This is not false equivalence at all, not even a little bit. Either you are completely misunderstanding the text in the image or you don’t actually know what a false equivalence is. Or both (it’s probably both).
You can be both anti - tankie and anti - USA.
No shit, no one is saying otherwise. The OP image is not claiming that someone can’t be “both anti-tankie and anti-USA.” Nowhere is that implied, and it clearly is possible to be foolish enough to be both those things. That does not change the fact that when you hold “anti-tankie” positions, those positions are aligned with the US even if you consider yourself anti-USA.
Take the issue of support for China: sure, you can be “anti-tankie” and thus erroneously believe that the CPC is an evil dictatorship while also hating the fascist US, but despising China is still aligning with the US on that position. Or for another example, take the issue of support for Ukraine: sure you can be “anti-tankie” by throwing your support behind the neo-Nazi state of Ukraine while simultaneously being “anti-USA,” but your support of Ukraine is still taking a position in alignment with the US. And that is what the OP image is referring to. There is zero false equivalence there, regardless of your stance on “tankies.”
The other people responding to your comment are mostly focusing on pointing out the ignorance of being “anti-tankie” while also thinking you oppose the US, and they are right for doing so. But they are missing (or just glossing over) the fact that it’s your comment that is not logically sound, as it is based on a faulty premise. A little ironic that your claim of a fallacy is itself so obviously fallacious.
“Look buddy, I said USA bad, so that means its okay for me to continue uncritically shitting out state department propaganda. Yeah the end result is me supporting the status quo, but I said USA bad so…”
Anti-communism in the west has been a cradle-to-grave indoctrination program for nearly 100 years now, affecting everything from schools, media, local and national politics, communications mediums, even religious institutions. Its extremely naive (or disingenous) to pretend to take a centrist stance, yet agree with everything the US empire says about its enemies.
Which eastern anti-communists are you referring to?
Maybe Syngman Rhee?
The U.S. installed Syngman Rhee,a conservative Korean exile, as President of South Korea in 1948. Rhee became a dictator on an anti-communist crusade, arresting and torturing suspected communists, brutally putting down rebellions, killing 100,000 people and vowing to take over North Korea. Rhee precipitated the outbreak of the Korean War and for the allied decision to invade North Korea once South Korea had been recaptured. He was finally forced to resign by mass student protests in 1960.1
Maybe Chiang Kai-shek?
In 1949 during the resumed Chinese Civil War, the US supported the corrupt Kuomintang dictatorship of Chiang Kaishek to fight against the Chinese Communists, who had won the support of the vast majority of peasant-farmers and helped defeat the Japanese invasion. The US strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 US Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones as well as to contain Communist-controlled areas.51 American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies; additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT.59 Within less than two years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received $4.43 billion from the US—most of which was military aid.511
Or maybe Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam?
From 1955-1975, the US supported French colonialist interests in Vietnam, set up a puppet regime in Saigon to serve US interests, and later took part as a belligerent against North Vietnam in the Vietnam War. U.S. involvement escalated further following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was later found to be staged by Lyndon Johnson. The war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities (see Vietnam War casualties). Estimates of the number of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians killed vary from 966,000 source to 3.8 million.source Some 240,000–300,000 Cambodians,source23 20,000–62,000 Laotians,4 and 58,220 U.S. service members also died in the conflict, with a further 1,626 missing in action. Unexploded bomb continue to kill civilians for years afterward. 1
I have yet to meet one but even if it was possible, why would any group holding anti-US views go out of their way to also punch other anti-US groups? Youre just another fed at that point. Ive not once heard the saying “the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy”.
And yet every “anti USA and anti Tankie” person seems to believe exactly what the US State Department has to say about all of the US’s geopolitical adversaries, so it’s really just a meaningless label for a US bootlicker who’s disingenuous or deeply confused.
