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!
You claimed that you had “directly” addressed all my points, and not just blandly repeated “this is how I use it.” Then you referenced yourself not addressing my point and instead blandly repeating “this is how I use it.”
No, it’s actually about people who support peace. I already explained why, in a point that you most certainly, 100% failed to address, directly or otherwise.
No, it’s not. Tankie in NO WAY means “people who support peace”.
You explained why, true, but your explanation was FALSE. Because words are defined by common use. And common use of the word “tankie” is “authoritarian communist”, not “people who support peace”.
You saying I’ve failed proves that I’m right, because you also say “tankie means people who support peace”. Your claims are absurdly wrong to a comical degree, you’re some kind of bizarro tankie that hates itself.
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!
You claimed that you had “directly” addressed all my points, and not just blandly repeated “this is how I use it.” Then you referenced yourself not addressing my point and instead blandly repeating “this is how I use it.”
Indeed, I said that I directly addressed your points because I did.
I never said “this is how I use it.” The definition exists independently of me or you.
And that definition is “authoritarian communist”, and has nothing to do with peace, actually!
No, it’s actually about people who support peace. I already explained why, in a point that you most certainly, 100% failed to address, directly or otherwise.
No, it’s not. Tankie in NO WAY means “people who support peace”.
You explained why, true, but your explanation was FALSE. Because words are defined by common use. And common use of the word “tankie” is “authoritarian communist”, not “people who support peace”.
You saying I’ve failed proves that I’m right, because you also say “tankie means people who support peace”. Your claims are absurdly wrong to a comical degree, you’re some kind of bizarro tankie that hates itself.
How many times are you going to blandly assert that your definition is correct while ignoring all my points? Like talking to a brick wall.