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.
Really? You addressed the argument that opposing war can be used to accuse the person of supporting the other side? The thing that you’re doing right now? Where? Apparently you even addressed it “directly!” I don’t see that anywhere. All I see is, “No, I use it to mean this” over and over.
It doesn’t matter what you call me or accuse me of. It’s based on nothing. How did you come to the conclusion that I’m an “authoritarian” who “wants to crush dissent with tanks or any other means?” Was is because I said we should build fewer tanks?
I addressed your argument re “definition”, what the definition was, and what makes a definition.
It’s okay if you don’t see that, that means that you are suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance. You can’t see it! It’s like it doesn’t exist!
No accusations have been made, it’s all here for anyone else to see (as long as they don’t share your cognitive dissonance, that is).
What you say or “believe” doesn’t matter, the definition of “tankie” remains “authoritarian communist”, not “peace-loving friends” or what have you. And tankies love tanks and communism and Stalin.
What you personally are or are not doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant.
I didn’t say that’s what you said, I addressed how I responded to you. Obviously.
I don’t care what you are and don’t want to discuss you personally, thank you.
Tankie means “authoritarian communist”, regardless of what you are or what you think the word means. “Tankie” has nothing to do with “peace”. Actually!
Definitions exist independently of you, thank God!
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.
I addressed them each, directly.
And you are a tankie, because you are an authoritarian communist who wants to crush dissent with tanks or any other means.
But you can’t! It’s a tragedy.
Really? You addressed the argument that opposing war can be used to accuse the person of supporting the other side? The thing that you’re doing right now? Where? Apparently you even addressed it “directly!” I don’t see that anywhere. All I see is, “No, I use it to mean this” over and over.
It doesn’t matter what you call me or accuse me of. It’s based on nothing. How did you come to the conclusion that I’m an “authoritarian” who “wants to crush dissent with tanks or any other means?” Was is because I said we should build fewer tanks?
Yes, really!
I addressed your argument re “definition”, what the definition was, and what makes a definition.
It’s okay if you don’t see that, that means that you are suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance. You can’t see it! It’s like it doesn’t exist!
No accusations have been made, it’s all here for anyone else to see (as long as they don’t share your cognitive dissonance, that is).
What you say or “believe” doesn’t matter, the definition of “tankie” remains “authoritarian communist”, not “peace-loving friends” or what have you. And tankies love tanks and communism and Stalin.
What you personally are or are not doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant.
That’s not what I said at all. That’s just repeatedly asserting “this is how I use it” while completely ignoring my point.
What is? What have I said that demonstrates I fit your definition of “tankie?”
I didn’t say that’s what you said, I addressed how I responded to you. Obviously.
I don’t care what you are and don’t want to discuss you personally, thank you.
Tankie means “authoritarian communist”, regardless of what you are or what you think the word means. “Tankie” has nothing to do with “peace”. Actually!
Definitions exist independently of you, thank God!