Please explain how you can be both against the people who are against colonialisman empire, but also against the entities engaging in colonialismanother empire.
okay so one empire is bigger than the others, does that make all the other empires suddenly not count? everyone is automatically good if they aren’t the US? sounds like quite an infantile position to hold.
calling the empire with over 700 bases all over the world, with active support for “Israel” and their genocide and who bombed Iran that killed 150~ school girls and kidnapped a democratically elected leader from Venezuela just “bigger than the other empires” as implying the other countries to be the same when it’s obvious that they are not only NOT empires, because words can mean things and not based on some childish vibes, but that they are ones actively under siege by the Amerikan empire.
If you see someone viciously assaulting someone. Where the assaulting person has a known history of unprovoked violence, and you assume that both are bad. Then you are siding with the assaulter. You are siding the empire. You are not neutral, there is no neutrality.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy. I can be against some subset of people who are against colonialism while still being against colonialism myself. Supporting shared beliefs while not supporting unshared beliefs is a logical position for anyone to take. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very unrealistic and asinine take in most real life situations.
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war, the military industrial complex, and the US being a world police force. But Libertarians would also let this capitalist hellscape chew up and spit out as many people as the market demands in the name of profit. We are not friends.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take), but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
“The enemy is both an imminent danger to our society and self evidently ridiculous and mentally defective for reasons that don’t even warrant elucidation.”
Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and socialists are not one to one with tankies, friend. Some became tankies, yes. But fighting your oppressors and becoming an oppressors are two different things.
I cannot stress enough how the entire structure of this “tankie” narrative is just reheated Christian epistemology about power corrupting, rehashed Marvel slop about how changing anything actually makes you turn evil, capitalist slave ideology about how change leads to bad things and a better world isn’t possible. Better to suffer forever and be a pure lamb in the hopes of being rewarded in the afterlife after a really good election.
Anyway, if I was to ask you what on earth you think is going to happen if we all “go tankie” (just the new snarl word for communist now that communism is becoming popular) you would not be able to give me a coherent, stage-1 stage-2, cause and effect answer. Your answer would look less like a scientific process of cause and effect and more like a religious prohpect, because you and I grew up being conditioned into liberal thought, which means being conditioned into magical thinking.
I have no issue with communists, revolutionaries, fighting oppressors, change, etc. I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
Revolution is violence against political dissenters and is authoritarian, considering that revolutionaries impose their will upon somebody else by usage of force.
But hey, everybody willing can explain why violence against fascists (who are the “political dissenters” in question) and authoritarianism (i.e. having a government and a military) are bad and shouldn’t be done by the Global South.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
Well, “tankies” are simply “people who are correct too early”, but that does, indeed, include being against colonialism.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy.
No dichotomy is presented, other than the implicit “being for/against colonialism” (and, let’s be honest, you are firmly for it).
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war
Yeeah, no. Let’s be honest, you support invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take)
Considering that “tankies” were a major force behind decolonisation in the 20th century, your protestations are rather silly.
but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
Okay, how do you propose the Global South fights against your empire without violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having functioning governments and militaries)?
That expression is interchangeable with the word “tankie”, so it is a definition of that word.
The fact thay you follow that up with an entire field of strawmen
You don’t know what a “strawman” is, either, do you?
It’s pretty clear that you have realised that your “no violence, no governments” position just supports colonialism and nothing more, and have decided to leave while attempting to save face.
Me: “I’m against colonialism”, You: “You are firmly for it”
Me: “I’m against war, the miltiary industrial complex, and the US policing the world with force”, You: “You support the invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq”
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Instead of dealing with what I actually said, you knock down a fake, weaker version of the argument. Strawmanning.
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
And your definition means nothing at. So anyone correct “too early” is, definitionally, a tankie? I’ll inform the historians that Galileo was one of the original tankies then, I guess. Such bullshit.
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
How should the Global South resist your empire?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
This is a classic false equivalence fallacy. You can be both anti - tankie and anti - USA.
This is not false equivalence at all, not even a little bit. Either you are completely misunderstanding the text in the image or you don’t actually know what a false equivalence is. Or both (it’s probably both).
