That’s tankie propaganda, which seems to be the whole reason for you creating your account.
Tankies are the violent authoritarian wing of socialists, who believe liberals, landlords, bankers, intellectuals, etc. should be put to death. Stalin, Mao, etc.
They’re kinda like fascists as far as loving violence and purging their undesirables except the boot is a different flavor:
“We will live in a utopia if you merely give us the power to kill everyone we dislike!”
You understand comments are public, so it makes no sense to lie about previous interactions, right?
In any case, yes, this explicitly is propaganda, specifically nazi propaganda. Circa 1930s, repackaged in the 1960s.
Tankies are the violent authoritarian
Define either of these words in a way that excludes any state that has ever or could ever exist. You can’t. Every single state is violent, and it is authoritarian. The entire concept of politics is to decide who has the monopoly of power, and for what it is used.
wing of socialists,
All socialists are violent because:
who believe liberals, landlords, bankers, intellectuals, etc. should be put to death. Stalin, Mao, etc.
Besides liberals and intellectuals, both of which are not including in the list of ‘victims’ of ‘violent’ socialists, all socialists should want the deaths of landlords and bankers.
They cannot be reformed, see the Kulaks who chose to kill themselves rather than pay their workers a wage and collectivize their land.
They’re kinda like fascists as far as loving violence and purging their undesirables except the boot is a different flavor:
The only possible way you could believe this is if you think all violence is bad, which makes you a naive, ignorant child; but the common reason to state this is to equivocate violence based on immutable characteristics, and violence based on mutable characteristics. Which is what nazis are want to do, in order to justify their unjustifable actions.
Practically every single adult on the planet accepts that violence is necessary. The only disagreement is to whom and to what extent said violence should be done. Pretending this isn’t the case is again either ignorance or intentional theatrical naivety.
“We will live in a utopia if you merely give us the power to kill everyone we dislike!”
What is your solution to people with unlimited wealth, no morality, and a psychotic devotion to harming society?
You can’t imprison them forever if you’re a poor country. You can’t send them to the fields to try to reform them, they are physically incapable of it at that point. You can’t let them live free, otherwise you will spend half your hard earned resources on defending against them from within and without.
You understand comments are public, so it makes no sense to lie about previous interactions, right?
Right, so I didn’t, which is why I linked it.
In any case, yes, this explicitly is propaganda, specifically nazi propaganda. Circa 1930s, repackaged in the 1960s.
“This” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, considering you haven’t specified what you’re talking about unless you mean anti-Stalinist/communist sentiment. Technically true, but in the most ridiculous way possible. Observe:
It was also nazi propaganda that Stalin (and communism) were allies of the nazis, therefore are you an ally of nazis?
Tankies are the violent authoritarian
Define either of these words in a way that excludes any state that has ever or could ever exist. You can’t.
Tankie: Violent authoritarian socialists
violent: Causing or intending to cause damage, injury, or death, often when involving great force.
authoritarian: Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
Every single state is violent
I can’t tell if you’re being pedantic or you’re just confused, but I’ll help regardless:
I meantrelativelyviolent when compared to others.
All socialists are violent
Absolutely not.
Besides liberals and intellectuals, both of which are not including in the list of ‘victims’ of ‘violent’ socialists, all socialists should want the deaths of landlords and bankers.
In your opinion.
The only possible way you could believe this is if you think all violence is bad
I don’t.
What is your solution to people with unlimited wealth
Not possible, so next:
no morality
Also not possible, next:
and a psychotic devotion to harming society?
Prosecution based on their actions.
You can’t imprison them forever if you’re a poor country. You can’t send them to the fields to try to reform them, they are physically incapable of it at that point. You can’t let them live free, otherwise you will spend half your hard earned resources on defending against them from within and without.
In other words “it is cheaper to kill those who break the law (as written by us?) than to imprison and/or reform them.” While true, that’s the exact thought process behind nazi atrocities, and I reject it as the exact psychotic harm to society you pretend to be against.
I’m curious, if someone supports the death penalty in general, not in the context of a socialist state, is that “psychotic harm” that’s equivalent to Nazi atrocities? Like, I would disagree with that position, but equating it to Nazism is pretty ridiculous. As far as I’m aware, every country has had the death penalty at some point in it’s history, so they all have Nazi pasts?
