Per the origins of the term, a tankie is a communist that supported the Soviets wuelling the Hungarian 1956 uprising. It was an insult concocted by British Trotskyists, who also consider themselves communists.
The modern use of the term is just a liberal sentiment leveled against anyone that doesn’t fall neatly in line with US Empire’s vilification campaigns. If you dare to say that Russia has material motivations that are a counter to those of the US rather than being a kingdom run by a madman that just loves killing, you are a tankie. If you don’t want Ukraine used as a proxy for the US to hurt Russia, regardless of how many Ukrainians die, you are a tankie. If you treat the PRC as country filled with normal people living normal lives rather than the dystopian nightmare it’s falsely depicted as, uou are a tankie. If you know anything at all about Dengism, you are a tankie.
Really, the liberal position on both countries is premised on orientalism and it is never a surprise when the criticisms inevitably turn into vague tropes. And when this laziness is called out, well, it’s time to deploy a tactical tankie reference. I definitely don’t care about being insulted, these situations are really just a way for the other person to give themselves an excuse to stop thinking or engaging.
I’m very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I’m using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I’ve been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
I’m very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
The US and its proxies have constantly escalated using Ukraine as a proxy for over a decade and since the war started they have continued this pattern. There is no path to victory for Ukraine. If the RF wanted to end it they could run mass bombing campaigns like NATO members do. They are making the opposite calculation: that the status quo of a military meat grinder for Ukraine is better for the RF. Given that one of their goals is a demilitarized Ukraine, there is some logic to this idea.
It has been painfully obvious that Ukraine cannot win from the beginning. Nobody trying to escalate, provide Wunderwaffe, etc really things Ukraine will win, that is just not what any serious person thinks. This is also why there is such an intense and absurd propaganda campaign to say that Russia is losing more people and equipment, with the source nearly always being Azov Batallion, the UA MoD, or a combination of the two. They need to sell the public on the idea that Ukraine just needs your support and dang it they mogjt pull this thing off!
So then, if UA can’t win and the heads of state know they can’t win, what is their logic? What is the angle on who benefits? Well, the singular common thread of brinksmanship with Ukraine as proxy has always been to try anf peel Europe away from economic integration with Russia and to instead keep it in the EU bubble, with more American integration. And, lo and behold, look at how Europe has destroyed its own industry and made itself even more dependent on the US. This has the added effect of isolating Russia from Europe. While Europe still buys their fossil fuels from Russia, trade overall is way down.
In addition, there is the simple calculus that it requires manpower and productive capacity to wage war, capacity that could be directed elsewhere. Iran would likely have more and better air defense systems if Russia weren’t focused on Ukraine.
At no point does the suffering of the Ukrainian people enter the equation. There are no anti-war voices on the mainstream media about this aside from self-serving right wing “this is not our problem” rhetoric.
The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I’m using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
There are few countries thst tolerate a civil war on their border targeting the ethnicity of your own country, let alone an encroachment of the primary aggressor military force around the world couping them, let alone that neighbor remilitarizing despite agreements and not honoring their agreements. This is geopolitics, not a bar fight. War does not occur in a vacuum, it has a material basis. One does not need to justify war in order to understand that this did not occur in a vacuum and there is blame to go around.
I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I’ve been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
Yeah it’s really just a way for national chauvinist liberals to quiet their own cognitive dissonance. I also think it’s extra funny when a Trotskyist gets called tankie, since they invented the epithet.
The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
Yes the US is trying to decouple on its own terms. Its constant attempts to provoke the PRC with Taiwan is also similar to what they did to Ukraine. To have the consent of their population to sacrifice their own well-being and justify whatever military action might occur, they will needs to be more racist and xenophobic towards China. It may not be Taiwan. It might be Korea or Myanmar. But constant escalation and provocation is the US game. Maximalist, relentless foreign policy pushing towards war and death.
Russia entered a conflict that was already in progress, a civil war where the Ukrainian coup government was attempting to ethnically cleanse the Russian speaking population in the east. This coup was orchestrated by the US (this was obvious, admitted to in recorded phone calls, and was rife with high US politicians (John McCaine for example) going there to celebrate. The US/NATO also funded the training and arming of openly neo-nazi militias like Azov Battalion, (and others) many of whom were the ones shelling the people in the East long before Russia intervened. All of this was done by the US to exert pressure on Russia. And this is just scratching the surface. So no, Russia did not “do this to itself” and your framing of it is naive and simplistic and just plain false.
I am genuinely glad to see you reognize the villainization of China, but please also apply those same critical thinking skills to what you have been told about Russia in the Ukraine conflict and do some digging into the history that doesn’t rely on western propaganda.
