Me: “I’m against colonialism”, You: “You are firmly for it”
Me: “I’m against war, the miltiary industrial complex, and the US policing the world with force”, You: “You support the invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq”
The strawman fallacy: “refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” Instead of dealing with what I actually said, you knock down a fake, weaker version of the argument. Strawmanning.
And your definition means nothing at. So anyone correct “too early” is, definitionally, a tankie? I’ll inform the historians that Galileo was one of the original tankies then, I guess. Such bullshit. And it is a description of a phenomenon, not a definition. It does not define any particular group. And if it did, It also has been most commonly applied to leftists in general, not tankies specifically. So you are already misappropriating it to a much narrower group than it was ever really applied to, and doing it wrong at the same time.
Me: “I’m against colonialism”, You: “You are firmly for it”
Me: “I’m against war, the miltiary industrial complex, and the US policing the world with force”, You: “You support the invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq”
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Instead of dealing with what I actually said, you knock down a fake, weaker version of the argument. Strawmanning.
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
And your definition means nothing at. So anyone correct “too early” is, definitionally, a tankie? I’ll inform the historians that Galileo was one of the original tankies then, I guess. Such bullshit.
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
How should the Global South resist your empire?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
Me: “I’m against colonialism”, You: “You are firmly for it”
Me: “I’m against war, the miltiary industrial complex, and the US policing the world with force”, You: “You support the invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq”
The strawman fallacy: “refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” Instead of dealing with what I actually said, you knock down a fake, weaker version of the argument. Strawmanning.
And your definition means nothing at. So anyone correct “too early” is, definitionally, a tankie? I’ll inform the historians that Galileo was one of the original tankies then, I guess. Such bullshit. And it is a description of a phenomenon, not a definition. It does not define any particular group. And if it did, It also has been most commonly applied to leftists in general, not tankies specifically. So you are already misappropriating it to a much narrower group than it was ever really applied to, and doing it wrong at the same time.
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?