No shit, no one is saying otherwise. The OP image is not claiming that someone can’t be “both anti-tankie and anti-USA.” Nowhere is that implied, and it clearly is possible to be foolish enough to be both those things. That does not change the fact that when you hold “anti-tankie” positions, those positions are aligned with the US even if you consider yourself anti-USA.
Take the issue of support for China: sure, you can be “anti-tankie” and thus erroneously believe that the CPC is an evil dictatorship while also hating the fascist US, but despising China is still aligning with the US on that position. Or for another example, take the issue of support for Ukraine: sure you can be “anti-tankie” by throwing your support behind the neo-Nazi state of Ukraine while simultaneously being “anti-USA,” but your support of Ukraine is still taking a position in alignment with the US. And that is what the OP image is referring to. There is zero false equivalence there, regardless of your stance on “tankies.”
The other people responding to your comment are mostly focusing on pointing out the ignorance of being “anti-tankie” while also thinking you oppose the US, and they are right for doing so. But they are missing (or just glossing over) the fact that it’s your comment that is not logically sound, as it is based on a faulty premise. A little ironic that your claim of a fallacy is itself so obviously fallacious.
“Look buddy, I said USA bad, so that means its okay for me to continue uncritically shitting out state department propaganda. Yeah the end result is me supporting the status quo, but I said USA bad so…”
In the abstract, you can hold any two incompatible positions you want. In practice, you cannot.
Anti-communism in the west has been a cradle-to-grave indoctrination program for nearly 100 years now, affecting everything from schools, media, local and national politics, communications mediums, even religious institutions. Its extremely naive (or disingenous) to pretend to take a centrist stance, yet agree with everything the US empire says about its enemies.
List of US atrocities
Then listen to the anti-communism in the East because they know what they’re talking about and stop “westsplaining”
Which eastern anti-communists are you referring to?
Maybe Syngman Rhee?
Maybe Chiang Kai-shek?
Or maybe Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam?
Removed by mod
Lmao
None of that has to be incorrect. The original post is still fallacious.
I have yet to meet one but even if it was possible, why would any group holding anti-US views go out of their way to also punch other anti-US groups? Youre just another fed at that point. Ive not once heard the saying “the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy”.
And yet every “anti USA and anti Tankie” person seems to believe exactly what the US State Department has to say about all of the US’s geopolitical adversaries, so it’s really just a meaningless label for a US bootlicker who’s disingenuous or deeply confused.
Please explain how you can be both against the people who are against colonialism, but also against the entities engaging in colonialism
It’s called consistency.
What do you think an empire is?
Oh, this is one of those things where you don’t know what “empire” means, and just use it as a standin for “large country (bad vibes)”
The US empire has over 700+ military bases outside its borders, and has waged wars and coups in nearly every country on the planet.
All other countries combined, have a total of <20 foreign bases.
okay so one empire is bigger than the others, does that make all the other empires suddenly not count? everyone is automatically good if they aren’t the US? sounds like quite an infantile position to hold.
calling the empire with over 700 bases all over the world, with active support for “Israel” and their genocide and who bombed Iran that killed 150~ school girls and kidnapped a democratically elected leader from Venezuela just “bigger than the other empires” as implying the other countries to be the same when it’s obvious that they are not only NOT empires, because words can mean things and not based on some childish vibes, but that they are ones actively under siege by the Amerikan empire.
If you see someone viciously assaulting someone. Where the assaulting person has a known history of unprovoked violence, and you assume that both are bad. Then you are siding with the assaulter. You are siding the empire. You are not neutral, there is no neutrality.
Ah yes, “neither Tel Aviv, nor Gaza”.
The empire of global south that’s a new one to me.
Tankies are simply “people against colonialism” is a new take for me. Pfft.
But anyway, your question is an obviously false dichotomy. I can be against some subset of people who are against colonialism while still being against colonialism myself. Supporting shared beliefs while not supporting unshared beliefs is a logical position for anyone to take. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very unrealistic and asinine take in most real life situations.