Has the thought ever occur to you, that maybe Russia can just leave Ukraine be? Just maybe another country that is resisting wants to keep it’s sovereignty? Maybe the Tankie word is for people that fails to have any critical thought?
The Russian Federation did leave Ukraine be. It was only after Western meddling, a coup, a civil war, not implementing agreements, toying with NATO membership, and resuming a civilian shelling campaign that the RF invaded.
The imperial core Western powers poked and prodded and used Ukraine as a pawn until the RF hit its limit.
Given that you likely live in one of the countries doing the relentless escalation, why not work against them doing so?
You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want, the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
Oh I misunderstood and thought we were talking about a different word. This makes this discussion even sillier.
You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.\
How do people agree what they are without telling other people their meaning explicitly or implicitly? What about people that intentionally misuse language to deceive? What about language that is self-descriptive due to selective use?
I’m aware of prescriptivism vs descriptionism but this conversation isn’t actually about that. In fact, I am already following a descriptivist line of reasoning, if you will review my earlier comment. I am saying how tankie is used nowadays.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want
What definition? Which one do I dislike? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
The way I understood it is, “anyone defending a target of US empire in any way from the left that I would like to stop listening to before my brain breaks”. Seems spot-on to me.
The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
I was just like “you seem to be telling the dude that he isn’t using tankie correctly, but that’s not how language works”
What I actually did was provide some context for the term and how it’s used nowadays. The point of the history lesson was to point out how the term became appropriated and set the stage for laughing about how some Trots get called tankie nowadays. The point of “how it’s used nowadays” was go provide a counter-narrative for the “definition” they were taking their own liberties with. I did what they did, but I’m more correct in my context.
Injecting a prescription vs description debate isn’t really relevant.
And then you replied that I’m wrong, and seemed to be making an appeal that the negative connotations had to do with the invalidity of the definition.
Yes that was me misunderstanding which word we were talkjng about. There’s another thread I had in mind. I don’t think what I said there applies to the word tankie.
Our wires are so crossed at this point that a random car in 1960 Spain just got spontaneously hotwired.
Per the origins of the term, a tankie is a communist that supported the Soviets wuelling the Hungarian 1956 uprising. It was an insult concocted by British Trotskyists, who also consider themselves communists.
The modern use of the term is just a liberal sentiment leveled against anyone that doesn’t fall neatly in line with US Empire’s vilification campaigns. If you dare to say that Russia has material motivations that are a counter to those of the US rather than being a kingdom run by a madman that just loves killing, you are a tankie. If you don’t want Ukraine used as a proxy for the US to hurt Russia, regardless of how many Ukrainians die, you are a tankie. If you treat the PRC as country filled with normal people living normal lives rather than the dystopian nightmare it’s falsely depicted as, uou are a tankie. If you know anything at all about Dengism, you are a tankie.
Really, the liberal position on both countries is premised on orientalism and it is never a surprise when the criticisms inevitably turn into vague tropes. And when this laziness is called out, well, it’s time to deploy a tactical tankie reference. I definitely don’t care about being insulted, these situations are really just a way for the other person to give themselves an excuse to stop thinking or engaging.
Those are some valid arguments actually. I guess some people do throw the term around too liberally (heh).
I’m very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I’m using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I’ve been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
The US and its proxies have constantly escalated using Ukraine as a proxy for over a decade and since the war started they have continued this pattern. There is no path to victory for Ukraine. If the RF wanted to end it they could run mass bombing campaigns like NATO members do. They are making the opposite calculation: that the status quo of a military meat grinder for Ukraine is better for the RF. Given that one of their goals is a demilitarized Ukraine, there is some logic to this idea.
It has been painfully obvious that Ukraine cannot win from the beginning. Nobody trying to escalate, provide Wunderwaffe, etc really things Ukraine will win, that is just not what any serious person thinks. This is also why there is such an intense and absurd propaganda campaign to say that Russia is losing more people and equipment, with the source nearly always being Azov Batallion, the UA MoD, or a combination of the two. They need to sell the public on the idea that Ukraine just needs your support and dang it they mogjt pull this thing off!
So then, if UA can’t win and the heads of state know they can’t win, what is their logic? What is the angle on who benefits? Well, the singular common thread of brinksmanship with Ukraine as proxy has always been to try anf peel Europe away from economic integration with Russia and to instead keep it in the EU bubble, with more American integration. And, lo and behold, look at how Europe has destroyed its own industry and made itself even more dependent on the US. This has the added effect of isolating Russia from Europe. While Europe still buys their fossil fuels from Russia, trade overall is way down.