This is really quite silly. It’s basically like saying that anyone who supports the existence of states is a Nazi because the Nazis had a state. Not far off from “Hitler ate sugar so anyone who eats sugar is like Hitler.”
Tankie is just anyone to the left of burning orphans for warmth. It’s also a nazi dogwhistle.
That’s tankie propaganda, which seems to be the whole reason for you creating your account.
Tankies are the violent authoritarian wing of socialists, who believe liberals, landlords, bankers, intellectuals, etc. should be put to death. Stalin, Mao, etc.
They’re kinda like fascists as far as loving violence and purging their undesirables except the boot is a different flavor:
“We will live in a utopia if you merely give us the power to kill everyone we dislike!”
Psychotic comment, what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
That’s the nazi propaganda being dogwhistled, yes.
No it isn’t. Facts that you don’t like aren’t automatically propaganda.
Yesterday when we talked about what exactly you believe as far as Stalin, Mao, et al., you just diverted into ad hominem rather than answer the question.
Want to try again?
ACAB
How trite; enjoy the block.
All cops are Nazis and slave patrol too.
You understand comments are public, so it makes no sense to lie about previous interactions, right?
In any case, yes, this explicitly is propaganda, specifically nazi propaganda. Circa 1930s, repackaged in the 1960s.
Define either of these words in a way that excludes any state that has ever or could ever exist. You can’t. Every single state is violent, and it is authoritarian. The entire concept of politics is to decide who has the monopoly of power, and for what it is used.
All socialists are violent because:
Besides liberals and intellectuals, both of which are not including in the list of ‘victims’ of ‘violent’ socialists, all socialists should want the deaths of landlords and bankers.
They cannot be reformed, see the Kulaks who chose to kill themselves rather than pay their workers a wage and collectivize their land.
The only possible way you could believe this is if you think all violence is bad, which makes you a naive, ignorant child; but the common reason to state this is to equivocate violence based on immutable characteristics, and violence based on mutable characteristics. Which is what nazis are want to do, in order to justify their unjustifable actions.
Practically every single adult on the planet accepts that violence is necessary. The only disagreement is to whom and to what extent said violence should be done. Pretending this isn’t the case is again either ignorance or intentional theatrical naivety.
What is your solution to people with unlimited wealth, no morality, and a psychotic devotion to harming society?
You can’t imprison them forever if you’re a poor country. You can’t send them to the fields to try to reform them, they are physically incapable of it at that point. You can’t let them live free, otherwise you will spend half your hard earned resources on defending against them from within and without.
Right, so I didn’t, which is why I linked it.
“This” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, considering you haven’t specified what you’re talking about unless you mean anti-Stalinist/communist sentiment. Technically true, but in the most ridiculous way possible. Observe:
It was also nazi propaganda that Stalin (and communism) were allies of the nazis, therefore are you an ally of nazis?
Tankie: Violent authoritarian socialists
violent: Causing or intending to cause damage, injury, or death, often when involving great force.
authoritarian: Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
I can’t tell if you’re being pedantic or you’re just confused, but I’ll help regardless:
I meant relatively violent when compared to others.
Absolutely not.
In your opinion.
I don’t.
Not possible, so next:
Also not possible, next:
Prosecution based on their actions.
In other words “it is cheaper to kill those who break the law (as written by us?) than to imprison and/or reform them.” While true, that’s the exact thought process behind nazi atrocities, and I reject it as the exact psychotic harm to society you pretend to be against.
I’m curious, if someone supports the death penalty in general, not in the context of a socialist state, is that “psychotic harm” that’s equivalent to Nazi atrocities? Like, I would disagree with that position, but equating it to Nazism is pretty ridiculous. As far as I’m aware, every country has had the death penalty at some point in it’s history, so they all have Nazi pasts?
This is really quite silly. It’s basically like saying that anyone who supports the existence of states is a Nazi because the Nazis had a state. Not far off from “Hitler ate sugar so anyone who eats sugar is like Hitler.”