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.
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.
Indeed. And the common use of the word tankie is “authoritarian communist”
Why are you using an uncommon definition?
Why would you call someone who opposes tanks a “tankie”? Kinda silly.
OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.
tankie
noun
A member of the Communist Party of Great Britain who slavishly followed the Kremlin line, agreeing with the crushing of revolts in Hungary and later Czechoslovakia by SOVIET TANKS (capitalization used for emphasis).
This was how the term was first used in the 80s. As of today, the definition has expanded to all “authoritarian communists”.
What’s silly about it? Tankie is when you support using tanks, I don’t support using tanks in Ukraine so therefore I’m not a tankie. The people who want to send tanks to Ukraine are tankies.
Or we can recognize that that definition doesn’t reflect how it’s actually used. And the way it’s actually used is generally towards people who promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions over military ones.
The definition reflects how it’s actually used. That’s what definitions are. They reflect what is “actually used”. If they weren’t what was “actually used”, they would cease to be definitions.
It’s not generally actually used towards people who promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions.
It is actually used to refer to “authoritarian communists” generally.
You should recognize that your subjective experiences never dictate objective reality. You are not “the decider” of definitions. General actual use is the decider.
The people who have used the term inappropriately against you were either jerking your chain and using it ironically, or misinformed and/or stupid.
I’ve been familiar with the term for decades. It has NEVER meant “people who promote peaceful diplomatic solutions”, and it never will.
Feel free to prove me wrong with ANY source whatsoever other than your imagination and recall! During our brief acquaintance, I have learned to distrust your claims.
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.
Indeed. And the common use of the word tankie is “authoritarian communist”
Why are you using an uncommon definition?
Why would you call someone who opposes tanks a “tankie”? Kinda silly.
That’s like calling you a “warmongie”.
OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.
Well, that’s just silly.
I didn’t make the definition
This was how the term was first used in the 80s. As of today, the definition has expanded to all “authoritarian communists”.
Nothing about peace yet, sorry.
What’s silly about it? Tankie is when you support using tanks, I don’t support using tanks in Ukraine so therefore I’m not a tankie. The people who want to send tanks to Ukraine are tankies.
Or we can recognize that that definition doesn’t reflect how it’s actually used. And the way it’s actually used is generally towards people who promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions over military ones.
The definition reflects how it’s actually used. That’s what definitions are. They reflect what is “actually used”. If they weren’t what was “actually used”, they would cease to be definitions.
It’s not generally actually used towards people who promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions.
It is actually used to refer to “authoritarian communists” generally.
You should recognize that your subjective experiences never dictate objective reality. You are not “the decider” of definitions. General actual use is the decider.
The people who have used the term inappropriately against you were either jerking your chain and using it ironically, or misinformed and/or stupid.
I’ve been familiar with the term for decades. It has NEVER meant “people who promote peaceful diplomatic solutions”, and it never will.
Feel free to prove me wrong with ANY source whatsoever other than your imagination and recall! During our brief acquaintance, I have learned to distrust your claims.
Good luck
I’ve already made my arguments and you failed to address any of them. You’re just asserting your definition over and over again. Not interested.
I addressed all of them directly.
You’re ignoring that because you’re wrong. And that’s fine. See you later, tankie
You didn’t address a single one.
I wear the label tankie with pride. I do indeed oppose the use of tanks in the vast majority of cases, so I am a tankie.