In addition, there is the simple calculus that it requires manpower and productive capacity to wage war, capacity that could be directed elsewhere. Iran would likely have more and better air defense systems if Russia weren’t focused on Ukraine.
At no point does the suffering of the Ukrainian people enter the equation. There are no anti-war voices on the mainstream media about this aside from self-serving right wing “this is not our problem” rhetoric.
There are few countries thst tolerate a civil war on their border targeting the ethnicity of your own country, let alone an encroachment of the primary aggressor military force around the world couping them, let alone that neighbor remilitarizing despite agreements and not honoring their agreements. This is geopolitics, not a bar fight. War does not occur in a vacuum, it has a material basis. One does not need to justify war in order to understand that this did not occur in a vacuum and there is blame to go around.
Yeah it’s really just a way for national chauvinist liberals to quiet their own cognitive dissonance. I also think it’s extra funny when a Trotskyist gets called tankie, since they invented the epithet.
Yes the US is trying to decouple on its own terms. Its constant attempts to provoke the PRC with Taiwan is also similar to what they did to Ukraine. To have the consent of their population to sacrifice their own well-being and justify whatever military action might occur, they will needs to be more racist and xenophobic towards China. It may not be Taiwan. It might be Korea or Myanmar. But constant escalation and provocation is the US game. Maximalist, relentless foreign policy pushing towards war and death.
Russia entered a conflict that was already in progress, a civil war where the Ukrainian coup government was attempting to ethnically cleanse the Russian speaking population in the east. This coup was orchestrated by the US (this was obvious, admitted to in recorded phone calls, and was rife with high US politicians (John McCaine for example) going there to celebrate. The US/NATO also funded the training and arming of openly neo-nazi militias like Azov Battalion, (and others) many of whom were the ones shelling the people in the East long before Russia intervened. All of this was done by the US to exert pressure on Russia. And this is just scratching the surface. So no, Russia did not “do this to itself” and your framing of it is naive and simplistic and just plain false.
I am genuinely glad to see you reognize the villainization of China, but please also apply those same critical thinking skills to what you have been told about Russia in the Ukraine conflict and do some digging into the history that doesn’t rely on western propaganda.
Do you have any links?
https://lemmy.ml/post/22553506/15008047
Has the thought ever occur to you, that maybe Russia can just leave Ukraine be? Just maybe another country that is resisting wants to keep it’s sovereignty? Maybe the Tankie word is for people that fails to have any critical thought?
The Russian Federation did leave Ukraine be. It was only after Western meddling, a coup, a civil war, not implementing agreements, toying with NATO membership, and resuming a civilian shelling campaign that the RF invaded.
The imperial core Western powers poked and prodded and used Ukraine as a pawn until the RF hit its limit.
Given that you likely live in one of the countries doing the relentless escalation, why not work against them doing so?
This is the reality of language.
Both definitions are now correct. The change isn’t a fight you can win.
The reality of language is that people like op rely on the negative connotation of the definition I just gave.
Imagine of they just said, “advocating for” instead. Wouldn’t have the same impact, right?
Yup.
You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want, the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
Oh I misunderstood and thought we were talking about a different word. This makes this discussion even sillier.
How do people agree what they are without telling other people their meaning explicitly or implicitly? What about people that intentionally misuse language to deceive? What about language that is self-descriptive due to selective use?
I’m aware of prescriptivism vs descriptionism but this conversation isn’t actually about that. In fact, I am already following a descriptivist line of reasoning, if you will review my earlier comment. I am saying how tankie is used nowadays.
What definition? Which one do I dislike? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The way I understood it is, “anyone defending a target of US empire in any way from the left that I would like to stop listening to before my brain breaks”. Seems spot-on to me.
What on earth do you think you’re replying to?
Dude, idk.
I was just like “you seem to be telling the dude that he isn’t using tankie correctly, but that’s not how language works”
And then you replied that I’m wrong, and seemed to be making an appeal that the negative connotations had to do with the invalidity of the definition.
Our wires are so crossed at this point that a random car in 1960 Spain just got spontaneously hotwired.
What I actually did was provide some context for the term and how it’s used nowadays. The point of the history lesson was to point out how the term became appropriated and set the stage for laughing about how some Trots get called tankie nowadays. The point of “how it’s used nowadays” was go provide a counter-narrative for the “definition” they were taking their own liberties with. I did what they did, but I’m more correct in my context.
Injecting a prescription vs description debate isn’t really relevant.
Yes that was me misunderstanding which word we were talkjng about. There’s another thread I had in mind. I don’t think what I said there applies to the word tankie.
I can make it worse, just give me time.
Removed by mod