Absolutely true but the problem is that this just fundamentally isn’t a rebuttal to accusations of human rights abuses by countries tankies support. Those still happened and defending them is just as bad as nationalistic chuds who think the US or Israel did nothing wrong.
So at best it’s whataboutism, which might be at least slightly valid if leftists refused to criticize western powers. But, y’know, we are one of the main groups that does that…
I guess I wanted to dialectically both reject and embrace human rights and failed on the second part. One tankie argument I get is that it’s more revolutionary to criticize your own government than others but I never got why not both. While rejecting Russia’s war of aggression, I focus my activism on my government’s climate politics and racist police and foreign policy well knowing that Russia and the US are both worse in these regards.
Ultimately, it’s a common tactic of radical groups to say 'hey, don’t criticise me, don’t attack me, we’re on the same side" right up until they are in a spot where they can attack you without consequence. That doesn’t just apply to tankies, but also fascists, ultra-nationalists, etc.
It’s much easier to understand the contradiction when you conclude that these ideologies will use anything and everything in their repertoire to get what they want. At the end of the day, they’ve concluded that their ideology will save humanity, and so no morals or ethics should stop them from bringing such a world about.
They’ll appeal to your humanity, then refute your humanity existing when the time comes. They’ll claim allyship, then later accuse you of being a counter-insurgent. They’ll ask forgiveness and promise to change, then accuse you of un-forgiveable acts.
This pops up all the time with neo-Nazis when they get their addresses leaked or have their affiliations told to their bosses. You saw it too during the cybertruck vandalism wave, where these people constantly cry out for mercy, despite their ideologies holding no mercy for others.
Absolutely true but the problem is that this just fundamentally isn’t a rebuttal to accusations of human rights abuses by countries tankies support. Those still happened and defending them is just as bad as nationalistic chuds who think the US or Israel did nothing wrong.
So at best it’s whataboutism, which might be at least slightly valid if leftists refused to criticize western powers. But, y’know, we are one of the main groups that does that…
I guess I wanted to dialectically both reject and embrace human rights and failed on the second part. One tankie argument I get is that it’s more revolutionary to criticize your own government than others but I never got why not both. While rejecting Russia’s war of aggression, I focus my activism on my government’s climate politics and racist police and foreign policy well knowing that Russia and the US are both worse in these regards.
Ultimately, it’s a common tactic of radical groups to say 'hey, don’t criticise me, don’t attack me, we’re on the same side" right up until they are in a spot where they can attack you without consequence. That doesn’t just apply to tankies, but also fascists, ultra-nationalists, etc.
It’s much easier to understand the contradiction when you conclude that these ideologies will use anything and everything in their repertoire to get what they want. At the end of the day, they’ve concluded that their ideology will save humanity, and so no morals or ethics should stop them from bringing such a world about.
They’ll appeal to your humanity, then refute your humanity existing when the time comes. They’ll claim allyship, then later accuse you of being a counter-insurgent. They’ll ask forgiveness and promise to change, then accuse you of un-forgiveable acts.
This pops up all the time with neo-Nazis when they get their addresses leaked or have their affiliations told to their bosses. You saw it too during the cybertruck vandalism wave, where these people constantly cry out for mercy, despite their ideologies holding no mercy for others.