I may be the dumbest man in Athens, but I still know a thing or two.

What’s silly about it? Tankie is when you support using tanks, I don’t support using tanks in Ukraine so therefore I’m not a tankie. The people who want to send tanks to Ukraine are tankies.

Or we can recognize that that definition doesn’t reflect how it’s actually used. And the way it’s actually used is generally towards people who promote peaceful, diplomatic solutions over military ones.

Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?

I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).

I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.

But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.

There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)

But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?

Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.

The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.

But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.

several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.

Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.

All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.

Here, we consciously prioritize the voices of the global majority

Based. Exactly this.

Anyone who considers themself a leftist should dream of a world where one’s birthplace does not determine their political power, and should be outraged at how much global power the US wields, through force, despite comprising such a small segment of the global population. The principle of “one person, one vote” while living in an imperial hegemon means that we have a responsibility to prioritize the voices and perspectives of the global majority, and of the people affected by our countries’ aggression who have no say in our politics.

…even if that means getting called “selfish” by scratched liberals on .world who explicitly say that American lives are more valuable than those of foreigners.

Source? It’s in their constitution.

They’ve been “just recently” talking about how Taiwan is theirs for the past 70 years and haven’t done shit.

I live in a world where basic pattern recognition exists.

Personally, I’m just waiting for the aggressive, expansionist country of Switzerland to end it’s occupation of Zurich.

You should try basing your beliefs on facts and evidence sometime.

Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?

Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.

OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.

Is it possible for more than two things being true at once?

Scientists recently managed to get three things to be true at once, but it only lasted for a couple seconds. It may be possible for as many as four, even five things to be true at the same time, but that’s purely theoretical at this point.

B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!

WHAT?

YEAH, I LOVE BEING HERE WITH THE PEOPLE I’M WITH TOO

Don’t judge what a tankie or Nazi is by insults on the internet, hyperbole and bullshit rule.

Words are defined by common use. If the common use of the word “tankie” is to throw it at people who oppose war, then that’s what it means now. You can say it’s defined as being pro- war, but I’ve never seen it used that way.

Back in the day when word originated they loved the T-34 tank and Russia in WW2 and so on.

Well sure, WWII is basically the go-to example of a necessary and justified war. There was a time in my life when I labelled myself as a pacifist and the counter-example that everyone always brought up was WWII.

At that time, my position was that that was one exception from like 70 years ago and we shouldn’t make a rule from the exception considering how many unjustified wars have been fought since then. Now, my position is a little bit more flexible and moderate to account for that and a handful of other cases: now I say, “no war but class war,” and WWII was a class war.

However, my position hasn’t actually changed much in practice since those days. The vast majority of wars and violence are systemic and fought for bourgeois interests, so I still oppose them. Only very rarely does violence happen in the opposite direction, for example if we compare the death tolls of Luigi Mangione to Brian Thompson.

And what do you think the “tank” in “tankie” comes from?

It comes from accusing people who oppose war of supporting the other side’s tanks, as I just explained to you in my previous comment.

Name one piece of misinformation I posted. You’re just lobbing baseless insults again.

Having a different ideology or perspective from you is not misinformation. I said nothing that was factually inaccurate.

Not my fault this is the only level of discourse y’all are capable of. I tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, you just started slinging random insults based on nothing.

But you don’t.

Yes I do.

You subscribe to a pro-war, pro-colony ideology

And you poop out of your mouth, see I can make shit up based on absolutely nothing too.

You’re thinking of social democrats.

Non sequitur.