In interactions with authoritarians, I’m often reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre’s description of anti-semites.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Tankies follow the same underlying basis for their justifications of authoritarianism as every other stripe.
The meme I sent in the original pic
The longer you live the more you learn all countries are bad in there own right.
That may be true but that also is not an excuse to commit crimes against humanity
An excuse? Every country on the planet has committed crimes against humanity we’re already doing it.
Hence me becoming an anarchist ahah
As someone from Switzerland it pisses me off how some people see our country as a utopia. We still have massive inequalities and suffering. People may not be dying on the streets, but they are sure as hell dying preventable deaths behind closed doors.
Gotta imagine how horrifying life is in other countries where they see a greener pasture across every other field but theirs
on new accounts
Chinese ragebait tankie bot spotted
new accounts
As in they’re getting banned a lot or they’re trolling/sockpuppeting, or both.
From (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an initial a posteriori claim from a subsequent falsifying counterexample by then covertly modifying the initial claim.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim to definitionally (as opposed to evidentially) exclude the undesirable counterexample.[4] The modification is usually identifiable by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, or “real”, which can be used to locate when the shift in meaning of the claim occurs.[2]
Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.” Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
