That is indeed the two sides depicted in the meme

Lol. No. Wikipedia didn’t exist in 1989. Please learn what sources actually are, rather than doing the usual shitlib thing of assuming that Wikipedia is like the gold tablets of Joseph Smith; a divine font of perfect knowledge straight from God.

Yes, and always was

and thousands of civilians (including a lot of bystanders) were dead before tank man did his thing.

Source: it came to me in a dream

Nah, death to the author

I mean we both know I’m talking about specific acts of political violence

Yes, which was my point. These definitions always have some implicit carve out exception to allow the kind of political violence that the person giving them agrees with to “not count”.

To be clear what makes it authoritarian is when it’s the state/government/leadership that is using acts of violence against citizens with political ideas that would threaten their power.

This would include collecting taxes, enforcing national borders, enforcing private property, all gun control measures, suppressing domestic terrorists and militias, implementing a particular voting system and then enforcing the result, conscription, and indeed, enforcing the concept of “citizen” vs “non-citizens” in the first place. But, again, you’ve cut out an expectation for political violence you agree with already.

And tankies get the name specifically from either defending or denying that specifically the Soviet Union used violence to suppress attempts to leave their union.

And here’s yet another post-hoc definition of tankie that does not actually line up with how anybody uses the term. Or are you willing for me to ping you to chime in every time someone calls me a tankie for something that has nothing to do with the USSR keeping Soviets in the union (incidently, there isn’t a country on earth that will willing let parts of it leave.)

and hexbear has decided accusing people of being anti-trans is their move, but those are simply strawmen, and really poorly constructed ones at that.

Sounds like you’re a transphobe who got called out.

If you’d actually read my post, you’d know my point wasn’t about it being used “incorrectly”.

people defending or denying historical acts of political violence. That’s what we mean when we say tankies are authoritarian.

Defeating the Nazis was an act of political violence, freeing slaves was an act of political violence, over throwing the feudal system was an act of political believe, driving out colonial empires is an act of political violence, enforcing property rights is an act of political violence, ceasing the means of production is an act of political violence.

See? This is exactly, exactly what I was talking about.

You consider tankies to be people who have actually dug into the sources and done enough research to come to their own conclusion rather than just accepting the cold war narrative without question?

No, but a lot of liberals consider themselves anarchists.

If you’re one of those people who just considers “tankie” to be a synonym for “Marxist-leninist” then I suppose I agree, but I think the term is used too nebulously to meaningfully place on the political spectrum.

Not really, no. To a capitalist, all forms of leftism is ‘authoritarian,’ because they consider private property natural and oppose leftists ‘stealing’ in.

‘Authoritarianism’ just isn’t a particularly useful term because nobody who uses is is ever actually categorically opposed to forcefully compelling people to do or not do things. They will always have a build in exception for what ever they consider to be ‘legitimate authority’, and what they consider justified authority will just depend on what political philosophy they ascribe to. So really calling the word just means “someone with a different political theory to me with regards to legitimate authority.”

I belive that I have more freedom in (unregulated) capitalism that’s not state backed

All capitalism is state backed, by definition.

For being opposed to western chauvinism.

Blahaj zone will ban you at the drop of a hat based on political belief.

Lol, everyone can see that both I and others have refuted your arguments. You pretending you can’t see that only makes you look like a sore loser.

They both can and frequently do influence the information you are exposed to on social media to influence your decision making.

You know what they say about assertions made without evidence.

So you were lying when you said you couldn’t see them, because you’ve replied to ones that actively refute you statements.

Yes, and all evil is secretly him. Just like you say, secretly he’s working with everyone bad in the USA, and he’s secretly a very important figure in US politics. Just like he’s secretly behind me stubbing my toe.

I’d say that your client must be broken, but you’re managing to reply to me, despite claiming you can’t see my posts.

Lol, everyone can see that both I and others have refuted your arguments. You pretending you can’t see that only makes you look like a sore loser.