For example, Libertarians and I are both ostensibly against war, the military industrial complex, and the US being a world police force. But Libertarians would also let this capitalist hellscape chew up and spit out as many people as the market demands in the name of profit. We are not friends.
Similarly, by your definition, tankies and I may both be “against colonialism” (and I’m just granting you that for the sake of argument, as I very much think that that is a bullshit take), but we do not agree on the means, the justification of violence, and the authoritarianism needed to oppose it. We are also not friends.
Removed by mod
“The enemy is both an imminent danger to our society and self evidently ridiculous and mentally defective for reasons that don’t even warrant elucidation.”
🤔
Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, and socialists are not one to one with tankies, friend. Some became tankies, yes. But fighting your oppressors and becoming an oppressors are two different things.
Gonna tell me this isn’t the way next?
I cannot stress enough how the entire structure of this “tankie” narrative is just reheated Christian epistemology about power corrupting, rehashed Marvel slop about how changing anything actually makes you turn evil, capitalist slave ideology about how change leads to bad things and a better world isn’t possible. Better to suffer forever and be a pure lamb in the hopes of being rewarded
in the afterlifeafter a really good election.Anyway, if I was to ask you what on earth you think is going to happen if we all “go tankie” (just the new snarl word for communist now that communism is becoming popular) you would not be able to give me a coherent, stage-1 stage-2, cause and effect answer. Your answer would look less like a scientific process of cause and effect and more like a religious prohpect, because you and I grew up being conditioned into liberal thought, which means being conditioned into magical thinking.
I have no issue with communists, revolutionaries, fighting oppressors, change, etc. I have an issue with authoritarianism (both left and right wing), and violence employed against political dissenters.
Revolution is violence against political dissenters and is authoritarian, considering that revolutionaries impose their will upon somebody else by usage of force.
But hey, everybody willing can explain why violence against fascists (who are the “political dissenters” in question) and authoritarianism (i.e. having a government and a military) are bad and shouldn’t be done by the Global South.
Well, “tankies” are simply “people who are correct too early”, but that does, indeed, include being against colonialism.
No dichotomy is presented, other than the implicit “being for/against colonialism” (and, let’s be honest, you are firmly for it).
Yeeah, no. Let’s be honest, you support invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Considering that “tankies” were a major force behind decolonisation in the 20th century, your protestations are rather silly.
Okay, how do you propose the Global South fights against your empire without violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having functioning governments and militaries)?
Removed by mod
That expression is interchangeable with the word “tankie”, so it is a definition of that word.
You don’t know what a “strawman” is, either, do you?
It’s pretty clear that you have realised that your “no violence, no governments” position just supports colonialism and nothing more, and have decided to leave while attempting to save face.
Removed by mod
I welcome to be proven wrong.
So far, you have said that you disagree that the Global South needs to use violence and “authoritarianism” (i.e. having governments and militaries) to defend against your empire. How should the Global South resist your empire?
Okay, where did I misrepresent your argument?
Sure, I engaged in some levity. However, the fact that you do not contest that, when people are called “tankies”, they are, indeed, correct too soon is telling.
Oh have I? Quote me. Where did I say that?
First of all, again, you are poisoning the well with this “your empire” shit. You love a good argument fallacy, don’t you? But regardless I did not say that there are not times where violence is necessary and called for. Revolution, fighting oppression, and defense of self and others are all perfectly reasonably justifications for violence. My position against violence is more nuanced than “it can never be justified”.
What are your positions on the justification of violence. I will assume you also support revolution, as that seems to be your implication. But what about, say, the Chistka/The Great Purge? Or Red August/Sweeping Away All Monsters and Demons (Héngsǎo Yīqiè Niúguǐ Shéshén)? What is your opinion of those events?
Are you serious? I just quoted that. The selective reading comprehension is impressive, honestly.
Allow me to repeat myself. I contest that. I refute that. That is bullshit. Clear enough?
Lol, you fucking baby; “how dare you not just accept my political snarl word!”
What are you even talking about?
Go back to Reddit
Removed by mod
Aw, he confused