NomNomLast poll for Paris 2025 elections. Second round. The anti-car candidate is at 36%.
Notice how, to this user, “pro-car” and “normie centrist” aren’t deserving of slurs, but being to the left of socdems gets you called “tankie” and libs use every lawfare case to smear leftist candidates
being pro-China should be the default position.
You can absolutely be pro-public transit without also endorsing or excusing all the other shit one particular country does, just because you happen to agree on one point. China is more than its railway.
Also, I’m pretty sure “normie” is just as much of a derogatory epithet as “tankie”, and neither is particularly bad. Certainly not bad enough to rise to the level of a slur.
“Normie” is related to “normal”, “tankie” is related to “tanks”. The word “lib”, which I use, is a shortening of “liberal”. I could make up a slur to refer to liberals such as “dronies” referring to drone strikes by the Obama administration they support, or “bombies” for supporting Europe when it bombed Iraq and Libya and Yugoslavia. I hope it’s self-explanatory that the word “tankie” is explicitly a lot more violent.
You can absolutely be pro-public transit without also endorsing or excusing all the other shit
Yes, that’s what people usually do when they praise Dutch bike cities for example. Bringing Netherlands as an example doesn’t mean you condone Netherlands being the heir state to a genocidal empire. Bringing up China in the context of public transit should be regarded well.
The N-word is related to colour, I dont get it why that matters whether something is a slur or not.
Now, if there were precedents of mass imprisonment, law abuse, discrimination, and outright murder of communists, my argument would hold. Oh, wait, the red scare happened, and McCarthyism, and mass executions of communists all over fascist Europe, and… Oh wait, there’s all of that…
Are you sure this was meant to be a reply to me?
Well, you’re making bad faith replies to words used to describe people who are consistently repressed under capitalism, so yes I’m responding to you
I said slurs can be based on colour and you’re saying that I pretend that communist were not persecuted, do you see why I’m confused?
Why did you respond that to my comment then
Because I think you were wrong? In fact I find your original argument kind of ridiculous.
So you DO understand why I explained you my reasoning for criticising the word “tankie” used as a left-punching slur, and you’re just playing dumb instead of engaging with anything I said.
I engaged with what you said, I said I dont think it’s right to base whether something is a slur based on the root meaning of the word. I think that’s incorrect and a little ridiculous.
Which is why I proceeded to explain you the history of repression and discrimination of communists in western societies.
What does that have to do with whether tank being a weapon causes a word to be more oppressive or not?
Then ignore the etymology and focus on the historical facts, what do you have to say about them?
Why would I ignore the thing I wanted to talk about? Do you find it weird that you accused me of not engaging with you yet you seem to ignore what I say?