As with most political slurs, while originally having some (albeit often overstated) meaning, “tankie” boils down today to “you person with whom I disagree”. C.f. “Nazi” or “SJW” or “MAGAt” or any number of other tribal signalling mechanisms.
Generally I find people who resort to such political slurs prone to using them in place of thoughtful discourse, so upon hearing them used—no matter which political ideology is being slurred thusly—I assume the person using them has nothing valid to say and skip to the next post. As such I advocate strongly for people using them as often as they like. It helps me bypass the chaff that much more quickly.
All those labels you quoted have actual meaning. They may not be always used accurately, but they are not derailed from reality. There’s millions of nazis around spreading their ideology, as much as there’s marxist-leninists trying to rewrite history of the bolshevik coup d’État and political repression as some form of popular justice. These people deserve to be criticized for their genocidal aspirations.
Correction: all those labels I quoted had meaning. Meaning in language is determined by usage, not by fiat. (If you don’t agree, I’d ask you to point me to the authority you recognize for language meaning…) In usage outside of very specific technical contexts they have all lost meaning because grandstanders and ignoramuses love to reach for the worst word they used when dismissively labelling someone with whom they disagree.
Why reach for “authoritarian right-winger”, after all, when “YOU’RE A LITERAL NAZI!” packs a more solid punch (in their minds)? Why reach for “authoritarian left-winger” when you could screech “TANKIE!” at the top of your lungs?
Terms which become epithets follow this inevitable downhill path: term of the art → symbolic term → epithet → “person with whom I mildly or greatly disagree, along with an annotation of my tribal involvement”.
As with most political slurs, while originally having some (albeit often overstated) meaning, “tankie” boils down today to “you person with whom I disagree”. C.f. “Nazi” or “SJW” or “MAGAt” or any number of other tribal signalling mechanisms.
Generally I find people who resort to such political slurs prone to using them in place of thoughtful discourse, so upon hearing them used—no matter which political ideology is being slurred thusly—I assume the person using them has nothing valid to say and skip to the next post. As such I advocate strongly for people using them as often as they like. It helps me bypass the chaff that much more quickly.
All those labels you quoted have actual meaning. They may not be always used accurately, but they are not derailed from reality. There’s millions of nazis around spreading their ideology, as much as there’s marxist-leninists trying to rewrite history of the bolshevik coup d’État and political repression as some form of popular justice. These people deserve to be criticized for their genocidal aspirations.
Correction: all those labels I quoted had meaning. Meaning in language is determined by usage, not by fiat. (If you don’t agree, I’d ask you to point me to the authority you recognize for language meaning…) In usage outside of very specific technical contexts they have all lost meaning because grandstanders and ignoramuses love to reach for the worst word they used when dismissively labelling someone with whom they disagree.
Why reach for “authoritarian right-winger”, after all, when “YOU’RE A LITERAL NAZI!” packs a more solid punch (in their minds)? Why reach for “authoritarian left-winger” when you could screech “TANKIE!” at the top of your lungs?
Terms which become epithets follow this inevitable downhill path: term of the art → symbolic term → epithet → “person with whom I mildly or greatly disagree, along with an annotation of my tribal involvement”.