• Big Miku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But that wasn’t said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.

    Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term “tankie” around meaningless are defending.

      • Big Miku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But wouldn’t that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.

        Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word “good” was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word “good” for every single town? Of course it wouldn’t, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.