123
What's wrong with bluesky?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
123 points (90.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44148 readers
1469 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Tankie has no definition to liberals so they can't answer this, it is whatever they feel at the time.
I’m not a liberal — I’m a leftist — and I consider a Tankie to be someone who gets so wrapped up in hating the U.S. or West in general that they start defending the likes of Stalin and others who used a facade of Marx/Lenin to consolidate power and do horrible things. Like, you do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Stalin.
Incidentally, here’s Thomas the Tankie Engine:
I made that for a shitpost in 5 minutes using Midjourney so don’t judge all the obvious A.I. flaws or that I used machine learning. I’d pay a real artist if it wasn’t a throwaway bit.
That is what embarrassed liberals call themselves.
Not under any circumstances? What about ending The Holocaust and The Third Reich? There's a reason Western anticommunism is inextricable from fascism.
By usage, a "tankie" is just anyone that defends an entity that a liberal wants to attack, generally in line with the Western imperialist consensus. Hell, it was defined originally by Trots to attack a decision by Kruschev, someone whose (largely fabricated) anti-Stalin statements defined much of the Western propaganda against him, likely including much of what you're thinking of. It is very funny to see it used against Stalin. To honor the Trot tradition you should call such people (and maybe everything you don't like) Stalinists!
Okay bud