deserves comeuppance, it’s the ruling class who actually choose to let these events play out.
Suggesting Ukraine deserves what’s happening? You’re disgraceful.
He should have kept Ukraine neutral and took a deal. But nooo, had to fucking be a Napoleon - moron wasted so many Ukrainian lives
My god, what happened to the inside of your head?
Who? This isn’t happening to the fascists in control of Ukraine, most of the randos who got conscripted by force and are now getting got by drones and missiles while trying to hide in a swamp are just normal ass people who didn’t ask for this.
Tankies traditionally supported the USSR above all other Warsaw pact countries.
anti-whataboutism
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?
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.
Isolationists would want to stay out of Ukraine to mind our own business, this guy wants to stay out of Ukraine because .ml is notorious for giving modern day Russia a free pass with their Imperial nonsense.
Case in point: Anyone who wants to stay out of conflicts automatically supports Russia. My actual reasons and motivations are totally irrelevant. Thank you for proving my point.
Your case would have a better point if Russia wasn’t constantly creating conflicts.
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.
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.
People kept telling me that the Taliban won the war in Afghanistan but I kept telling them the US Military Industrial complex won.
I agree with you! And as we speak, they are selling weapons to the Taliban, and selling weapons to whoever is fighting Taliban at the moment.
After there’s nothing left but smoking rubble, the IMF (controlled by the same concerns) will give the winner a “loan.” The winner won’t be able to pay off those loans, so what will they do? Provide them with more loans to cover those loans. The interest is all profit, and the “loan” is never actual printed money in circulation and is “virtual money”, so it costs them nothing. They collect all of that interest with no cost to themselves.
I’m simplifying, it’s actually much worse than I describe. The more you investigate it, the worse it gets…
Right or left, all are getting screwed , “The Bank” doesn’t care about politics.
If you’re ever bored, check out JP Morgan, the man and the bank… just one cog in the machine.
except China*